Since Women Were "Liberated"

[Astro Cat]

For pragmatic reasons she should have dressed formally. Her attitude was 'cutting off her nose to spite her face'.

I wonder if she habitually challenges others to a fight or only does so to powerful others. if the latter then she has my sympathy however she trying to crack a nut too hard for her.

Her contention was that wearing slacks is formal and only not accepted because she was a woman. I mean, was Rosa Parks "cutting off her nose to spite her face" by refusing to move on the bus? Or are both of these women standing up against oppressive attitudes and laws?

That's how they dress it up to make it sound good. But really, it was hairy legs.

As an aside, because I don't want to interrupt Belinda, but I think since they got that liberation, women got a lot bossier. The thing is, bossy women without juice, be that juice intelligence or some other kind of power, are just comical. If they are in politics, they can be dangerous because of that mentality that says, aww, she's a girl, give her a break. Besides, a woman in this (name the position) is historic.

And, I'm not referencing you. It's just something I've noticed.

Well, this is actually a problem. A woman simply being assertive is more likely to be interpreted as a woman being "bossy" or angry even for the same behaviors a man might use. When a woman is interpreted as being angry (whether she's actually angry or not), people perceive her as having lower competency than they would a man under the same circumstances. Studies show that people tend to assume women's anger or assertiveness is internalized (e.g. "she's just a bossy/angry person") while people tend to assume men's anger or assertiveness is external (e.g. "he's dealing with a lot right now"). Studies also show that if a supervisor/manager happens to be a woman, people remember her negative attributes and forget her positive attributes more exaggeratedly than they do with male supervisors/managers.

Women are often aware of these double standards, so they seek to avoid being perceived as angry, but this can just cause stereotype backlash.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that this perception that women are "bossy" is a good example of a negative gendered stereotype and is an unfair double standard. I don't agree that it's true. I'm sure there are genuinely bossy women just as there are genuinely bossy men, but I think people need to realize that because of the way our cultural ideas of gendered norms work, people have cognitive biases whereby they're more likely to perceive a woman as "bossy" even if she's really not (or, at least, people are more likely to call a woman "bossy" for the same assertive behavior that they wouldn't call "bossy" in a man).

[Astro Cat]

I agree Rosa Parks is a case in point. However Rosa Parks had a mighty principle of justice to give her moral authority whereas the other was defying a harmless minor convention .

But it wasn't a harmless minor convention she was contesting. And it certainly was not viewed that way by the court.. Or, perhaps a better way to put it is, if it was merely a minor convention, then the judge and system needed to be challenged on it. Otherwise they are complacent in enforcing, with some very serious power, something unimportant according to their tastes. If she'd been fined 10 bucks, well. But he put her in jail. People who misuse power like that, even if they have the habits of society partly backing them up need to be checked.

Excellent points here, I agree.

[Astro Cat]

For pragmatic reasons she should have dressed formally. Her attitude was 'cutting off her nose to spite her face'.

I wonder if she habitually challenges others to a fight or only does so to powerful others. if the latter then she has my sympathy however she trying to crack a nut too hard for her.

Her contention was that wearing slacks is formal and only not accepted because she was a woman. I mean, was Rosa Parks "cutting off her nose to spite her face" by refusing to move on the bus? Or are both of these women standing up against oppressive attitudes and laws?

That's how they dress it up to make it sound good. But really, it was hairy legs.

As an aside, because I don't want to interrupt Belinda, but I think since they got that liberation, women got a lot bossier. The thing is, bossy women without juice, be that juice intelligence or some other kind of power, are just comical. If they are in politics, they can be dangerous because of that mentality that says, aww, she's a girl, give her a break. Besides, a woman in this (name the position) is historic.

And, I'm not referencing you. It's just something I've noticed.

One other thing on this too: the attitude of “aww, she’s a girl, give her a break” is an assumption of lower competency because of her gender, too: this is not a good thing for people to think.

[Iwannaplato]

Well, this is actually a problem. A woman simply being assertive is more likely to be interpreted as a woman being "bossy" or angry even for the same behaviors a man might use. When a woman is interpreted as being angry (whether she's actually angry or not), people perceive her as having (e.g. "he's dealing with a lot right now"). Studies also show that if a supervisor/manager happens to be a woman, people remember her negative attributes and forget her positive attributes more than they do with male supervisors/managers.

Women are often aware of these double standards, so they seek to avoid[/url] being perceived as angry, but this can just cause stereotype backlash

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that this perception that women are "bossy" is a good example of a negative gendered stereotype and is an unfair double standard. I don't agree that it's true. I'm sure there are genuinely bossy women just as there are genuinely bossy men, but I think people need to realize that because of the way our cultural ideas of gendered norms work, people have cognitive biases whereby they're more likely to perceive a woman as "bossy" even if she's really not (or, at least, people are more likely to call a woman "bossy" for the same assertive behavior that they wouldn't call "bossy" in a man).

There are so many ways to go deeper into the issues here, but I'll just pick one. I think we have to allow for some pretty gnarly fights - without violence - perhaps especially in couples. Why does this come up in reaction to your post? I think when women push, they are triggering some very old, unconscious areas in men's minds - mom controlling them, they are weak if a man gets the better of them, let alone a woman, woman want to emasculate me and make me just nice and accomodating and a whole lot of other stuff swirling around in the id). I don't think this is all men are bad, women are victims, but as a man I am going to focus a more on my shit in this response.

So, we are touching on volatile areas, probably in both our psyshs and a long history of not fully understanding or trusting each other along with lot of open and hidden contracts to keep us from blowing up. I won't trigger you too much and you won't trigger me too much.

Personally, I don't think those issues have every been resolved anywhere. Some couples or sibling or whatever have come much closer and I think those people have known how to fight.

Men, in general, have more of a problem with direct expression of fear and grief and I think perhaps also mixed emotional reactions. I think this leads to a jump from internalized anger to violence. The whole making sounds, showing (the complexity of) emotional reactions gets skipped over. I think there are some parallel problems in women, but it's a different profile. Much of the difference is culture, but I do think we have different (overlapping) tendencies from birth. This is not pc and pc depending on the context out there, that I include some kind of sexual essentialism.

When men feel bossed by someone close to them, those deep schemas get triggered (and often the men more aware of themselves also get guilt and shame triggered along with anger and yes, fear). If you can't find a way to express those strong emotions and allow the partner to also express strong emotions (and by this I mean all three of the biggies, call 'em sadness, fear and anger) you're not really getting at the bottom. YOu have found, perhaps some good compromises and no-fly zones, and unstated (sometimes stated) contracts to never express X. But it ain't fully resolved.

And, since, if I am correct, we have never fully done this anywhere, we are all understandibly afraid of what would happen if we showed it all and were highly expressive (for example, what if I open up about both my anger and fear at the same time and she looks at me like I am pathetic....what might I do in that moment????). Great if one can be aware of these concerns. Caution everywhere.

And by the way I believe the patterns you described and your links, none of this is in any way a rebuttal.

My point is more...man, we have some work to do to resolve this and it will not be resolved by rules and shaming and guilt (not saying you are doing this). It will not be solved by the cerebrum, though it is often,by all parties seen as hey, our cerebrums need to come up with a plan and follow it. And I don't even think having the limbic system involved is enough. We gotta include the brain stem, the reptile brain. Modern humans suppress so much, but much of what triggers us, and then often gets supressed, is driving these ideas about the other sex (or other sexes((or everybody else))) and it's not going to resolve unless we can safely let the id out without getting violent. There have to be sporadic utterly non-pc interactions. Which does not mean some guys running up to a female colleague at work and calling her a bitch.

In contexts where one carefully gets underneath a lot of facades with people who know themselves pretty damn well.

And I suppose my wife and I try to do this to the best of our capabilities. And it ain't easy. But expressing feeling I would have thought at twenty would have to destroy a relationship have turned out to make us closer. And yeah, as a side note, i mean a lot of the investigation and expression is on my own also. This makes things safer.

But most people don't wanna know. Cause some of it ain't pretty and it utterly contradicts what the cerebrum says and proclaims and is so sure of.

[henry quirk]

A woman simply being assertive is more likely to be interpreted as a woman being "bossy" or angry even for the same behaviors a man might use.

I think a lot of that is self-fufillin' prophecy. We're told assertive women are seen as bossy, so we do.

In my 9 to 5 days I worked for men and women. Some were bitches to the nth degree (note I'm not sayin' which sex), some were assertive, some were limp-wristed. I found what the boss was, in demeanor, had almost nuthin' to do with sex and everything to with self-confidence and how well the boss knew his/her job.

In short: them studies are hogwash.

[Iwannaplato]

I think a lot of that is self-fufillin' prophecy. We're told assertive women are seen as bossy, so we do.

ARe you that influenced by what people tell you?

In short: them studies are hogwash.

Doesn't seem like it.

[henry quirk]

I think a lot of that is self-fufillin' prophecy. We're told assertive women are seen as bossy, so we do.

ARe you that influenced by what people tell you?

In short: them studies are hogwash.

Doesn't seem like it.

Not too much. I listen, assess, then dismiss or accept. As I say in many places, in-forum, I'm the gatekeeper for my head. I have to be. Far too many folks out there are lookin' to get inside and monkey around with the contents. And most of them don't have my best interests in mind.

Oh, not all studies or polls are for crap, but enough of them are to take each and every one with a chunk of salt (at least till you tear the study or poll apart and see, for yourself, its underlyin' foundations).

I mean, who buys a car without givin' a looksee at what's doin' under the hood?

Also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

[seeds]

Her contention was that wearing slacks is formal and only not accepted because she was a woman. I mean, was Rosa Parks "cutting off her nose to spite her face" by refusing to move on the bus? Or are both of these women standing up against oppressive attitudes and laws?

That's how they dress it up to make it sound good. But really, it was hairy legs.

As an aside, because I don't want to interrupt Belinda, but I think since they got that liberation, women got a lot bossier. The thing is, bossy women without juice, be that juice intelligence or some other kind of power, are just comical. If they are in politics, they can be dangerous because of that mentality that says, aww, she's a girl, give her a break. Besides, a woman in this (name the position) is historic.

And, I'm not referencing you. It's just something I've noticed.

One other thing on this too: the attitude of “aww, she’s a girl, give her a break” is an assumption of lower competency because of her gender, too: this is not a good thing for people to think.

I suggest that the "soul," or whatever you wish to call the "core" of our inner-being (i.e., our "I Am-ness"), is genderless.

In other words, with just a few minor edits in the DNA of our developing embryo, any one of us could have popped-out of our mother's womb as the opposite sex of what we are now, and we would have played-out the role accordingly.

The point is that it is utterly absurd that females have been put in a position of needing to be "liberated" from the neanderthal-ish thinking of men who, by nothing more than sheer random chance, could have found themselves on the receiving end of their condescending attitude towards women.
_______

[Walker]

Well, this is actually a problem. A woman simply being assertive is more likely to be interpreted as a woman being "bossy" or angry even for the same behaviors a man might use.

Hey Astro,
- Bossy is assertiveness without any juice.
- If Karen had any juice, she wouldn’t be Karen.
- She would be Wonder Woman, and men would listen to her because of that, rather than because she was promoted just to fill a diversity quota. You know, like Kamala Harris, VPOTUS.

- I’ve heard that a female voice is more effective at correcting male prisoners. The correcting voice of a female corrections officer carries more authority to a man in a prisoner's enslaved, punished circumstance. The male prisoners are more apt to hear, understand, and comply to a female command, than a male command.

- I think that nurture explains this as memories of mamma yelling, “Clean up your room!”
- However, there may be more than just a bit of nature in the phenomenon.

[Harbal]

- Bossy is assertiveness without any juice.
- If Karen had any juice, she wouldn’t be Karen.
- She would be Wonder Woman, and men would listen to her because of that, rather than because she was promoted just to fill a diversity quota. You know, like Kamala Harris, VPOTUS.

Kamala Harris has got a hell of a lot more juice than you have.

[Walker]

I'm the gatekeeper for my head. I have to be. Far too many folks out there are lookin' to get inside and monkey around with the contents. And most of them don't have my best interests in mind.

That's brilliant. I can relate. When I was young and dumb I had big, broad shoulders to transmute the ignorance and cruelty of the world into intelligence that brought peace of mind both to me, and the clan. However now, I figure that although it can still be accomplished, it's an unnecessary burden that wastes energy.

For instance, it's good practice for a highly intelligent Christian such as IC to transmute the slings and arrows of outrageous notions, into reasoned discourse. However, how many times must one step through that doorway to realize the effectiveness of the method?

Perhaps the answer lies in energy output. For IC, there must be much less effort to transmute lead into gold, and there are reasons for that. The reasons are in the words if one but hears them. The deafness is often caused by a mental clutter of preconceptions caused by propping up the misapprehensions of nihilism.

hq, it's always a pleasure. Please forgive my ignorance that may have clouded the meaning of these words, and if need be present, simply ask for clarifications. 'Cause you may have heard, I heard that I'm incomprehensible.

(respectful responses are yet another example of ... no choice)

[Walker]

- Bossy is assertiveness without any juice.
- If Karen had any juice, she wouldn’t be Karen.
- She would be Wonder Woman, and men would listen to her because of that, rather than because she was promoted just to fill a diversity quota. You know, like Kamala Harris, VPOTUS.

Kamala Harris has got a hell of a lot more juice than you have.

That's for damn sure. With a snap of her fingers, look what she could do ...
Clean up the southern border, for one thing.
The source of her juice is the constitutional power entrusted to her by We The People.

It's an awesome responsibility.
Do you think that she is meeting that responsibility, responsibly?

(I've heard I'm incomprehensible, so speak up if you don't understand.)

[Walker]

Harbal, since you opened the door ...

What's the source of your juice? Tell the truth now ...

Because it's beginning to sound like the source is ... scraps from our feast.

[Harbal]

Harbal, since you opened the door ...

What's the source of your juice? Tell the truth now ...

I'm not like you, Walker. I realise that self assessment is dangerously unreliable.

[Walker]

Harbal, since you opened the door ...

What's the source of your juice? Tell the truth now ...

I'm not like you, Walker. I realise that self assessment is dangerously unreliable.

Harbal, since you opened the door ...

What's the source of your juice? Tell the truth now ...

Because it still sounds like the source is ... scraps from our feast.