Comments on: If Women Ruled the World? http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/12/07/if-women-ruled-the-world/ Human Animals at the Crossroads of Culture, Science, Religion and Media Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:31:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: Kris http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/12/07/if-women-ruled-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-54990 Kris Tue, 03 Nov 2009 04:30:35 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=809#comment-54990 Might I suggest that these women are not matriarchical women, but patriarchical women? Please let me explain. Although you have given many examples of females in power being ruthless, they are not particularly feminine. We aren't monkeys. Plenty of archeologists and anthropologists have uncovered from societies, such as the tribal societies of that were unearthed along witht he venus figurines, show that in societies where both male and female gods were worshipped, but the females being primarily worshipped as the original givers of life, or "mother nature", that along with they were unable to unearth any paintings or documentations of men or women setting out to war and that they were very peaceful. In fact, most of these old cultures were medically based, in herbalism and such, and looked out for the welfare of the whole tribe, not just the lineage of the shamans. Furthermore, the women in societies today, such as the ones in Africa, where women with power are advocating for the circumcision of other women, tends to reflect the patriarchical society where men circumcize men for war and make eunuchs out of others. This is because this is a patriarchical behavior. As you have pointed out, absolute power corrupts (which is why it is interesting to note that the ancient cultures that primarily worshipped the feminine, did not EXCLUSIVELY worship the feminine unlike patriarchical relgions, such as Judaism, which demonize a woman that is not obediant and second class, Lilith). The women with power in Africa are not matriarchical. They are selfish women that want only empowerment from themselves, and following the only example of leadership there is over there, the patriarchical kind, they opress the women of their culture just as much as the men would have. A true matriarchical culture does not punish men OR women for their biology. As a matter of fact, in matriarchical leaning societies of today, the biological sex is never exploited or punished, because typically matriarchical societies are more open minded abouth the indefinite distinction between sex and gender. Take, for instance, the scattered indonesian tribes that believe in 5 genders: feminine females, feminine males, masculine males, masculine females, and "mixed spirit". These tribes are also herbal-based and for the welfare of the entire tribe, and are generally led by feminine males and females. So, as a result, I would say that a more trully matriarchal goal would not be to opress men and have a bunch of crazy chicks run the joint, but to share the power between the sexes and feminize the culture for its benifit. We live in a world of opposites and opposing views. As humans, our tendency is to classify these. Typically, right-wing, conservatism, patriarchy, and war tend to group together, and left-wing, liberalism, feminism, and pacifism tend to group together. In new-world societies, there are typically two genders and two sexes, ussually seen as indivisable from eachother. As an adamant supporter of matriarchy, the last thing I envision is a world that parallels to the patriarchal one, except with women in charge. I would much rather see the lines of gender and sex blur so that more peaceful men, whether typically "macho" or not, are celebrated. Femininity and masculinity is subjective. In our society, due to conditioning (pertaining to the nurture more so than nature point you made), males tend to be more agressive, etc. than females because that is how we define "masculinity". Another good point about ancient HUMAN matriarchical societies is that male gods were also worshipped, demonizing their flaws and exhaulting their better sides. Granted, no society is perfect, although I think matriarchy-based ones are and will be better, but their was a down-side. Although their were some societies, such as the Athenians, who also celebrated masculinity in women and feminity in men (the gentler side of fatherhood, female hunters, etc.), their were other cultures, such as the ancient pagan germans (long before the French/Norsman vikings influenced them) that would banish women who had masculine traits. This is something that I hope can be conquered through a feminized culture that frowns down upon absolutism and embraces a grassroots direct democracy (where more masculine people will have a better chance of defending themselves, considering their likely to be at least strong in numbers if not making up about half the population at such a given time in the future). As for what you said about the Native American women, I'm going to go with what I said about patriarchical women. Women tend to adapt to and excell in surroundings where they can learn form interacting and perceiving. Although most Native Americans worshipped the great spirit and the corn goddess, you did say SOME tribes, and SOME tribes were mostly male-dominant and worshipped the sun god. I suspect that these are the tribes where the women learned to be so ferocious. Most tribes, such as the Arapaho, Mohegan, Shawnee, Pueblos, etc. had the women in either roles of breeders that did not participate in much other than breeding and gathering food, or as healers/shamans. The women of these tribes were generally very peaceful and encouraged peace from within the tribe. There probably would have been less battle between tribes if the women ran them seeing as women, being biologically dominant in communication, would have been more likely to negotiate for goods than to war with one another. The 8th grade girls you spoke of were most likely thriving in a habitat surrounded by patriarchical rules and dominated by patrarchical religions, and having new found political freedoms, having no idea what to do with them, follow the same example as their male counterparts. Yes, men give women a hard time, and yes, women give eachother a harder time, but male bullies act the same way towards their own gender. The women in Africa learned to opress the civilian-women of Africa with circumcision from the patriachical societies that came up with it. what really needs to be tought are the tribal matriarchical values that are so sadly lost today. The native-american women that tortured under patriarchical supervision are parallel to the patriarchical plight against women of the Salem Witch Trials, of the Witch Hunts of England, and under the Catholic Inquisition the plight of anyone who disagreed with the patriarchical symbol of the ultimate male-chauvanist-entity, the father/son/(male)holy-ghost. Conceptually, people tend to believe that a feminine-dominant society would be only a parallel to patriarchy, which isn't the case. People, for the most part, are behaving and perceiving with the only precident that most of us know of: patriarchy. The fact is, bringing back exact opposites, that if feminine is so different than masculine, than matriarchy will HAVE TO share power, be fair, look for the welfare of all, be pacifist, etc. in order for it to truly be matriarchy, or else it is only female-patriarchy, which really isn't an opposite of anything, but is an unhealthy and deliberatly self-destructive oxymoron. Might I suggest that these women are not matriarchical women, but patriarchical women? Please let me explain. Although you have given many examples of females in power being ruthless, they are not particularly feminine. We aren’t monkeys. Plenty of archeologists and anthropologists have uncovered from societies, such as the tribal societies of that were unearthed along witht he venus figurines, show that in societies where both male and female gods were worshipped, but the females being primarily worshipped as the original givers of life, or “mother nature”, that along with they were unable to unearth any paintings or documentations of men or women setting out to war and that they were very peaceful. In fact, most of these old cultures were medically based, in herbalism and such, and looked out for the welfare of the whole tribe, not just the lineage of the shamans. Furthermore, the women in societies today, such as the ones in Africa, where women with power are advocating for the circumcision of other women, tends to reflect the patriarchical society where men circumcize men for war and make eunuchs out of others. This is because this is a patriarchical behavior. As you have pointed out, absolute power corrupts (which is why it is interesting to note that the ancient cultures that primarily worshipped the feminine, did not EXCLUSIVELY worship the feminine unlike patriarchical relgions, such as Judaism, which demonize a woman that is not obediant and second class, Lilith). The women with power in Africa are not matriarchical. They are selfish women that want only empowerment from themselves, and following the only example of leadership there is over there, the patriarchical kind, they opress the women of their culture just as much as the men would have. A true matriarchical culture does not punish men OR women for their biology. As a matter of fact, in matriarchical leaning societies of today, the biological sex is never exploited or punished, because typically matriarchical societies are more open minded abouth the indefinite distinction between sex and gender. Take, for instance, the scattered indonesian tribes that believe in 5 genders: feminine females, feminine males, masculine males, masculine females, and “mixed spirit”. These tribes are also herbal-based and for the welfare of the entire tribe, and are generally led by feminine males and females. So, as a result, I would say that a more trully matriarchal goal would not be to opress men and have a bunch of crazy chicks run the joint, but to share the power between the sexes and feminize the culture for its benifit. We live in a world of opposites and opposing views. As humans, our tendency is to classify these. Typically, right-wing, conservatism, patriarchy, and war tend to group together, and left-wing, liberalism, feminism, and pacifism tend to group together. In new-world societies, there are typically two genders and two sexes, ussually seen as indivisable from eachother. As an adamant supporter of matriarchy, the last thing I envision is a world that parallels to the patriarchal one, except with women in charge. I would much rather see the lines of gender and sex blur so that more peaceful men, whether typically “macho” or not, are celebrated. Femininity and masculinity is subjective. In our society, due to conditioning (pertaining to the nurture more so than nature point you made), males tend to be more agressive, etc. than females because that is how we define “masculinity”. Another good point about ancient HUMAN matriarchical societies is that male gods were also worshipped, demonizing their flaws and exhaulting their better sides. Granted, no society is perfect, although I think matriarchy-based ones are and will be better, but their was a down-side. Although their were some societies, such as the Athenians, who also celebrated masculinity in women and feminity in men (the gentler side of fatherhood, female hunters, etc.), their were other cultures, such as the ancient pagan germans (long before the French/Norsman vikings influenced them) that would banish women who had masculine traits. This is something that I hope can be conquered through a feminized culture that frowns down upon absolutism and embraces a grassroots direct democracy (where more masculine people will have a better chance of defending themselves, considering their likely to be at least strong in numbers if not making up about half the population at such a given time in the future). As for what you said about the Native American women, I’m going to go with what I said about patriarchical women. Women tend to adapt to and excell in surroundings where they can learn form interacting and perceiving. Although most Native Americans worshipped the great spirit and the corn goddess, you did say SOME tribes, and SOME tribes were mostly male-dominant and worshipped the sun god. I suspect that these are the tribes where the women learned to be so ferocious. Most tribes, such as the Arapaho, Mohegan, Shawnee, Pueblos, etc. had the women in either roles of breeders that did not participate in much other than breeding and gathering food, or as healers/shamans. The women of these tribes were generally very peaceful and encouraged peace from within the tribe. There probably would have been less battle between tribes if the women ran them seeing as women, being biologically dominant in communication, would have been more likely to negotiate for goods than to war with one another. The 8th grade girls you spoke of were most likely thriving in a habitat surrounded by patriarchical rules and dominated by patrarchical religions, and having new found political freedoms, having no idea what to do with them, follow the same example as their male counterparts. Yes, men give women a hard time, and yes, women give eachother a harder time, but male bullies act the same way towards their own gender. The women in Africa learned to opress the civilian-women of Africa with circumcision from the patriachical societies that came up with it. what really needs to be tought are the tribal matriarchical values that are so sadly lost today. The native-american women that tortured under patriarchical supervision are parallel to the patriarchical plight against women of the Salem Witch Trials, of the Witch Hunts of England, and under the Catholic Inquisition the plight of anyone who disagreed with the patriarchical symbol of the ultimate male-chauvanist-entity, the father/son/(male)holy-ghost. Conceptually, people tend to believe that a feminine-dominant society would be only a parallel to patriarchy, which isn’t the case. People, for the most part, are behaving and perceiving with the only precident that most of us know of: patriarchy. The fact is, bringing back exact opposites, that if feminine is so different than masculine, than matriarchy will HAVE TO share power, be fair, look for the welfare of all, be pacifist, etc. in order for it to truly be matriarchy, or else it is only female-patriarchy, which really isn’t an opposite of anything, but is an unhealthy and deliberatly self-destructive oxymoron.

]]> By: Mark Tiedemann http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/12/07/if-women-ruled-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-40982 Mark Tiedemann Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:46:17 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=809#comment-40982 Tradition and culture are used often to gloss over behaviors that, if the context were slightly different, would never be tolerated. Yet culture shock is very real and it is insensitive of people in the main to expect others from different backgrounds to just "get with it" when they come into our milieu. We walk a fine line between offending individuals and calling into question cultural assumptions that probably ought to go away. I have a simple metric. For me, the first question is, "How shall we treat people?" No gender. Just people. If we claim that People ought to be treated equally, with equal respect and consideration and equal opportunity, then the next question almost answers itself. How come we treat Those People differently? Obviously, this has applied in the past most notably to so-called minorities. The inequities began to vanish when we realized, collectively, that they are People first, whatever ethnicity second. But in so many places, ethnicity aside, it is women who fill that slot. Why shouldn't men treat women equally? And no, separate behaviors with equal status do not answer the question. Here, at least conceptually, we recognize that separate is never equal. Basically, women are treated as less than People. Even if they are never abused, they are isolated. And it is men doing the isolating. Culture is important, but if part of one's culture is the assumed denigration of half the population into a status that is simple Not Me, then it's frankly immoral and unsupportable. We are People first and as such ought to be able to treat each other equally. I don't understand why this is such a hard thing to understand... Tradition and culture are used often to gloss over behaviors that, if the context were slightly different, would never be tolerated.

Yet culture shock is very real and it is insensitive of people in the main to expect others from different backgrounds to just “get with it” when they come into our milieu.

We walk a fine line between offending individuals and calling into question cultural assumptions that probably ought to go away.

I have a simple metric. For me, the first question is, “How shall we treat people?” No gender. Just people. If we claim that People ought to be treated equally, with equal respect and consideration and equal opportunity, then the next question almost answers itself.

How come we treat Those People differently?

Obviously, this has applied in the past most notably to so-called minorities. The inequities began to vanish when we realized, collectively, that they are People first, whatever ethnicity second.

But in so many places, ethnicity aside, it is women who fill that slot.

Why shouldn’t men treat women equally? And no, separate behaviors with equal status do not answer the question. Here, at least conceptually, we recognize that separate is never equal.

Basically, women are treated as less than People. Even if they are never abused, they are isolated. And it is men doing the isolating.

Culture is important, but if part of one’s culture is the assumed denigration of half the population into a status that is simple Not Me, then it’s frankly immoral and unsupportable. We are People first and as such ought to be able to treat each other equally.

I don’t understand why this is such a hard thing to understand…

]]> By: Esma Yucel http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/12/07/if-women-ruled-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-40943 Esma Yucel Tue, 02 Jun 2009 12:53:36 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=809#comment-40943 I'm gonna nitpick. Part of your writing leans towards Orientalist thinking with labels like "liberated" and "traditional" and the grouping of the non-Western world in its treatment towards women. Not very balanced, if you were aiming for balance and political correctness. You felt uncomfortable when the pastor would not look at you, whereas he felt the same discomfort when you kept on looking at him. It's culture, not "freedom vs. backward thinking." There's an underlying value. I would be interested in reading why you think the traditional continue to act traditional in light of the "liberated" practices. I'm not putting you or him above the other. I want to see you attempt to understand him. Kudos to the mention of power and greed as the source, especially in reference to the man on the Harley. Religion, patriotism, and anything along the same lies is just a cover for the ego trip. And don't drown us desparate souls in darkness. As much genocide and evil there is, we live in a world held together by compassion, care, and honesty. I'd like to believe that more parents care for their kids than the ones who abandon them. There's hope yet (or I'm just a hopeful soul). I’m gonna nitpick.

Part of your writing leans towards Orientalist thinking with labels like “liberated” and “traditional” and the grouping of the non-Western world in its treatment towards women. Not very balanced, if you were aiming for balance and political correctness.

You felt uncomfortable when the pastor would not look at you, whereas he felt the same discomfort when you kept on looking at him. It’s culture, not “freedom vs. backward thinking.” There’s an underlying value. I would be interested in reading why you think the traditional continue to act traditional in light of the “liberated” practices. I’m not putting you or him above the other. I want to see you attempt to understand him.

Kudos to the mention of power and greed as the source, especially in reference to the man on the Harley. Religion, patriotism, and anything along the same lies is just a cover for the ego trip.

And don’t drown us desparate souls in darkness. As much genocide and evil there is, we live in a world held together by compassion, care, and honesty. I’d like to believe that more parents care for their kids than the ones who abandon them. There’s hope yet (or I’m just a hopeful soul).

]]> By: Ebonmuse http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/12/07/if-women-ruled-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-9064 Ebonmuse Sat, 09 Dec 2006 22:38:06 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=809#comment-9064 "<i> And the insight that came to me for the first time was here was someone who believes if he does not demonstrate he is superior in whatever way passes as superiority for him, he will simply not exist.</i>" This was a great post, but I especially loved this observation. This is such a simple thought that sums up so perfectly the way that so many people behave. Well put indeed! “ And the insight that came to me for the first time was here was someone who believes if he does not demonstrate he is superior in whatever way passes as superiority for him, he will simply not exist.”

This was a great post, but I especially loved this observation. This is such a simple thought that sums up so perfectly the way that so many people behave. Well put indeed!

]]> By: Catana http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/12/07/if-women-ruled-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-9038 Catana Fri, 08 Dec 2006 18:13:40 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=809#comment-9038 It's rare to read something so well-written, well-balanced, realistic, and compassionate. Thank you. It’s rare to read something so well-written, well-balanced, realistic, and compassionate. Thank you.

]]> By: gatomjp http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/12/07/if-women-ruled-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-9035 gatomjp Fri, 08 Dec 2006 17:44:11 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=809#comment-9035 Wonderful post! I am a man who believes that woman is the "purest" expression of human. We all start out as female in the womb. That, to my mind, means that the basic template for homo sapiens is female. It is only later during gestation that the shift to male takes place and to me it has always seemd like men are an abberation, a necessary variation perhaps, but a change from the ideal in form and temperment. However, I have also never agreed with the cliche notion that if women ruled there would be no war. Women often embody the best that the human race has to offer...but they can also display the worst and this post makes that point very clearly. If women are the purest expression of the human condition, they can express the dark side as well as the warm. I am in awe and in fear of them at the same time, as I think most men are! (I'm kidding a bit there...but not much!) Wonderful post!

I am a man who believes that woman is the “purest” expression of human. We all start out as female in the womb. That, to my mind, means that the basic template for homo sapiens is female. It is only later during gestation that the shift to male takes place and to me it has always seemd like men are an abberation, a necessary variation perhaps, but a change from the ideal in form and temperment.

However, I have also never agreed with the cliche notion that if women ruled there would be no war. Women often embody the best that the human race has to offer…but they can also display the worst and this post makes that point very clearly.

If women are the purest expression of the human condition, they can express the dark side as well as the warm. I am in awe and in fear of them at the same time, as I think most men are! (I’m kidding a bit there…but not much!)

]]> By: Jason Rayl http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/12/07/if-women-ruled-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-9027 Jason Rayl Fri, 08 Dec 2006 13:43:34 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=809#comment-9027 Excellent piece. It is, as you make clear, far more complex than the simplistic male chauvinist paradigm that was combatted in the 70s. I receive, to a lesser extent, a similar kind of disregard from certain quarters when I reveal that---despite a rather large published oeuvre, an obvious facility with language, a grasp of history, and various other emblems of intellectual ability---I am "only" a high school graduate. All of a sudden, I am a less significant person, someone certain people wish to treat as either an aberration or an intruder. They went through the paper mill and got their degrees, so how dare I presume to speak to them as equals? It's often such a subtle shift in attitude that I find it difficult to define and combat. (I am largely self-taught.) It's a class distinction that springs from people deriving self-worth from association rather than merit. It's easier that way. One need not "prove" all the time what one can do, one merely has to point out that one has a degree from XYZ University, and that, supposedly, says it all. Women have it much harder because they can't pretend they aren't women. (Some do, of course, but it's much harder and less successful.) I have the option of saying nothing unless pressed--and everyone assumes I have a Masters Degree at the least. I can "pass" easily (except on a job application). Likewise with the race issue. It is absurd and a measure of the lack of confidence we bring to the table. And people who have never felt this kind of discrimination often really have no idea what you're talking about and think you're nuts when you bring it up. (You must be one of those crazy "femin-nazis"!) I remember one of the major points of the Women's Lib movement was that until women were liberated, men would remain enslaved as well. Pity how much some people like their chains. Excellent piece. It is, as you make clear, far more complex than the simplistic male chauvinist paradigm that was combatted in the 70s.

I receive, to a lesser extent, a similar kind of disregard from certain quarters when I reveal that—despite a rather large published oeuvre, an obvious facility with language, a grasp of history, and various other emblems of intellectual ability—I am “only” a high school graduate. All of a sudden, I am a less significant person, someone certain people wish to treat as either an aberration or an intruder. They went through the paper mill and got their degrees, so how dare I presume to speak to them as equals? It’s often such a subtle shift in attitude that I find it difficult to define and combat. (I am largely self-taught.) It’s a class distinction that springs from people deriving self-worth from association rather than merit. It’s easier that way. One need not “prove” all the time what one can do, one merely has to point out that one has a degree from XYZ University, and that, supposedly, says it all.

Women have it much harder because they can’t pretend they aren’t women. (Some do, of course, but it’s much harder and less successful.) I have the option of saying nothing unless pressed–and everyone assumes I have a Masters Degree at the least. I can “pass” easily (except on a job application). Likewise with the race issue.

It is absurd and a measure of the lack of confidence we bring to the table. And people who have never felt this kind of discrimination often really have no idea what you’re talking about and think you’re nuts when you bring it up. (You must be one of those crazy “femin-nazis”!)

I remember one of the major points of the Women’s Lib movement was that until women were liberated, men would remain enslaved as well. Pity how much some people like their chains.

]]> By: thought http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/12/07/if-women-ruled-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-9026 thought Fri, 08 Dec 2006 13:30:52 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=809#comment-9026 it is not gender that renders humans compaissionate but the values they absorb from their upbringing. The struggle for power is as strong as our instinct for survival and will corrupt anyone to use any means to achieve his/her means. grim but true it is not gender that renders humans compaissionate but the values they absorb from their upbringing. The struggle for power is as strong as our instinct for survival and will corrupt anyone to use any means to achieve his/her means. grim but true

]]> By: Deb http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/12/07/if-women-ruled-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-9014 Deb Fri, 08 Dec 2006 00:07:02 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=809#comment-9014 Here, here. The majority in my profession are men. That has changed somewhat with time, but still it is largely true. I've always preferred it that way. Part of it of course is that I like men, have chosen to marry a couple of them (serial monogamy), but mostly it is because I didn't like the petty problems that seemed to arise in female dominated offices. I didn't like the tears that resulted when even the simpliest error was addressed (this file is in the wrong color folder...weep, weep). I can take some of the blame myself, I have a tendency to be blunt, especially when rushed, but I never had a man cry when I corrected an error. It occurred to me one day that I was being sexist, and asked myself if my preferences were only a sign of that bias. To some degree, I think they are. When you 'play with the boys' you get to do the things they do. It was science and volleyball when I was a kid instead of dolls and tea sets. Grown up it means that I don't make the coffee for the meeting, I'm at the conference table with something to say. But I don't think that is all of it. We women have an enormous amount of power, but we squander it by not even recognizing it. Most children spend a lot more time with their moms than with their dads. Very few dads get to be stay at home dads, and in many cultures, the child rearing is handled nearly exclusively by the women. We have the power in our hands to shape the next generation, but we allow stereotypes to determine too many things. We allow the girls to weep, but tell the boys to buck up and take it. Then as grown women we take out petty spites, gossip and otherwise demean the women around us, and more importantly, demean ourselves in the process. Just today a woman I know was insulted by a coworker for her clothing as being too tight. The "insultee" is a single woman raising children on a small paycheck and has gained some weight so her clothes are a little tight. Her dress should have been of no importance to the co-worker, and secondly, should have been overlooked as necessity. Now that slight will not be forgotten, as Chris describes above, and someone gets to deal with the ill wind between the two. There is an old Native American joke: a man was walking by with two buckets full of crabs. Every few feet, the man would have to stop and put back in the crabs that had climbed out of one of the buckets. He didn't have the problem with one of the buckets, the crabs all stayed in. But the crabs in the other one just kept getting out. Someone watching asked why one bucket of crabs stayed in and the other one didn't. The man replied, "One is a bucket of white crabs. They climb on each other and get to the top and over the edge. The other is a bucket of Indian crabs ("In-dans" to us, "native Americans" to you). Everytime one of the crabs gets up a bit, another one pulls him back down to the bottom." That's what it sometimes feels like to be a woman. We just keep pulling each other down. Here, here.

The majority in my profession are men. That has changed somewhat with time, but still it is largely true. I’ve always preferred it that way. Part of it of course is that I like men, have chosen to marry a couple of them (serial monogamy), but mostly it is because I didn’t like the petty problems that seemed to arise in female dominated offices. I didn’t like the tears that resulted when even the simpliest error was addressed (this file is in the wrong color folder…weep, weep). I can take some of the blame myself, I have a tendency to be blunt, especially when rushed, but I never had a man cry when I corrected an error. It occurred to me one day that I was being sexist, and asked myself if my preferences were only a sign of that bias.

To some degree, I think they are. When you ‘play with the boys’ you get to do the things they do. It was science and volleyball when I was a kid instead of dolls and tea sets. Grown up it means that I don’t make the coffee for the meeting, I’m at the conference table with something to say. But I don’t think that is all of it.

We women have an enormous amount of power, but we squander it by not even recognizing it. Most children spend a lot more time with their moms than with their dads. Very few dads get to be stay at home dads, and in many cultures, the child rearing is handled nearly exclusively by the women. We have the power in our hands to shape the next generation, but we allow stereotypes to determine too many things. We allow the girls to weep, but tell the boys to buck up and take it. Then as grown women we take out petty spites, gossip and otherwise demean the women around us, and more importantly, demean ourselves in the process. Just today a woman I know was insulted by a coworker for her clothing as being too tight. The “insultee” is a single woman raising children on a small paycheck and has gained some weight so her clothes are a little tight. Her dress should have been of no importance to the co-worker, and secondly, should have been overlooked as necessity. Now that slight will not be forgotten, as Chris describes above, and someone gets to deal with the ill wind between the two.

There is an old Native American joke: a man was walking by with two buckets full of crabs. Every few feet, the man would have to stop and put back in the crabs that had climbed out of one of the buckets. He didn’t have the problem with one of the buckets, the crabs all stayed in. But the crabs in the other one just kept getting out. Someone watching asked why one bucket of crabs stayed in and the other one didn’t. The man replied, “One is a bucket of white crabs. They climb on each other and get to the top and over the edge. The other is a bucket of Indian crabs (”In-dans” to us, “native Americans” to you). Everytime one of the crabs gets up a bit, another one pulls him back down to the bottom.”

That’s what it sometimes feels like to be a woman. We just keep pulling each other down.

]]>