There is a lot of talk about Toxic Masculinity. No one ever talks about Toxic Femininity. Though every woman who is a functional human being knows about it, as does anyone who has ever lived or worked in a predominantly female environment.
So, why does no one talk about it? Well, mostly because the left believes that “designated victims” TM are sacred and must never be called on their own bullshit, no matter how smelly. Hence also the bizarre idea of racial “privilege” that tells you holocaust survivors should be attacked for “white privilege” but the Obama girls raised as the creme de la creme, and never facing a day of privation in their lives don’t have any privilege and are victims.
But there’s also other stuff going into it. To an extent — to the extent that historically for biological reasons men dominated public life — the fact that no one talks about the bad side of female modes of being in society is the result of patriarchy.
Men are ridiculously, idiotically, insanely blinkered about women. They don’t really see women as they see other men, but through rosy glasses as much better than men. The “oh so smart” former president with the depth of a rain puddle in Colorado told us that women are so much better than men and that the world would be better under women. Which means he’s basically a bog standard male who has never given the matter a thought, and is going on what “everybody knows.” (It occurs to me this man, if he’d been born to an ultra conservative Arab family in one of the ultra conservative Muslim countries would also be telling us that women’s hair emits seductive rays. He’s a suit that speaks. Or an empty chair, if you prefer.)
Of course it is right evolutionarilly that men should feel that way about women. It keeps the species going. It is also bizarre though, and leaves men curiously defenseless now that women view themselves as an aggrieved class and are trying to take over public life and exclude men.
In fact it leaves as the only defense in society that most women — even the feminists who pretend otherwise — unless completely and extensively broken and indoctrinated know what other women are and therefore will not trust any of them. As they shouldn’t. I can’t imagine a worst hell than what Obama is proposing.
To lay my own biases on the table, in the family it was normal for both my mother and grandmother to talk about men as if they were somewhat daft children in large bodies, and yet endearing. At the same time, men would laugh at women’s notions of what was important and what was noteworthy. As a child, I saw both sides.
My feeling about it was this: there are things at which men are superior. There are things at which women are superior. Both will look like idiots to the other when outside their domain.
But in a society in which tasks were strictly divided by sex this was not a big deal. Women and men competed only against others with the same social modality. Note, I did not say this was a better way to organize things. Hell, given contraceptives and medical science it might not be possible now, absent total culture destruction.
That’s not the society we have anyway. And the disparate abilities of men and women make them naturally regard the other as an idiot. But only women, due to the Marxist social bias of ALL our cultures in the west, are allowed to complain and voice the problems with the other sex’s way of behaving.
Only women are allowed to talk about a toxic way of being and say it should be eliminated from society.
Worse, women are better at seeing the defects in men more clearly than men see the defects in women.
So, the problem is this: right now, men, due to their illusions about women are curiously defenseless against women in public spaces. As a result, and in many ways masculinity itself is being exterminated.
First, before I go into this, let us establish that like every other possible human trait, masculinity and femininity are on a continuum. There are men who act more like women than women themselves in the social sphere (and btw, through having had to work with them, they are the most toxically feminine of all. And no, I’m not calling them gay. I have gay friends who are intensely masculine, and most gay men are men. In fact the most toxically “feminine” men I know in social style are straight and act masculine. They just don’t present masculine in social style. But once I describe the primary mode of female society, you’ll probably come up with half a dozen of them from your own experience.) And there are women — particularly those not neuro typical — who act more like men in the social sphere. Which means they couldn’t take a social clue if you hit them with it and put nails in. And they grow to hate and despise the subtle hints and rumor mills of female social groups. (Why, yes, I do have a mirror. Though I’m not so far gone I can’t see normalcy from here.)
So, with that in mind, and the understanding that archetypes only exist as abstractions and that statistics don’t describe any human being who lives in the real world, let’s talk about “the female mode of making society hell.”
We don’t need to talk about the male mode of making society hell. Or perhaps we do, since little boys are no longer allowed to be little boys, and you might never have seen the natural man in his natural state.
When I first entered elementary school we had two one-room schoolhouses side by side, one for girls and one for boys.
I remember looking over the fence at the boy’s play yard and giving silent thanks I wasn’t a boy. Because while I fought when I absolutely had to, all boys did was fighting and pounding on each other and acting like lunatics. Girls don’t do that. Boys don’t do that now either. They can’t physically fight for dominance. And that, in the end creates toxic masculinity. The raw masculine creature is physically aggressive, tries to establish dominance that way, and tries to get what he wants that way.
If males never learn to control their impulses — say by not being allowed to be physical at all as children, and the curbed appropriately — they grow into toxic males, who will try to bend people to their will with their superior masculine strength.
The beginning of civilization was when the first man instead of pummeling another man into the ground with his club chose to hit him only once, establish dominance, and then make a pact of friendship. You find something like that in almost every early saga of humanity.
You never find that among women. Women don’t fight for dominance and then become best friends. Because that’s not how female dominance works.
Look, we’re weaker — again on average — smaller, and couldn’t win a fair fight with any man. Which makes us more ruthless, more merciless and not at all fair. Or really physical.
You could say in many ways the female mode of being is civilization. Because it looks that way from the outside. But it’s not. Not if you allow females to compete with males and to take over all the institutions of society from science to politics AND YOU DON’T TEACH THEM TO CURB THEIR INSTINCTS.
So, let’s look at toxic femininity. In recent life it’s mostly been on stage in, I THINK the first Democrat debate, when Kamala Harris took off after Joe Biden.
Look, I don’t care more for those two than for a bucket of warm spit. BUT if you look at that debate, when she attacked him (and briefly bolstered her repulsive self) you can see Joe Biden’s surprised shock. Here is a woman he’s been friendly with, a woman he helped, who suddenly comes after him on personal grounds. This is something no male in the same circumstances would ever do. But toxic women give no quarter, seize every opportunity, will take advantage of every weakness, and don’t care if you helped them in the past.
You see, if you go back to what women and men did in the distant past before agriculture, the past that still shapes us because evolution is very slow, you’ll find that men hunted in groups, where the hierarchy must be absolutely clear, because you have to know who is giving orders, in a group that must coordinate their actions and might all die if they don’t. Also you must be sure that the best/strongest/most agile man is in charge.
Hence males continuous testing “contests” with each other, but also the acceptance of the hierarchy thus established, once it’s established.
While women also have hierarchies (after all, the alpha female raises more kids) it’s more subtle. Females, you see, gathered. They also watched kids at the same time. Your goal is to be able to gather the most food, while losing none of your toddlers who wandered off and didn’t get watched.
Women try to have cohesive groups that from the outside appear to be smooth and loving because they are cohesive and do communal work (a lot).
Women’s work is traditionally safe, boring, social, and capable of being interrupted by kids.
This means the best of these groups is one that’s fairly homogeneous and minimizes personality conflicts.
This is usually accomplished by alpha females by enforcing a stultifying conformity and destroying the social credit (and sometimes the mind) of any woman who steps out of line or is just too weird.
In the primitive tribe this was best, because if all the women were more or less the same, they all watched every other woman’s kids, and more kids survived.
Unfortunately, as with men, there is always a contest of wills to see who will be the alpha female who keeps the other ones in line and apparent comity. And the alpha female has to be fairly ruthless at rooting out threats to her authority.
This usually boils down to “having something” on every woman in the group or making it up if she doesn’t. And being ruthless at using anything she has to pull other women back into line. When she loses that game, her reign is over and she becomes just another of the lumpen masses to be kept in line by the new alpha female.
While this form of being social works pretty well in extended families (which is all the earliest human groups were) with the matriarch keeping charge till she can’t hold it together anymore, and the other women — and often the new incoming women were kidnapped or traded from other tribes so had to learn the way of this one — being kept in line by her, it works like heck in the modern world of offices, laboratories and factories. Not to mention universities.
And because our society insists on being blind to the existence, let alone the dangerous side of female aggression, it destroys any possibility of accomplishment or excellence and in general makes the wheels come off whatever endeavor it is where women become ascendant.
Look, what I described above: any exclusively female, dominant female or female directed portion of society is a crab bucket.
Arguably, absent a toxic female lead, this is not bad for a large family group, within its very limited functions.
It sucks for a society, though.
You know when people wail that girls get discouraged from math or whatever? And feminists attribute that to patriarchy? They couldn’t be more wrong. The people who tell women that liking math or science of wanting to be one of those weirdos who are passionately interested in building things is ridiculous or funny or whatever? Females. Usually same age group females. If you want to encourage girls to excel in science take them out of schools who group by age. Older women can intellectually encourage Odd females. But the same-age groups can’t. Instinctively the different is just “Wrong” and they want conformity. (And yes, females who love math and science are very often Odd. Not because women aren’t smart enough for those subjects, but because they’re BETTER at language processing and thus tend to prefer doing that.)
The problem with not admitting that women in a group default to the crab bucket, trying above all to keep each other in conformity is that this mode is allowed to go into places it should never go: into offices where women play office politics and rumor games to keep everyone in the same median mediocrity.
The personality games can get — often get — so toxic that what they’re actually supposed to do is forgotten in the “I need to take this challenger down now.”
Look, men had to curb the male mode of dominance to function well in groups. Sure, they established it in many ways, instead of having a good punch up (though from what I understand from books written in earlier parts of the 20th century, those might happen too, out of sight) including the inevitable braggadocio about girls. But most of all they were curbed by teaching men the “gentlemanly virtues.” You know, don’t take advantage just because you can. Obey legitimate authority. Concentrate on doing your part, rather than using your power to overcome everyone else. That sort of thing.
Note these virtues are not universal. They’re almost exclusively Western. Other societies dealt with dominance in other ways, including religiously or traditionally determined hierarchies. But for the West, the “gentlemanly virtues” worked.
We’re no longer really teaching them to men. And that’s a problem.
BUT WE NEVER TAUGHT THEM TO WOMEN.
Well, because women in the public sphere were rare enough that most of them learned them by osmosis from the males around them. And when they didn’t, they were usually ineffective enough, back when there was an actual patriarchy. Even if men are blind to female aggression, it not being physical, even men can see it when it’s blatant and in your face. And then they decide this one woman is a monster and all turn against her.
Women are now in public life. Given the nature of work today, there’s no real reason they shouldn’t be.
But unless you want society to come apart in a sea of crab buckets, each pulling the other down, and for men to be run from society by feral, toxic females, we must start training women to be civilized. Teach them to be “gentlemen.” Teach them to be aware of their impulses, where they come from and what the consequences are. Teach them to work in hierarchical groups without continuously testing for dominance. Teach them to compete without undermining. Teach them not to take advantage just because they can. Teach them to value the mission. Teach them not to be tattle tales and rumor mongers.
Daddy’s little princess is all well and good when all she’s going to do is eventually be the matriarch of her family.
When she might be the leader of a country, or the scientist in charge of a project, though, she must learn to pull in harness and not to try to change directions for her own personal advantage, rather than the stated goal.
And she must never, ever, ever be told that she is naturally perfect, with no flaw or bad impulse, and that society would be perfect if only she ruled it. That’s feeding the monster of toxic masculinity. Teaching her every man is against her adds paranoia to the mix, which means males must be destroyed FIRST before she beats every other woman into submission with psychological games.
The way we’re raising women is a good way to create monsters who unmake society and end up — if surveys can be trusted (I’m agnostic) — unhappy, resentful and envious.
If you’re raising your daughter for the harem, go ahead. Tell her she’s the most wonderful thing in the world and all little girls are made of sugar and spice with no flaws.
If you’re raising your daughter to have any power in society, teach her to use her natural power wisely and in the service of building civilization.
Or we’ll all pay, and then something will arise that raises all daughters for the harem.
252 thoughts on “Toxic Femininity”
One thing I liked about some of my aviation jobs was that (with one infamous exception), the women came up through male-dominated corporations and sub-fields, and so we all acted more masculine while on the job. Pull your weight, keep quiet, no whining, team and mission comes first, do the job until its DONE, and everyone does scut work when its needed. Only once did I encounter a woman who used “feminine charms” to get ahead, and she poisoned the atmosphere for every other woman who followed. No company dared hire a pilot with two X chromosomes after that. The other two-three of us were seriously steamed.
Women can really ruin it for everyone. I worked in the electronics field after the Navy and most of the men had never worked with a woman before. But then I don’t work like a female. 😀
So much this. During my first hitch, I knew a lot of junior enlisted women who had been the first woman in their career fields; groundbreakers, who proved they had the right stuff, could do the damn job, carry their own weight and toolbox, and get along with their male peers. Yes, it took a certain toughness, and the willingness to neither take sh*t or dish it out. But inevitably, the women who couldn’t handle the job gravitated into the career fields, and depended on batting their eyelashes … and when it didn’t work, crying to Social Actions about how mean everyone was being to poor widdle them… yeah, those women spoiled it for the rest of us.
Never in the armed services. But I ran into that with my career too. Only ran into the other type of woman once (other than school, that happened regardless of chosen degree). I got notice that I’d been hired for my second season, then the district called me. One of the people from another crew had been cut, but the crew I was on didn’t want to hire them. Even as new as I was, not a local, I knew what had gone on with this person on the other crew. Mostly drugs & alcohol, which should have ended it there. No. Because female. A discrimination suit was going to be filed. Weirdly they wanted my take on the situation. Remember one season, not a local, but, female. Easy answer. I didn’t want to be paired every day for work with this person (job was either pair work or group work). I couldn’t trust her. I wasn’t going to be responsible for her. She did file. There was an investigation. When the investigator showed up to accompany the crew to the site, the site wasn’t quite the worst one that could have been chosen. That way when asked if the job was always “like this” the answer was, “Generally. Could be worse.” Her complaint didn’t go anywhere … this was ’76.
Other than that, late ’70s the managers were a little bit nervous because I was one female of 279 doing that job. Since hubby & I were both trainees at the same time. Getting introduced to our new co-workers as husband & wife, woke the others up that I could be wife, daughter, or granddaughter, according to our age difference. Never had a problem.
The one that surprised me took place 2004. Small firm. Boss actually said he was worried because all the existing employees were male. In 2004!!! I was there for 12 years before retiring. I understand after I left he interviewed and offered a job to another women, who declined the job. Not somewhere you want to go if you want to be social. Not even now after the boss sold & retired. Same company, just they are owned by a company out of Canada. Management went to the bosses SIL, who he’d groomed to take over. It was interesting. I’m not chatty by any measurement. But before the end of my first year, I was preferred to explain over the guys (PIA). Company only hires programmers*, not support call types. Programmers are the ones who take support calls. Which is what makes it a PIA. Because every call jolts you out of your program, then it takes 15 to 30 minutes to get back to it. Get two or 3 calls in an hour … do the math. (Some days I was absolutely willing to toss the phone out the window.)
Difference between me & the guys? The guys answered the question. I answered the question AND answered WHY, without being asked. I can just here most the men on this blog (because my husband does this ALL the time). “Don’t tell me why. If I want to know why I’ll ask.” Problem is if you didn’t tell them Why or Why Not, they called back multiple times on every similar problem. Telling them why, generally stopped that. (Not always. There were a few that if they hadn’t called the first time by 9 AM PST, I checked outside to be sure the world wasn’t on fire.) Lets just say it was interesting as the people I almost exclusively dealt with now had to deal with someone else. I got a few “how do you deal with this person?” emails, from my former co-workers. Not my problem. Other side (clients, FB contacts), still get “We miss you.” I’ve been gone 4 years.
I saw two general classes of females on the engineering side – line engineers and managers – in my semiconductor career, much along the lines above:
Type 1 mapped to the norms of the field with solid tech skills, so engineering got done in engineering fashion with no impact of plumbing differences. As they moved upward, they picked up stuff like you don’t dish dirt as a practice, you always talk up your subordinates and your team (especially at review time), and if you hit any crap you dealt with it out of the public eye.
Type 2 with few exceptions had more mediocre tech skills, but assiduously collected information chunks on everyone, peer, higher and subordinates, for later use, and made a regular practice of trying to sow seeds of doubt about all around her including her team members, with occasional public jabs and power displays just for fun. Sometimes there was speculation that barter exchanges led to promotions, choice project assignments and such, but that may just have been other type 2 sniping.
Funny thing is the type 2s didn’t really last a lot longer after RIFs, and when they achieved the spotlight they normally had “issues” that were, of course, someone else’s fault.
Obviously I much prefer working around type 1s
Don’t worry, type 1’s hate being around type 2’s as well.
Yes. I was lucky. When I worked with other females, I was lucky to only work with Type 1’s. Obviously story above I dodged a Type 2.
To the point. When I was riffed in 2002, I had, not one, but TWO, co-workers offer to be riffed in my place. Both female. Sure they had their own reasons. Didn’t work. But they offered when they didn’t have to. Would have gained me, maybe 6 months (better than a kick in the teeth.)
Decades ago, when I was clueless about normal female behavior, I had a type 2 try to get me fired. Supervisor male alpha was not pleased with type 2 and did equivalent of a newspaper smack on her nose. I was real lucky.
Type 1’s are more harmed than men by type 2’s.
I saw lots of type 2s suddenly decide that the VFX field wasn’t for them…
Mean Girls– difference is, that’s not very useful for the Left. They’ve tried a few times, it fizzles.
Even Heinlein suggested (albeit probably not very seriously) that maybe we should try giving only women, not just only women but only mothers the franchise.
I simply note that it wasn’t boys that forced me to pull my daughter out of one high school and find another for her. It was “mean girls” and their “toxic femininity.”
And once again, to click the clicky thing.
I saw upon an empty chair
A little man who wasn’t there.
He wasn’t there again today.
Oh, how I wish he’d go away.
Really, really wish he’d go away.
Best advice I received was “Never try to understand women. Women understand and hate each other. Just be the first to apologize. Your fault, her fault, nobody’s fault, it doesn’t matter ’til you both calm down.”
The best advice I ever received was “Don’t try to understand women: women understand women and hate them. Be the first to apologize. You fault, her fault, nobody’s fault, it doesn’t matter until everyone calms down.”
My Dad: “Women are not meant to be understood, they are meant to be appreciated.”
I’m the oldest of nine. The first four were girls. Yes, pity me. Anyway, I thought that the toxicity of the place was because of my parents (and yes, it was), but when I went out into the world and worked in an office with mostly women, I found that I DID NOT LIKE to work with other women. I didn’t have any female friends until I was out of the Navy and the women around me had aged. We had a woman in the Navy in the electronics field who was using her “whiles” to get the operators to do her work for her.
I stomped tried to stomp on that. The men who were bosses around me didn’t think what she did was that bad. I told them it was a malingering and was keeping the operator from his job. I finally got them to counsel her. They didn’t want me to do it because I would have made her life miserable. We had small sections and she was not only disrupting her section, but the next section who followed her had to do her work. Eventually she angered the operations officer and ended up passing out basketballs at the gym, which effectively ended her career. I didn’t allow the women under me to undermine the mission. They thought I was a dictator.
I told my boss that if he had let me stomp on her from the beginning, we wouldn’t have lost the manpower. When she went to work in the gym we did not get another worker to take her place. So we were punished as well.
Yes, she was a very “feminine” girl.
The men who were bosses around me didn’t think what she did was that bad.
Yeah, I just bet they didn’t….
And no, that isn’t strictly that they hoped to, ahem, benefit. It’s also that such interactions hit on the family formation buttons, which means that they’d be picking fights with the male targets.
This is the same reason that it sucks to be the coach’s kid, if they’re a good coach. You get the last thing, and it’s usually broken. (My mom is a good leader, and volunteered for everything when I was little. That is what a strong person does. Oddly, I never resented it– I only resented being informed by jealous bitches of both sexes that I had it so good because I “of course” got everything handed to me, when they’d already wasted far better than I could ever hope to see.)
Being the son of the troop’s Scoutmaster wasn’t always the most fun either.
A good leader must always be beyond reproach– so the call is always going to be against you.
Yep. No less difficult for knowing that, either. Creates many opportunities to test yourself and learn new things as you go.
In all honesty, though, digging slit trenches in rock hard February soil was a lesson I suppose one can learn all one needs to know the *first* time. *chuckle* Considering how difficult a child I was back then, I probably deserved it. Probably.
“Being the son of the troop’s Scoutmaster wasn’t always the most fun either.”
Yes. That is why we finally threw in the towel. Our area had a hole in our area for a troop. There had been one. We were talked into restarting it. But the cubs behind us (or rather their parents) mostly, didn’t follow through with “Sure. Do this. We’ll we right behind you.” Gave it a go for two years. Not enough help. Person getting hurt the worse was our son. Troop merged with another troop, bigger than ours, but still one of the smaller ones (interestingly enough NOW, that troop has migrated to our area, & their big feeder pack is the one we came out of).
Son could have ran into that with sports too. Got the accusation. But reality check, had rotations worked to a science (yes, take on math major & computer programmer about the “logic” of organization). Rules were simple. Only advantage son had was he didn’t lose playing time because he missed practice. If dad was volunteering, kid was going to be there (short of being sick & that was a valid excuse).
Even after we merged with the other troop. Got some calls of favoritism for kid. You’d better belief that if one or both of us, as parents, are out freezing our asses off, kid is participating, if there are limited spots (only happened with Christmas Tree pickup where seat belts were limited; only one of us to limit taking seat belts, & dang it OUR pickup).
I swear, there are some folks who just scream the favoritism accusation as a reflex.
I know. AND what was worse, the loudest screaming came the incident when their kid would have been alone with me in the pickup. No. Hell NO. Complaint was my son had “more than enough hours”. They hadn’t bothered to show up with their kid because they’d been “too busy”. Oh, their kid came along. But so did my kid. It is a direct violation for a child to be the only rider in a vehicle with an adult not their parent or legal guardian. AND it was freaking COLD out (translation, my son doesn’t go, in my pickup, taking my “ball” and going home). Dang idiot. Might have been different, maybe, if there had been another kid who was being left out; but there wasn’t; not even close.
Others complained about having to come up with out of pocket to pay Scouting fees. Full disclosure. Any scout or adult that participated in the tree pickup paid for their year of scouting (and then some). (Adults because we had some that couldn’t afford to volunteer otherwise). Adults only got seat time if both “extra” seats weren’t filled by a scout. Disadvantage for parents without a pickup.
But wait, it gets better. Pickups that were rented, were paid for by the troop. Proceeds paid for ALL expenses before distribution, including pickup rental (if needed), gas, and tree disposal. Best year we were involved: Troop earning per hour was $24/hour net (tax free). Of which each participant earned $12/hour into their scout account. (Troop provided all group equipment, non-summer camp monthly camping fees, and part of extra summer high adventure activities like Philmont, National Jamboree, Sea Base, etc.)
Scout accounts paid their annual national fee, annual gas fund fee (so no one who drove could say they couldn’t afford it), monthly dues, summer camp, & some left over for equipment used in scouting. Some even used it to go with council contingents to Philmont, National Jamboree (twice), etc.
Adult accounts paid their annual scouting fee, and any scouting expenses occurred; they could also transfer amounts into their scouts accounts. Note: Between our scouter accounts, & sons, son paid for both dad & him to go on council contingent to Philmont (backpacking 80 miles), & most of two National Jamboree trips as part of the council contingents, plus all the standard yearly costs.
What got me was the troop was joined because of this one time a year fund raising activity (and other reasons), yet someone would invariably come in, not participate any shape or form, because “reasons”, then whine (because I’m being polite) about not getting any of the money awarded into their scout’s account.
*Snorts* Sounds like our senior trip.
They tried to socialize the fund raising cash… I showed up for every single carwash, bake sale, anything they needed a body for. Most people didn’t.
Ended up only socializing what was left AFTER the folks who showed up were paid off.
Oldest of 4, only boy.
lol– dear lord. I’m surprised you survived.
it was a near thing, as was becoming an only child at times
I moved into a tent in the back yard for summer, that helped.
My brothers did that too. They had four older sisters. 😀
oh and there were four boys…
> Women don’t fight for dominance and then become best friends.
Boys don’t either, except in some kind of “Leave It to Beaver” fantasyland.
No, but we do respect the other guy; until we can try to beat him again.
That’s what I’ve seen. Women will hate the other woman until the day they die.
Debatable — it is certainly a recurring theme in male myth, from Gilgamesh & Enkido onward. It is a testing of strengths and willingness to fight fair, a common element in boy’s adventure from comic books to anime. It is expressed in forms other than direct combat, of course, in games as simple as “Horse” or throwing darts.
Thank you. When I was writing this, in my pre-caffeinated state I couldn’t remember Gilgamesh and Enkido. The words, not the myth.
A few weeks ago I confused the heck out of my uncaffeinated husband because I was doing a mythology mini-lecture and the only word he caught (I was talking about the Wild Man type stories) was Enkido.
“Why are you talking about a green chicken?”
He’d managed to miss making the connection.
Which game is that from? The ones I’ve played have always had Enkido looking more like a dog.
Final Fantasy XIV. The big guy is this game’s version of Gilgamesh.
As for why Enkidu is a green chicken?
It’s a bit weird. And part of an intentionally silly (and generlly hilarious) storyline.
The MMO, 14.
*chuckles* I seriously love how they do this. Biggs and Wedge, heck Cid for that matter– you get to “meet” the new versions of old “friends.”
Haven’t played 14, but Enkidu shows up in FF 5 as well (alongside a loony named Gilgamesh, no less): https://finalfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Enkidu_(Final_Fantasy_V)
AFAIK, there’s a Gilgamesh in all of the FF games. He’s almost always a sword-weilding boss of some sort. The exception is FFXI, where he’s the friendly leader of the pirates and smugglers in the settlement of Norg.
Yep. Used to happen more often, back when a tussle on the playground wasn’t immediately cause for police and CPS. Time was, even best friends might get into it with each other every now and again. Least me and mine did.
My nephews used to fight constantly- and get on each others nerves about twice a minute, too- but should any outsider attack one, he’d be set upon by both. “Nobody gets to hit my brother but me!” *chuckle*
If the winner doesn’t fight “fair” or is a dickhead, and otherwise unbeatable, then of course the loser is going to try a different way to beat him.
True. I’ve noticed when women compete with each other, dominance is usually not the goal, rather it’s elimination of rivals, so there won’t be rivals in the future.
Even if a losing competitor isn’t forced out of the group by the winner, the loser usually leaves voluntarily. At least that’s my observation.
So usually things get stagnant after that.
the loser may look like they left voluntarily, but it’s usually they stop being invited. “Oh, we just forgot to tell you!”
Note some men do this too. Again, in female dominated environments the men who play these games are the worst of all.
Oh gosh! YES! And the ones that toady to a toxic Queen Bee can perform downright evil.
Oh, men eliminate rivals too; “they made a desert and called it peace” is a near-perfect example. On an individual level establishing dominance one on one might work; as the scale goes up there’s just not enough time in the day for that much sparring.
BTW, Finland has given their government into the hands of women… who are busy trying to retrieve ISIS fighters and their children…
*points at Final Fantasy 14*
It is the duty of the strong to protect the weak.
And, as the new Frozen movie pointed out– we should all do the next right thing.
The teachings are there, just the public mores don’t recognize them. Too many Mean Girls in charge.
The Final Fantasy MMOs like to include “subversive” ideas in their storylines. The final cutscene of the Bastok storyline in FFXI had discussion on why a plan to rebuild housing lost in a massive disaster based on how much each person donated was a good idea. It encouraged the wealthy victims to donate more money, which meant that the city (which was short on cash) could more easily afford to cover the costs of those who couldn’t rebuild on their own. There was an ideal that was acknowledged. But reality and human nature weren’t ignored, either.
It’s like they realize their target demo wants to jump up and yell “ALL RIGHT!”
This explains so much of my office politics right now. The lead woman is asserting her dominance over all of us through these classic feminine modes. All the others (men and women) operate along more male dominance modes as we are all (even our lead) military. I hate power games.
Femininity can’t be toxic! Femininity is “nurturing, restorative, enriching, and gentle on the system” — says so right there on the label.
Just ignore the ‘arsenic’ in small type… 2 point Helvetica, I think.
In white font color . . .
. . .on a light gray background.
This is one reason I’m happy about the BSA allowing girl troops now. It’s difficult if not impossible to get certain ranks without absorbing the basic code of civility (aka The Scout Law), and at least in my area, the leadership stepping up to helm girl troops is comprised of parents who have already gotten boys through to Eagle—and aren’t willing to let requirements slide just to let someone rank up.
IOW the new troops are a conformity group where learning civil behavior is the norm being worked towards.
Yeah, I understood why so many people hated the Boy Scouts allowing women. I too am sorry for the loss of male-only spaces. I’m just also sorry that it was the best option for girls who don’t want to be woke cookie slaves.
What makes you think that GSA attitudes won’t follow the girls into the BSA in under a generation?
It’s harder for the hard core man-haters to fake it long enough to make it when they’re around at least 50% males. In GSA, they can play nice long enough to get their claws in.
The problem is that to learn how to behave like proper boys, boys need boys-only space. The moment you introduce girls, the social dynamic changes and boys can no longer just be boys learning to be boys.
Agree with you there – if women and girls need ‘women-only’ space, it’s only fair that boys and men have the same. Decency obliges…
I sent my daughter to an all-girls Catholic school for her high school years. It was good for the girls, and good for her, I thought. They could focus on their schoolwork, without the distraction of flirtation in the classroom. I can only think it did the boys good as well … the school was most often paired with a boys’ only Catholic HS, which served the same neighborhood and demographic. It wasn’t like cloister and monastery – it was just allowing the kids space to concentrate on academics. Social life was put aside for the day. Which I think worked out well for all.
This. And WHY must women go into every male space? What is that need?
Because if males are allowed their own spaces they will plot restoration of the Patriarchy!
That and they might discover they can get along* just fine without a woman to tell them what they’re doing wrong.
*Somewhere (probably several wheres) in the Nero Wolfe books is commentary about what an affront to womankind is the smoothly-functioning household on West 35th Street.
I am old enough to remember when women were demanding admittance to “fusty old men’s clubs” so there is some bitter amusement for me in this, but note some of the tactics used to assert proprietary right:
Men are showing up to the Wing and women are pissed
Ladies, leave your man at home.
The Wing was supposed to be the ultimate sanctuary for women: decidedly feminine in design, with walls and furniture in shades of millennial pink and a thermometer set at a women’s-clothing-friendly 72 degrees. Conference rooms and telephone booths are named after feminist icons like Anita Hill and fictional literary heroines such as Hermione Granger of “Harry Potter” fame. It offers perks that other co-working spaces can’t match — showers stocked with high-end beauty products and events featuring big names such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Critics of the Wing were quick to point out the lack of diversity in the spaces, but the company’s expansion and popularity has brought up a completely different issue that was never expected to arise: straight men wanting to come in and hang out.
… “It’s bizarre to choose to occupy a space women specifically wanted for themselves. Classic patriarchal entitlement complex.”
The problem, multiple members have told The Post, is that the men physically take up too much space with their bigger bodies and belongings. They hog the phone booths. And they aren’t respectful of some of the rules, ignoring the four-hour cap on guest visits and bringing in outside food. While they aren’t using the members-only changing rooms and showers (yet), they are in the guest bathrooms.
But all of the women The Post spoke to had the same questions: Why would a man want to go to the Wing, anyway? Just because he can? To hit on women? To be a troll? The company’s magazine is called No Man’s Land!
Phillips says she thinks the problem is new members — who may not be as familiar with the original purpose of the space — bringing in men as their guests.
“I think they’re just losers,” she says of the male plus-ones. “Or cucked boyfriends. It’s a legal fluke.”
Up until about a year or so ago, when the space was truly a women-only sanctuary, members said they could comfortably walk around braless in a robe after a shower. Now, they say, they’re constantly looking over their shoulders, wondering who the loud dude chewing his lunch is.
When she first joined, she says, she made the mistake of bringing in her cis male boss for a meeting, something that she now regrets.
“I’ll never do that again,” she says. “He didn’t respect the space, acting like we were in a coffee shop or something. I was getting looks from other members.”
In New York, of course, the stares are no less subtle.
“I glare at the men and I glare at the members who bring them,” says the anonymous New York member.
Problem everyone is missing. BSA is NOT co mingled. Girls can now earn Eagle. But they have to have their own Troop to do it in; or go Lone Scout. To keep the Eagle requirements meaning something, people from BSA, who have already worked the program, are stepping up.
Even at the Cub Scout level. The girls do join the same pack, but they must have their own Den. Most activities occur at the Den level. Awards occur at the Pack level. Cub Packs do other things, but typically those are family oriented, so the girls would be participating.
The only place where boys & girls are co-mingled as an organization in Scouting is Venture & the old Explorer Crews.
Could what everyone is saying happen. Sure. Anything could. But I don’t thinks so. Yes. There are girls who want to go camp and earn Eagle. I did (50 years too late for me).
But I have stated before. Oldest of 3 girls. Grew up camping, hiking, fishing, & hunting. I’m the ONLY one to continue these activities as an adult; even if the hunting aspect is with a camera, not a firearm for meat. Also don’t fish from a boat … it is illegal to chum.
There’s no guarantee it won’t, but I think there’ll be a strong self-selection that will at least slow down the rot. The ones who want to be woke and pay for the privilege of being cookie salespeople *have* a safe space already. The ones who want to be in “real” scouts, getting in the woods and the dirt, will be less likely — not immune of course, but less likely — to be carriers of toxic femininity.
No. You don’t understand how much woke parents and woke girls will push into the BSA to be “pioneers.” Seriously.
Woke parents don’t need daughters to pull this. Trust me. Been there, have the scars.
The girls don’t neccesarily have to be woke (on their own), the woke parents will bring them along just because.
They don’t want safe spaces. They want no one else to have them.
Or at least they don’t want anyone to be safe from them.
Yeah, sorry, I rather doubt that’s gonna last long. In a generation or two, the former BSA will be just another crab bucket–because a LOT of men and boys who valued it for being a male-only space will leave, new ones will not join, and ones that stay will inevitably be punished for being “too male” by the female leadership that is GOING to rise up. Which means you’re going to end up with a lot of males who will play the women’s games. And once that’s happened, they will gut the institution and dance around in its skin crowing victory.
After all, it happened in our universities. It’s ongoing in our government agencies (I’ve just spent two days stressing over stupid, female driven office politics–because I am an Odd woman who hates games, doesn’t play them well, and vastly prefers working with either men or other Odd women as a result.)
Reason I left a well-paid position as a multilingual translator. The games were NOT worth it.
One thing I love about Day Job. Sr. Scholastica won’t put up with stuff, so we all do our thing, work together (team teach) when we need to, and there’s none of the “mean girls” politics among the teachers.
The greater participation in “Team Sports” by women may, may, eventually lead to a reduction in such behaviour but (I’m looking at you, Meg Rapinoe) I advise against holding one’s breath.
Alpha women tend to follow the Rule of the Highlander.
^^^this^^^ is what a good office manager/office mom can do– although a guy in a dad/grandfather emotional slot for any possible trouble women can do it, too, it’s easier for a female to avoid the attempted romantic attacks; inverse is true for controlling trouble dudes.
You don’t have to fight because there’s an Authority that will protect your stuff from the other guy, so you don’t have to watch your back– in return, you will get smacked down if you try to make moves on their stuff, and everybody gets to focus on the actual JOB.
Seen it happen too often as well.
My greatest fear, at least of a political nature, is that ex president Obama’s recent pronouncement had two primary purposes: first an intentional slam against Bernie and Joe, the two old white guys in the Democratic race, second to set the stage for Mr. Obama to walk into the Democratic national convention and propose they choose Hillary as the best possible compromise candidate.
I think she would still lose, but we would be inundated with every dirty trick, sob story, and “it’s her turn, she deserves it” fed to us with the firehose of the mainstream media. Add on rampant and aggressive voter fraud on a scale never before seen and who knows how it might turn out.
And should she pull that off, all the investigations into abuse of power by the Obama holdovers would suddenly vanish, closed for lack of evidence don’t you know, time to move on, that’s all ancient history.
And we’d move into a glorious new era of national health care, British style gun control, and the sale of Presidential access that would put what had been done by both Billy boy and Barack to shame.
“My greatest fear, at least of a political nature, is that ex president Obama’s recent pronouncement had two primary purposes: first an intentional slam against Bernie and Joe, the two old white guys in the Democratic race, second to set the stage for Mr. Obama to walk into the Democratic national convention and propose they choose Hillary as the best possible compromise candidate.”
Are you sure it isn’t Michelle he has in mind?
Grifters gotta grift, after all.
Word is that the Obamas and Clintons despise each other. As a result, I can’t see Obama lifting a finger to help Hillary win the primary. She already had her chance and blew it.
His deal with Hillary is done and finished- he doesn’t owe her anything else.
As for Michelle as the “Great White Hope”, it’s not going to happen. Or we would be talking about her Senate career already.
And while he’s an empty suit out of his depth on a wet lawn, Former President Obama is pretty good at the inside politics game (he beat Hillary and survived after all). He’s smart enough to know that trying to parachute Michelle in at the last second would basically kill his current comfortable position in the party, kill off any political career she may have, and wipe out his political and physical capital.
I suspect that this is just his way of playing Fair Outsider just in case Amy or Fauxcahontas gets the nom.
” . . . he beat Hillary and survived . . .”
Because he was at least smart enough to *not* give her shrillness the veep slot.
My belief is that Obama was supposed to be the staking horse of 2008- someone for Hillary to run against, and then take his #2 spot.
Then reality in the form of Hillary’s utter likeableness intervened, and he grabbed the nomination.
But, in order to avoid trouble and the possibility of losing 2008, a deal was made- if Hillary keeps her head down in 2012, she gets to run unopposed in 2016. She blew it.
Notice how there’s no public desire to have her run now? No general clamor for her to step up again and take up her fight against the Bad Orange Man? Outside of the voices in her head, that is.
She will run. We just have to keep the prayer wheel going that we beat the margin of fraud again.
Hillary? She’s a two time loser with no real public appeal, or hold on the current power structure.
She went all in and played a stupid hand-and that with a stacked deck.
She’s the Alpha female who is now obviously weak. Should she run again, the knives absolutely would come out.
But, I can see the story being worked out like this-Hillary! comes riding in at the last minute on her white horse to save us from ourselves and the madness of the current Democratic slate. After all, the Democratic slate right now has only two planks to the platform-massive tax increases and the promise to crucify Trump after they win. Hillary! offers them something else, something that isn’t connected to all the impeachment imbroglio and other mistakes.
Hillary! is then literally laughed out of the convention.
Remember- they really don’t like her. She was feared, not loved, and now it’s pretty obvious that she’s past it and the fear is gone.
A lot of these scenarios are very much just “Jones will come back!”
I think Joe is right. Hillary is toast. Not to mention that she’s liable to arrest for willful mishandling of classified materials.
That might be a blessing in disguise; so many D primary votes would be put off by the backroom deal that they’d stay home in the general; reducing the amount of fraud to overcome.
There’s lots of talk about last minute brokered replacement candidates, but there’s a really good reason you don’t see it happen.
It’s a guaranteed losing proposition. They would be telling their active base that their votes, opinions, effort- none of it matters.
Besides, if the proposed replacement had any kind of appeal, they would have been running already.
Not Hilary. Michelle.
Most of this column was spot on, but I have a problem with this bit:
“The people who tell women that liking math or science of wanting to be one of those weirdos who are passionately interested in building things is ridiculous or funny or whatever? Females. Usually same age group females.”
As a math major in the early 60’s, that wasn’t my experience. Nor that of my friends. Just saying. Then again, maybe we were so socially handicapped that we didn’t notice discouraging words wafted our way by females, and hence made it to a level where the only gatekeepers in a position to go after us were men. At this distance in time it’s hard to say. But there were certainly plenty of men dedicated to telling us that we shouldn’t worry our pretty little heads over this difficult stuff, or that we would never catch a man with an equation, or that it was a waste of time to educate us because we’d only get married and have children.
That may have been the case in the 60s. But it’s generally not the case now. Based on my experience in IT, men these days *love* having women in those fields. But most women choose to focus their studies elsewhere. There’s also been a push by progressives to blame the current gender disparity in STEM on gender bias. If male educators these days try and discourage women from pursuing those fields of study, there are plenty of individuals who will happily torpedo the careers of those men.
Times have changed, and attitudes have shifted. The number of women in those fields is still low, though.
Quite likely true! I’m not qualified to comment on the current atmosphere; that’s why I was specific about the date of my own experiences. And something I should have made clear but didn’t: most of the men I interacted with had no problem at all with a woman in mathematics. Indeed, during the heady days of the early computer age most of the men I worked with were delighted to hire somebody, anybody, regardless of age/race/sex/whatever, who could take on some of their workload!
I certainly wouldn’t claim that the relatively low number of women in STEM fields is due to any kind of bias. I suspect the principal factors are (1) the different shapes of the IQ bell curves and (2) the fact that women in general are less likely to be attracted to a field that requires putting the rest of life aside in favor of monomaniacal concentration on abstract problems.
Which provides an interesting window into both that person’s thinking and the culture at large at the time (to the extent that the culture agreed).
Mostly in the same way a 5 semitruck pileup is interesting.
In a conformist culture where The Right and Proper Thing is to send your kids to school, there is no need for mothers to be able to teach their children. Also keeps some job security for the teachers.
But the one I really do not understand — admittedly not in a position to understand — is the apparent assumption that despite being married for decades a man would have no interest in a wife who could hold a conversation.
Thing is, with one income and one housespouse, or two incomes, if the man is working all out, and coming home exhausted, wouldn’t it be possible to spend a long time together without much actual conversation?
Also, part of the American cultural influence is homesteaders in sodhouses on the prairie. Not impossible for a wife to spend months of the year with the husband very far away on a job somewhere.
Now? For political reasons you need enough of a meeting of minds to be a team allied against the rest of the world.
How could anyone dislike monomaniacal concentration on abstract problems? (Yeah, I’m kinda starting to figure out that there are other things in life.)
I think IQ distribution is part of it. I also suspect that there is something orthogonal to IQ that has a narrower male distribution, and a broader female distribution. But that is felt, not thought, and I’ve not yet been able to articulate anything testable.
The future is a little interesting. Early career STEM types now know that it is career suicide to admit to having contrary opinions, and can work out that some of the push is based on bad thinking. What happens when the establishment entirely grew up in that environment, or after a preference cascade?
Whatever the voices in your head are telling you they are wrong.
I’m in a unusually “safe” situation when it comes to that. Pursued an alternate path to learning the trade, and then got a good job through word of mouth.
I don’t have to make the choice between eating and bending the knee.
I too got into programming through non-traditional methods. STEM topics I did fine in, but in mid-70s computer career wouldn’t have worked. It worked in mid-80s and later, because of language evolution, plus I see *patterns; great when things go wrong, or have to change. I can work in the bit/bytes and hex levels, but I have to work at it. VS a few who look at hex strings and translate on the fly. OTOH have them work with end users? Uh, no?
* drove a couple of my co-workers crazy last place I worked. I’d hone in on a problem they’d be chasing for days, in a short period of time, from when I started. Because I could see the pattern. Don’t get me wrong. There were times I chased a problem all over same as them, pattern not apparent until after it was chased down. But ask me to put a mathematical formula to the code pattern … uh, never mind.
Generally overlooked by both sexes is that knitting is a binary pattern. Knit or purl, one or naught, the origins of computers were looms.
I have vague memories of tales of spies smuggling computer code in the form of knitted scarves …although I acknowledge many of today’s programs would knit scarves for giraffes … or Kong.
“vague memories of tales of spies smuggling computer code in the form of knitted scarves”
I have too. More like coded messages in binary, that when encoded & ran, printed messages. They would have been in trouble with a co-worker I had, he could have translated the scarf directly.
I thought I was being cleaver in having a program convert the code word in to octal, to be saved. When I was verifying the program code correctly was converting back & forth, one of my co-workers looked at the octal, and translated it, in his head. He was just as good with binary. Yes, changed how it was to be saved. How the programs generated were being used, any password was overkill, but that was the requirement that program development tool had to have.
Remember that one place value in octal is three in binary, and you don’t have to worry about before or after. So
and then you append them.
My problem is I have to review the process, then use it for awhile. I learned it. Aced it. But occasionally briefly dealt with it. I felt a little better. The guy who could translate binary & octal by looking at it was one of the embedded software engineers … I was an application software developer working with MS Basic, C, & C++, on MS development platform.
Least anyone go “oh Basic developer”, I had the job to make Basic do what it didn’t want to do (which is where the C++ came in). C was the output.
Eh. Sure. Back then. When I was a kid, too, Margaret. Because it was Portugal, and patriarchy IS a thing. I remember fondly the male physics teacher who tried to figure out a way my name could be male. 😀
BUT now? Remember my kids are a bit younger than yours. Teachers and gifted coaches and everyone tries to push the girls towards stem. But…. stem is not cool. And who wants to hang out with nerd boys?
My engineering son has BITTER words about this.
“…And who wants to hang out with nerd boys?”
As we engineering students liked to shout at graduation, “We got jobs!”
My mother told me she overheard a couple of liberal arts majors say, “You know, those SOBs are right.”
Look, I have a thing for mathematicians. But I was shamed for it often enough. 😀
I mean, they were also mostly good-looking in varied ways, but I crushed on the chess club and the only boy who was neck-and-neck with me for the top grade in math class…
As the saying about STEM boys goes, “The odds are good, but the goods are Odd.” Of course, for some of us, that’s a feature, not a bug…
Because we’re fairly odd, ourselves.
So back in my college days (1980s) there were actually a pretty solid fraction of females in the first- and second-year engineering base and math/physics/etc engineering prerequisite courses, but as the semesters wore on there were fewer and fewer females, until by the time of the graduation ceremony it was very much just us dudes.
And I never heard anyone ever, most certainly never TAs or professors but also no fellow students, making any of the stereotypical “pretty little head” comments in my entire college time. Or later in 20+ years in semiconductors in what I am told is the roiling hotbed of toxic fratboy patriarchy that is Silicon Valley Tech.
Not saying it never happened, but not ever where I ever heard it.
When I was in grad school, I used to hang out with grad students from outside the department (“Whenever two or more beers are gathered, there shall we be”). The women in the engineering departments said that most undergrad girls washed out the second year, first semester (advanced math for engineering) and the guys who dropped washed out the next semester (EE weed-out course).
I was seriously envious because the engineering women got enormous grants and stipends just for being women in engineering. No one funds liberal arts women, “because there are too many women in the liberal arts” as the AAUW put it. (I detest the American Association of University Women.)
In fairness to the AAUW, there are also too many men in the liberal arts.
Also far too many “liberals” who are anything but liberal.
The original comment mentioned the ’60s, and I could see that sort of comment during that decade. I could maybe even see it during the ’70s, though much less common.
I have trouble imagining it said by university staff by the time the ’80s arrived.
Yep, probably that was out by the 80’s; can’t say as I had escaped academic circles by then.
Mid to late ’70s, I was accused of looking for the Mrs. degree, by the people I worked with. But not at school.
Again. Another item I had difficulty with, at work, not at school. It didn’t help that I was verrrrry naive, and horribly uniformed, at least with this issue. Trust me, not for very long … my maiden name is Lovelace.
And that accusation is still going on some places – daughter of a friend went back to TN for college from here in CA (to UT Knoxville, the same school where friend matriculated), and some in friend’s family back there asked if the daughter was going for her Mrs. degree instead of her declared BA degree.
Someone at the old (and much-mourned) Neptunux Lex blog mentioned two women who had achieve high rank in the Navy. One of them was a disaster; the climate on her ship could be aptly described as ‘toxic’. The other was a superb leader; the commenter said that he would follow her through hell.
They were sisters.
I wonder which was the older sister …
I noticed that the car post hasn’t gone up on Chicago Boyz. Obtained some new interesting intelligence on the matter.
I’ll be doing it soon…had some other stuff in the queue and wanted to give people in time to get the links and read them.
(If anyone is curious about what this is about, I’m going to host a discussion of the future of the global auto industry sometime soon, and posted some useful links here: https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/61193.html )
VERY much mourned. My word, that man could write…
Mike M…if perchance you haven’t seen it, Bill Brandt has done great work in rescuing a lot of Lex’s posts–they are here:
I have. But anyone interested in one of the top three wordsmiths of our time needs to read it.
Highly, highly recommended. Lex was a USN Captain and fighter-attack pilot; killed in a combat training accident in 2012. Here’s a good post for getting a sense of the man and his writing:
One lesson there is never fly a jet that the Israelis decided was too squirrelly.
He was a most impressive writer and pilot who went west while doing what he loved.
I remember hearing about the accident, and my first thought was, “Oh, Lord, I bet that was Lex.” I hated being right. 😦
Oh, yes. Could he ever.
In a previous work-life, my office cube backed up to an all female department. Due to location, I was the only person not in that department officed in that corner. I tended to work quietly in that position, and they forgot that I could hear them very clearly just in their normal speaking voices (much less when they got into it.)
Every. Single. Day. there were at least two women crying and running to the bathrooms – sometimes more.
I overheard the most horrifically nasty things being said to each other and about each other, multiple times a day.
And things that were said in confidence to each other? They didn’t appear to hesitate for a microsecond to whip out any kind of knowledge, and use like an emotional club. Because they had been given a clue where there was a vulnerability & they were not shy about exploiting it.
It was *by far* the worst work environment I’ve ever witnessed – even though exactly none of it was aimed at me – and that includes years of truly filthy and disgusting field engineering work with municipal wastewater facility monitoring equipment.
I think in some situations that “crab bucket” description is entirely too kind for the abusive and egregiously awful behaviors those women were IMO, all too willing to engage in.
My old company was almost all women (had been since the 1920’s), and it was a wonderful place to work. There was also a restroom in the old building that had an anteroom with a couch.
But basically we had a lot of “team mom” and “team dad” managers, and everybody had very clear work responsibilities and their own desk spaces. There were rules that had to be followed. Other than that, things were very relaxed.
Of course, their hiring people were very canny, and you could get sent away pretty easily if you didn’t work instead of playing games.
All got ruined eventually by being bought by the wrong corporate master.
You have very accurately described my current work environment. Right down to the ‘co-workers running to the bathroom in tears’ part.
This is my first time working in a large group of all women.
It will be my last.
I am currently looking for another job. I will NEVER again work in a large, all-female team.
“[Men] don’t really see women as they see other men, but through rosy glasses as much better than men.”
It’s an evolutionary byproduct of the fact that, should men view women as they truly are, the race would end with that generation.
Old line went something like “The World’s Greatest Water Power, A Woman’s Tears”. 😦
There’s one woman who seems “nice” also apparently has “problems” and is politically left.
I stopped following her posts for several reasons but one reason was “in the back of my mind” was that I was afraid that if I came on “too strong” in disagreement, she’d “break down in hurt feelings” so I’d be the Bad Guy. 😡
“I Am Woman Hear Me Roar, but don’t hurt my feelings!” 😈
“[Obama]’s basically a bog standard male who has never given the matter a thought”
I doubt that as much as I doubt his sincerity in advancing such a claim. It seems more likely to me that he’s merely engaged in the long-standing beta-male activity of pandering to women’s vanity.
I mean, if he truly believed that he wouldn’t have challenged Hillary in 2008, would he?
Women are too prone by judging men by what they say than what they do. But let’s not get into discussion of H. Weinstein, Bill Clinton, Matt Lauer …
He is a narcissist. He just says whatever he thinks will make him temporarily worshipped as amazing. And it is plenty obvious that he doesn’t want Hillary or Michelle to win anything; they are dust beneath his narcissist feet.
“men, due to their illusions about women are curiously defenseless against women in public spaces. As a result, and in many ways masculinity itself is being exterminated.”
Illusions? I dunno … males learn early on that speaking up about the truth about women is no way to get what you want. Momma may be a mediocre cook but saying so does not improve the provender. Winning an argument with the Missus generally results in a night on the couch (at least.)
Telling the truth about women in public gets a man slammed as chauvinist, patriarchal and insensitive — especially when he is right and irrefutable.
Less a consequence of illusion than realization that even when he wins he loses. Passive-aggressive ploys work far better (and are far easier to employ) for women than for men, if for no greater reason than there exist more male than female “white knights.”
On the other hand, being a Patriarch is a very Alpha move. 🙂
I’ve… supervised an all-woman orderly room in the AF Reserve. They eventually got to work, but that was after a couple, three hours of gossip first.
My lovely bride manages a medical research department. All women, except for the titual head of the department who doesn’t have much to do with the day to day operations. Two of the women didn’t like another, and spent plenty of time running her down to the HoD… to the point he didn’t even bother consulting her or looking at what she’d been doing before he was appointed.
No, the idea that ‘Women could run the world better’ is a decided falsehood.
Hrm.. but would all the bickering and infighting, etc. mean a majority female government might, overall, do nearly nothing? THAT has some appeal. Obviously, I must be overlooking something critical.
Sweden and Germany. Finland will be coming on strong
“they are the most toxically feminine of all. And no, I’m not calling them gay. I have gay friends who are intensely masculine, and most gay men are men.</I"
Gay men are not feminine; they are repulsed by the feminine. That's why they're gay. Duh. They still are attracted visually and thus preen accordingly.
And, reminiscent about recent discussion of this: while women are visually stimulated it is not at all on the same level as affects men. Men will be aroused by a cartoon, and I’m not talking about Vargas or even R. Crumb — I’m talking about something as rudimentary as this:
The idea that a woman would look at an equivalet sketch of a male body and find it arousing is laughable.
Come on! This is the internet. You can’t just put out a picture of a beautiful woman and leave people hanging!
Is she single?
That is one hell of a mic-drop.
“… this man, if he’d been born to an ultra conservative Arab family in one of the ultra conservative Muslim countries would also be telling us that women’s hair emits seductive rays. He’s a suit that speaks. Or an empty chair, if you prefer.”
One of the things that continues to disturb and dismay me is the question of how much of what I consider “essential” to my being would never have arisen in me at all if I’d been born in another time and place. Are all the things I’m most proud of about myself merely the lucky product of environment and education, and I’m really just another speaking suit which was lucky enough to be given the right words? Or is there an essential “me” that would have produced at least some of the character traits I prize no matter where I grew up?
It’s a moot point given that, as Aslan told Lucy, nobody is ever told what would have happened, but it still leaves me uneasy.
You can’t make gourmet food with mud–the quality of the materials matters.
On the other hand, bad cooking can destroy even the best of ingredients.
And, of course, there are wonderful foods from all over of folks taking good quality but unwanted materials and adding other available ingredients to make a wonderful dish.
Obama is junk food, basically; not terrible ingredients, not a terrible job cooking, just the goal is not nutritional at all.
Not terrible ingredients, but not great either. Mediocre to the point where he didn’t contribute a single work while he headed the Harvard Law Review, and raised to love Marxism to the point where it was perfectly fine to claim to be born in Kenya to get into Harvard and then claim to be born in Hawaii to get into the White House.
Marxism, being cultural shit, _is_ terrible, and that’s what he was raised on, both by his ‘anti-colonialist’ step-father, and then later his mother’s parents.
He’s more like display food- something meant to look good on film or behind a window, but not actually edible.
Like in commercials when they use mashed potatoes for ice cream and motor oil for fudge sauce?
If you think Obama loves or believes in anything except himself, you are mistaken. OTOH, there are a lot of male narcissists in Muslim societies, so he might fit in better.
“And, of course, there are wonderful foods from all over of folks taking good quality but unwanted materials and adding other available ingredients to make a wonderful dish. ”
Mmmmmmmm . . . Haggis . . .
I was thinking gumbo or sausage, but you do you. 😉
Weeelll . . . haggis *is* a sort of sausage, so I guess we’re on the same, or at least parallel, track(s). 🙂
Don’t look now, but they got to that too……
Och, laddie, the mind boggles . . .
I have no doubt that I, if raised in a different cultural / familial / economic environment, would be very different from what I am today.
However, I also have no doubt that I (and I think this applies to everyone here) would also have been an Odd in that different environment, whatever it was. Note – Odd, but not Odd enough to be unable to function in it.
Thing is, the only ones that change a culture are the Odds, with their Odd ideas. Of course, that does not mean that Odd ideas are Good ideas; they are simply Odd. Whether they are Good or not depends on whether they make that culture better able to survive, better able to out-compete other cultures. Cultures do follow a Darwinian path in their evolution.
The thing about Socialism, and especially the Marxist branch of the ideology, is that the adherents fervently believe in a truth – Darwinian cultural evolution – but also believe in a falsehood – that their cultural mutation is a beneficial one, not an inevitably fatal adverse mutation.
Actually, come to think about it, the best physiological analogy for the cultural mutation that is Socialism/Marxism is the genetic disease of hemophilia. Hemophilia, like Socialist/Marxist ideology, is a disease that: 1) seriously debilitates the unfortunate victim; 2) is invariably fatal (except for 2a – where the sufferer has an unafflicted and wealthy support surrounding him); 3) has survived through history as a recessive trait, usually manifesting itself as an actual disease only when inbreeding occurs.
I don’t know. Some of us are born cross-grained. I DID find my way here. And if you know anything about Portugal and Portuguese women, it was HIGHLY unlikely.
“our society insists on being blind to the existence, let alone the dangerous side of female aggression”
Except for Daytime Soaps, of course. Then there is the performance of Scarlett O’Hara in that movie men never watch.
“Gone With The Wind” shows the problem. Scarlett O’Hara is no heroine…she’s the villainess! To call her a Typhoid Mary of human misery is an insult to Typhoid Mary. Selfish, and utterly lacking in morals. Or self-knowledge.
And THIS is what so many women hold up as a heroine. Instead of shouting for her hapless male victims to leave her to her well-deserved fate.
A few years ago, I saw a survey of the “Top twenty books people lie about having read”. Most of the list was the usual works of familiar titles that were written decades or centuries ago that you’d expect. But smack in the middle of the list was ’50 Shades of Gray’.
Apparently *lots* of people (women, presumably) felt the need to falsely claim that they’d read the book.
I’d have thought they’d falsely deny having read the book.
Nah. Then other women accuse you of being a prude.
I’ve skimmed the free chapters on kindle, and I will tell anyone: not only isn’t it sexy (my tastes don’t run to masochism, anyway) but dear lord, it’s horribly written. We’re talking If You Were A Dinosaur My Love level of puerile, self-indulgent cr*p
Well *excuse me*, but I happen to know that IYWADML got awards!
The nebula. And it totally deserved it.
“Then other women accuse you of being a prude.”
My response is:
“And? Your point?” + A wave + “whatever …” + eyes roll
Guess what? They don’t like it when 63 year-old female does this (either). I’ve been called a prude by guys a whole lot cuter; and would have gotten a lot more out of that (wink). Didn’t roll over then (give in). Not rolling over now.
Typhoid Mary was a serial killer. A woman who knew she killed people by cooking for them and kept on getting jobs as a cook. No, it’s not an insult.
“…Typhoid Mary of human misery.”
Oh, that is a line I simply remember.
Don’t fret over it — that is a problem common to many male quadrupeds and can be alleviated by good personal hygiene.
Er, perhaps you have me confused with a heffalump?
Possibly — being a wallaby of discretion I endeavor to eschew close olfactory acquaintance with the larger quads. Frankly, from where I stand you all look very much similar.
There is also the mater of my being biped.
And I do at least try to keep presentable.
I think Sarah has hit onto something larger. Young women are no longer taught to think. Thinking is discouraged. They are taught merely to emote, and to yield to emotion.
And you can’t operate that way.
But but…. “Feelings” are more important than “Thinking”! [Very Big Sarcastic Grin]
Seriously, part of the reason that I left one woman’s blog was that “Her Feelings Told Her That Trump Was A Monster”.
It was obvious Facts were meaningless compared to her “Feelings”.
It’s not just young women:
“The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read. It isn’t even that Johnny can’t think. It’s that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is. He confuses it with feeling.” Thomas Sowell
As far as I know, boys aren’t taught to think either.
Even back when I was in school, thinking was discouraged. Shut up, parrot the Narrative, don’t make waves. And in particular, never ask what factoring a trinomial might be useful for, other than being expelled for being a pain in the ass again.
To know what factoring a trinomial is and isn’t good for requires a wider and deeper knowledge of mathematics than most math educators have. Authors of textbooks included.
I remember running into this when I wanted to know why we were being taught about remainders was useful when it would be so much better to give fractional answers. The only response the teacher could give was, “Shut up or you’ll be staying after school.”
Then, of course, I’ve spent large amounts of time working with modular arithmetic, and I’ve never questioned the importance of remainders since I started college. But the teacher could no more have given me that answer than she could have summoned a unicorn.
And in particular, never ask what factoring a trinomial might be useful for, other than being expelled for being a pain in the ass again.
See, THIS is where homeschooling shines– I can say “Let’s go find out” and go look; or if the answer is short and we’re pressed for time I can just say “because if you can factor a trinomial your chances of truly understanding the way the numbers work when you change one or the other goes way up.” (As opposed to the “just following the formula” thing mentioned a few days back.)
Of course, the deepest lesson of home schooling is the knack of self-instruction, the principle of determining what you need to know and how to learn it.
Lighting a fire, not filling a bucket.
Avoiding concrete facts and historical precedents is part of that.
2+2=5 isn’t that shocking if they never learned how to make 4 to begin with.
And that’s great, short term. But, eventually, you are going to have to count on the numbers given by people who can’t add, and you’re doomed.
Men are competitive, but men also learn that constant fighting is a good way to get injured or killed. So we dampen things down, put boundaries on the competition, and allow the vanquished respect and dignity. Limited warfare.
There was a reason why the old-timers made a distinction between duels to first, second, and third blood. First blood was for pride…third blood meant somebody was getting killed.
It also calls back to a more fundamental issue, that being knowing what to do when you are stronger. The first time you hit someone and really hurt them rather than the little love taps that go on in childhood is an eye opener. Full out physical fights between adult males that know what they are doing and are in reasonable shape tend to end quickly. The first guy to make a mistake gets put down. Hard. Limited warfare makes a lot of sense when you really think about it.
If little boys grow up having little tussles this will eventually happen. Some guys like the feeling of power. Of being in control. It’s easy to see why. Control is also freedom, in a sense. We like that. Hurting people, and enjoying it is another thing, though.
Put it another way. Big guys learn to do things that make them seem less threatening to other (smaller) people. Intentionally making themselves seem less intelligent, or less coordinated, to put other folks at ease.
Women tend to be weaker, physically. Smaller males sometimes work the same way, when it comes to fights. They go all out, because they never learned to hold back- holding back when you are weaker means you lose. And if *both* participants have that mindset, things get messy real fast.
I mean…look at Audie Murphy. 500lbs of pure berserker stuffed into a 90lb package.
(And he added to that being insanely brave as well–the man was a hero–but he was freakin’ TINY, and did not know the meaning of “stop fighting.”)
And that calls for Sabaton:
The movie was titled “To Hell and Back” but, sadly, he never really came back. 😦
May he finally have found rest in whatever afterlife there might be.
Audie Murphy’s name came up (along with Alan Ladd’s) in a discussion of why one of our buildings was built at 7/8ths scale. Several golden age actors were of smaller stature.
Then there’s John Wayne, at 6’4″ he hated having to work around that building.
If you’ve seen Three Amigos, you’ve seen the building I’m talking about, it’s the exterior of the cantina where the Amigos do the “My Little Buttercup” number.
Love me some Sabaton. Good choice. *grin*
Reminds me a bit of my uncles. Not a one of them over 5’3″. Granddads, same way. My father was the first to crack 6′. The older fellows, shorties all of ’em.
But good gracious could those old men work. I could barely keep up when I was seventeen, and they were in their late fifties!
My mother’s twin brother was the runt of the family…at 6’2″.
My great-granddad was 5’3″…and in his 80s beat up a 6′ plus guy who made the mistake of abusing his kid in front of my granddad. Okay, he used a baseball bat because he was IN HIS EIGHTIES, but still. Guy called the cops, the cops laughed and arrested the guy for child abuse.
Great-grandpa was kind of a jerk, but we cheered him on for that one when we heard about it. And he was 1000% stereotypical Irishman, though it was actually his (looney-tunes) mother who was Irish. His dad was English (and deserted the Royal Navy by jumping ship in the New York Harbor and swimming to shore. And was murdered when granddad was 9 by–we are 95% certain–the crazy Irishwoman he’d married, divorced, and married again (but who was having an affair with a local rich guy, who was also a possible suspect))
Yeah. Watch out for the short ones…
There are time I wish I had (been able to) read Ender’s Game much earlier in life. And others where I think had I taken the early lesson given, I’d have either been killed or have killed before age 12. And, yes, Pa did say that a fight wasn’t necessarily a bad thing, but I didn’t relish idea of my own (further) injury and, perhaps just as well, did not think of truly unlimited “until the [$RATFINK] can NEVER do it again” applied violence.
womenpeople are no longer taught to think. Thinking is discouraged. They are taught merely to emote, and to yield to emotion.” Had to FIFY there.
“The “oh so smart” former president with the depth of a rain puddle in Colorado told us…”
Well there’s your problem, Sarah. Anything coming out of that guy’s mouth is said for his personal momentary advantage. That day he wanted to look good to a radical women’s group.
He seems to live in a perpetual “now” where only what he’s saying right now has any significance. All that has gone before is discarded.
Except we remember. So screw that guy.
With a chainsaw. A rusty one. Sideways. And twice on Sundays.
Someday I’ll learn to really express myself and not hold back so.
Consider the discussion below regarding honor, then reflect how the rusty chainsaw is as nothing compared to what that guy has stored up for himself.
Not going to be fun, I think.
Modern feminism teaches women to hate child-bearing and child-rearing. By so doing, they deny their own femininity and attempt to transform themselves into ersatz males. Since this attempt is by and large futile and produces more misery than not, the natural process is for them to become both jealous and disdainful of men and masculinity. Since it comes from a lack of self-awareness in the first place, it also naturally follows that they blame men for what they are doing to themselves.
The advantage of ‘MGToW’ thought is that it takes a jaundiced view of women, and so in our post-Sexual Revolution society hews far closer to un-Odd reality than ‘the Force is Female’ malarky. The disadvantage is that First World civilization/infrastructure relies on having children who are well raised, and the MGToWers use the ‘red pill’ to be happier as bachelors instead of learning how to be better husbands and fathers.
Learning to be a good husband and father is something many men truly desire. But it abso-freaking-lutely requires, no ifs, ands, or buts, a worthy, honest, and steadfast partner. Same thing from the other side. How exactly do you act as a good husband or wife to a serial abuser? Or a poisonous snake of a “partner”?
This is why the doctrine of cleaning your own room as a starting point makes so much sense. You’ll need to be the best man you can be to be the right man for such a woman. Stop wasting time chasing lesser women at seedy bars, more time in the gym and improving yourself. Not a bad idea for any single male.
I also purely hate the sheer number of clearly-abusive females out there, and the men who are treating it as “that’s just how women are.” Even, to a large amount, society treating it as ‘normal female behavior.’ If that’s true, then the human race truly is doomed.
No. That crap needs to be called out for the abuse it is–controlling your partner’s every moment and flying into jealous rages at the drop of a hat is no less abusive in women than it is in men!
But definitely, the advice of “be the kind of person who would attract the life-partner you want” is good for everyone.
(Of course, it’s problematic for us introverts, because it means we might not ever get to the point of talking to the other introvert, lol.)
Agree completely. Female misbehavior, male misbehavior… no one gets a pass on it because they have X or Y internal plumbing. I’ll admit I am a lot more comfortable calling out male misbehavior because I’m a guy. Heck, I’ve screwed up plenty of times before. I tell my godkids and the young men under my supervision that a lot, hoping they can learn from my experience rather than having to make the same mistakes.
As to your last, well… Yes, I’m guilty of that, too. But we can chalk it up to another thing to improve: learn how to talk to people! Fake it, if you have to, at first. *chuckle*
Maybe that needs to be a workshop at LibertyCon. Odds and Introverts: learn how to be social. It’ll either be packed to the gills or completely empty while all the folks outside wait for somebody else to go in first. *grin*
Start by putting out a sign saying “Eye contact is encouraged but not required.” That will help. 🙂
Aaaand I think we’ve found our first socializing for introverts class teacher! Thank you for volunteering. I knew some sucker- err, kind soul, that is, would step up to the plate. Good on ya. *grin*
It’s feral, unbroken females.
It’s probably worth noting that the folks on this blog are very likely to have been targeted by, and recognized, toxic femininity as well as toxic masculinity.
When I was thinking of examples, I actually had one come to mind that was both– a “tough” gal who was about 19, and her trick was threatening physical violence to gain dominance both against males and females.
I really pissed her off, because even at nearly half a decade younger I flatly ignored the threatened violence (both deliberately, because I was taught that sort of a threat is being rude and pointing out someone is being rude is EXTREMELY rude, she clearly wasn’t going to act on it) and because it’s only with many years of experience, looking back, that I realized a lot of her oddities were a five foot five toothpick with boobs doing monkey dance steps. I thought she just had bad manners about personal space.
It eventually clicked when I noticed the TV “new york tough guy” using similar speech patterns and space-invading rudeness.
Thing is, she didn’t actually try to attack, at least not that I noticed, and my totally ignoring her threats freaked out the other friend who worked at that shop, and ruined her credibility with the rest to the point that she ended up quitting. (The friend who was freaked out expected her to knife me, which was probably a legitimate risk.)
I’d be amazed if a lot of the other folks here hadn’t similarly stepped on toes– and most likely have no idea that they’d done so.
>> “I’d be amazed if a lot of the other folks here hadn’t similarly stepped on toes– and most likely have no idea that they’d done so.”
And they’ll never just TELL you the real reasons they’re upset with you, of course. Assuming they even bother to figure that out for themselves in the first place.
Yep, we’re just “a-holes” or “b***hes.”
“If you can’t TELL me what is wrong, then the obvious conclusion is that nothing is really wrong.”
Oh, they always know what’s wrong.
You are, of course.
We live in fear younger son will get knifed in the liver, precisely because of this. He has no idea when someone is doing the monkey dance. And he grew up DOWNTOWN, with feral homeless all around.
OTOH his very obliviousness protects him to an extent, because the crazies can’t imagine anyone ignoring them unless that person is TOUGH and ready.
I presume it is older son who calmly
threatenspromises spleenectomies should occasion arise?
“You do realize I know where all your arteries actually are, right?”
Yes, reading this post made me wonder if that’s some of the problems I have with my oldest sister. She is *not* on the short list of people I let tell me what to do, she is not Mom or Grandma.
It may be made worse if you…well, aren’t childish about it.
If you do what she says when she’s right, and not when she’s wrong, then it seems like it signals that you’re on their side and then betray them or something.
Rudyard Kipling knew all about it.
Finally read the whole thing.
Sarah said: “But unless you want society to come apart in a sea of crab buckets, each pulling the other down, and for men to be run from society by feral, toxic females, we must start training women to be civilized. Teach them to be “gentlemen.””
Oh, thank God, its not just me. Someone else noticed.
Honor, the essence of it, is doing the right thing even when it disadvantages you, even when no one is looking. Rare enough in men, shockingly rare in women.
Girls, we notice.
Girls, we notice.
Sometimes even when it’s there.
(Hey, virtue is its own reward because usually it HAS to be.)
This. And, being its own reward… It really is. I sleep better at night when I know I have done a good thing that day. And I really like my sleep.
I can only imagine how the ones that do all these bad things we read about get through the day. Carrying that would be crushing.
I recommend Theodore Dalrymple’s Life at the Bottom.
The short version is that they have a disconnect between their consciences and their memory. It never occurs to them to evaluate their conduct morally.
I suspect a clue could be found in the alcohol, marijuana, and psychotrropic usage stats.
I never used to believe this as a kid, but the older I get, the more I realize that virtue is the ONLY thing worth a damn. It really is its own reward, and the only really harsh regrets I have in life are the times I did things I knew were wrong.
I am the luckiest son of a bitch ever, I never did anything -really- bad when I was young and stupid. Now that I’m old and still kinda stupid at times, I’m pretty careful where I put my feet.
Church billboard on the way to town:
THERE ARE MAKERS AND TAKERS.
TAKERS HAVE WHAT THEY WANT.
MAKERS SLEEP AT NIGHT.
I was given a sense of duty. I may not be able to tell you why something is a bad idea, but I can usually recognize that it is….
Yeah, that thing about wanting stuff. I noticed something about that.
Lets say you want a nice car. So you do all the things and get the loan and you get that exact car that you wanted. And its really great! For a couple of hours maybe, it is really great.
Then you wake up in the morning the next day, and you want something else.
So, is it smart to give up your honor because then you get that thing you want? Not in my experience. You’ll have the regrets a lot longer than you’ll have that car. Or girlfriend, or couch, or whatever.
I remember being told this when I was a kid, you know? It didn’t really sink in until my new awesome bike became my old bike, and I remembered how great it had been, but then the excitement wore off after a while. Like about a week.
I recall being pretty pissed off by that realization. Special things become not-special too fast, you ask me.
Compounding yesterday’s selection of banal Christmas songs, I offer you the duo nonpareil, the team-up you never imagined, William Shatner and Billy Gibbons:
I cannot find words to describe For all who wonder what Captain Kirk would have done in a holosuite.
Oh, so we’re torturing people with Shatner’s singing now? Fine:
…Though this one isn’t too bad, I think.
Shatner cut an album called “The Transformed Man” in 1968. I found a copy at a flea market in the 90s and sent it to a Trekkie friend, who said it was a hit at the club meetings.
I don’t think I’ll ever be able to forget his rendition of “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds…”
Though it is quite understandable to make the attempt.
Somewhere, my mother had an album that he and Nimoy did where they were reading poetry, etc with whale songs in the background. That was actually quite nice–Shatner did fine reading poetry. 😀
Yes, Nimoy’s “Space Odyssey” was beside Shatner’s album, and yes, I bought that one too.
“The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins.” Arrrrgh.
Nimoy had a beautiful speaking voice, but his singing was… about as good as Shatner’s. Though he actually *tried*, best as I could tell, while Shatner seemed to try to play it for the lulz.
I’ve learned a long time ago that women are just as predatory as men, just in a different way.
And, they are vicious in ways that you don’t understand until you see them. It’s just not as visual as male predatory behavior.
And oh my goodness how evil they are to women who they feel are ‘in their way.’
Oh, absolutely. The sheer deadliness of the politics in the harem is something that I know about all too well. Anyone that thinks that polyandrous relationships won’t have this kind of nastiness (outside of rare circumstances) hasn’t been paying attention.
If HBO/BBC wanted to have a great series with lesbian boobies, write the stories of the internal politics of a harem somewhere. 🙂
(Okay, lesbian boobies might me more of a Showtime thing…)
I’m writing about women in large, teenage groups…and the knives are sometimes metaphorical.
Depends on whether or not the knives are concealed in hairpins and hairsticks, and poisoned to boot.
The knives are always poisoned, if the women know themselves well enough. They can’t afford to take any chances or to leave a wounded opponent behind.
Modern day feminism makes me think the various writers of the Old Testament had a point when they talked about women.
Most women want their own territory, their own man, their own kids, and their own secure household, and they want to be in charge of it (at least the inward-facing parts, and maybe the outer-facing too).
Women also want to be able to socialize with other women, but from a position of strength and security, with all their own stuff and family.
A lot of women are happier if they feel like they are good enough that they could make power moves on other men, families, etc., but restrict this to occasional flirting or sniping.
Feral women are just in a naked struggle for power. Hence the chick who doesn’t want your man but wants to take him away, or who has no clue that sleeping with the whole football team is lowering her status instead of raising it. Similarly, the office lady who doesn’t care if the world burns, as long as she can make some lower level gofer get her coffee — instead of letting him do his job.
Thank you for posting that; that makes sense in a way that I haven’t been able to form.
Especially in the way that it fits female aggression.
Comments are closed.