Are women jealous of men?

[nativebelle]

I get told that I'm pretty good in regards to taking jokes/making jokes and 'the only funny girl in the world' (I'm using that description 'til my death, bros) but still, the idea that women can't take a joke about how they're inferior or some shite is VERY mistaken. I mean, all of the girls that I hang with would laugh at MEN R BEST WOMEN GET IN KITCHEN type jokes because, well they're ridiculous, no?

Who's joking? Seriously, get in the kitchen.

How many slices of bacon in the sandwich today?

Interesting read, and I'd agree with some, if not most of it.

However, I can't help but see this as one of the most well written troll attempts I'm just waiting for a female to have a rant at you and create a self fulfilling prophecy.

I kid, I kid, I know you aren't trolling.

EDIT: Post above almost did it, but not quite... not quite the rant I was waiting for.

Nah, I wasn't going for a rant. I know too many bitchy, jealous, whiney girls who fit that description for that.

Just seems a bit stupid to claim that such bitches are bitches cos they don't have a caveman manlyman identity, and that this identity is a good thing.

I think I should be the baseline for feminine identity. Would be awesome. All girls would aspire to not give a fuck and be badass and certainly not be a whiney feminist/airhead. I'M LIKE P!NK BUT LESS COMPLETELY SHIT.

 

[Spacelord]

I saw this and the psychologist in me began to rant.

Can you say a new Freud has been born? PENIS ENVY LAWL

Freud was wrong - I envy tits.

 

[AWC Viper]

fair enough. well spoken..err...typed

have one of my cookies.

Spoiler: Cookie jar

 

[Sennz0r]

OP's logic is flawless...

When I started reading this I thought: "Oh damn here comes some story completely comprised out of Barney Stinson Logic which will make women rage out even more than they usually do" (which would fit perfectly into the demographic OP just described). But no, it was a well-argumented piece of writing which in my opinion shone a light on -dare I call it- a character flaw present within the majority of the women alive today. Although it might have something to do about insecurity as well.

Well written.

 

[SimuLord]

300 wasn't homoerotic, it was incredibly manly. Real men staring death in the face and smiling.

And you'll notice that there are two types of people who say "that's so gay" when men who are secure in their heterosexuality allow themselves to bond: Women and little boys who don't have strong male influence in their lives.

Turning the act of being masculine into something "homoerotic" emasculates men, which is a key goal of the feminist movement. The implication is not that homosexuality is itself a bad thing ("not that there's anything wrong with that"), but that heterosexual men should not have to defend their sexuality in order to be masculine.

 

[Kiefer13]

It seems to me that females in general are more likely to behave poorly than men, especially around strong men. They act petty and confrontational and are easily offended. They want control, and they throw tantrums and make personal attacks when they don't get what they want. These behaviors suggest jealousy and insecurity.

Yeah, last time I checked that's not a woman thing. It's a human thing.

Also, generalizing post is generalizing.

I hate generalization. And gender identities? I think they're a load of rubbish. Things are only defined as "manly" or "girly" because society has made it that way. And society needs to change.

We need to stop lumping people together and start treating them like individuals.

 

[KrakFoxx]

there was a very heated "discussion" in my citizenship class once, a guy said that he thought men were better leaders than women...and the teacher couldnt restore order for half an hour

 

[AquaAscension]

*snip* I guess? I'm new at this thing...

I understand your scholar thing I guess: Neither academically trained nor "street smart" so to speak on the subject.

I'm in a gender and society class at the moment which, of course, means I know everything about the subject (sarcasm alert). No, in actuality, these ideas are really just amalgamations of my own thoughts and my (mis)understandings of the theory that accompanies the thoughts.

Okay, well one of your points early on was that women didn't really get to define themselves for or through themselves earlier in the century even. This is true, and essentially remains true. Women weren't really defined by who they were in the exact same way that men were. Women didn't even necessarily have an identity outside of their husband or their children. Men identities as members of the community, as workers, as fathers and so many other things too while a woman (quite literally for a long time in history) was thought of as chattel, as property of the man's. Property isn't normally defined in what it is, it's defined by its uses. This would, I think, carry over to women - defined through their uses rather than who they are. I know the distinction sounds slight to me, but it's crucial.

Now, women have far more freedom to exact control over who they are, what they want to be, and so many other things. Imagine the first time you realized that you had the freedom to do anything you wanted to do(you may get in trouble for it later though). The freedom, the sense that in the palm of your hand you held opportunity or in the bliss of a closed fist you could strike out and attempt some semblance of change. It's terrifying at first, but then it gets easier once you've practiced that power.

I think that women are sort of going through a transition period like upheaval in religion right now. They are testing boundaries, finding identification with each other (or abandoning it). I say that last part because the roles of both men and women have expanded in the past several years. It is no longer odd to see a full-time working woman with a stay at home dad (to be cliche and bring it down to a dichotomy that doesn't really exist again). Our ideas of "masculine" and "feminine" no longer strictly apply to males and females exclusively, respectively, anymore.

In essence, and I suppose this is the crux/tl;dr of the argument: both genders have had their identities pulled out from underneath them. Men still have a basic idea of "masculine" to cling to while women have an almost overwhelming set of possible subcategories into which to fit.

Sorry for the length of this response post, but I'm reminded of a movie which was watched recently entitled "Dream Worlds 3". The point of this movie was to say that the entire idea of femininity in music ideas is being subverted to little more than objectification. The way in which the videos are shot to the actual actions occurring to the women themselves all smack of objectification. Women (again but I think more detrimental this time) are being told (shown) that their only usefulness is in what they can be used for. In this case, it is pretty much always as a sexual object. The women only have value in their bodies. It's a sickening thought when it's brought to a logical conclusion. Frustrating to say the least.

Anyhow, last side thought: I believe that the movie Twilight: New Moon is the first step towards the commodotization [making a product out] of the male body. The only pictures one sees of the werewolves are the shirtless kind. The men aren't being valued for too much outside of "OMG, He iz sooooo HOT! Like, HAWT!!!!" This might sound good at first. If both men and women are commodities, then we can just buy each other and the world keeps on turning. No, fail. I think if this happens then individuality goes out the window. We become sexual objects with no real power to do anything. Now, I don't think this will actually happen, but if it does, then get ready to spend several hours a day, everyday in a gym so that you, too, can one day be valuable enough to the female mind's eye to be bought like so much gum: chewed up spit out and never used again.

Twilight could really be the death of the human race. If it comes to this, I want everyone to know that I echo Yahtzee in saying, "I fucking called it."

(I did not read for grammar/spelling errors... apologies if there are any)

 

[TheSeventhLoneWolf]

Men and women are mentally equal, but physically different. That's probably what has set the course of history. But, I don't think women are jealous of men, they can do pretty much the same as what a man could do, work-wise, Freedom of speech. ect.

For every one comment someone makes, there will probably be another 10 countering it. Things like this cannot truely be answered due to the unique minds of us all.

 

[wynnsora]

Back when I was little I wanted to be a boy. I didn't like having to deal with the whole, "That's not lady like!" thing. I liked Hot Wheels, Transformers, the power rangers, playing video games and other such non-girly things. Back at that age that was still important, but now it isn't. As I got older and I came to the point of, "It isn't important." I stopped hating being a girl and embraced it in a strange fashion. So maybe sometimes women are jealous of men, but for interesting reasons.

 

[Violence]

Yeah, last time I checked that's not a woman thing. It's a human thing.

Also, generalizing post is generalizing.

I hate generalization. And gender identities? I think they're a load of rubbish. Things are only defined as "manly" or "girly" because society has made it that way. And society needs to change.

We need to stop lumping people together and start treating them like individuals.

QFT!
Any poster who claims "the majority of women" act like this is proving nothing but their own inexperience with the female gender.
Everyone is an idiot, sometimes. The sooner we realize this, the sooner we can move past this subject.

 

[Russ Pitts]

No good can come of this thread.

 

[Gralian]

It seems to me that females in general are more likely to behave poorly than men, especially around strong men. They act petty and confrontational and are easily offended. They want control, and they throw tantrums and make personal attacks when they don't get what they want. These behaviors suggest jealousy and insecurity.

Yeah, last time I checked that's not a woman thing. It's a human thing.

Also, generalizing post is generalizing.

I hate generalization. And gender identities? I think they're a load of rubbish. Things are only defined as "manly" or "girly" because society has made it that way. And society needs to change.

We need to stop lumping people together and start treating them like individuals.

I'm going to take something completely out of context to disagree with you.

People shouldn't be lumped together, huh? Imagine Nazi Germany in World War 2, and say two British or French folk are in Berlin just before war erupts. They're about to talk about some military plan the Allies have. Then one of them goes "You can't say that out loud, you never know how many Nazis could be listening, this is Germany after all!"

The other replies, "Oh come now, you can't possibly GENERALISE. They can't all be Nazis!"
*Looks at all the blonde haired blue eyes german folk with big swasitka banners and other symbols around the city*

Hm. Or are they. So what's the moral of the story?

You need to lump people together, to create DISTINCTIONS. Without distinctions there's no way to classify anything or anyone. Jesus christ if we keep going with this expression of "individuality" we'll eventually end up in a world where the men look like women and the women look like men.

Sorry, i don't want that kind of androgynous world.

Feminity and masculinity are important. Not to the point of showing off or having it "expected" of you, to the degree of fascism and being an outcast. But it needs to be there. Otherwise we end up in one big bland pangea. No thanks.

Edit: And while we're on about integration and individuality, are you saying that we should just blend cultures together? You know. Since you don't want to lump people together. I guess it would be too much to go to Italy for example and find rustic buildings with passionate people and awesome pizzas. That would be generalising.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

I can see where you're coming from. I think it's the pride that does that sometimes, you know? When two men are having a fight, a woman will try and break that fight up. When two women are having a fight, a man will stay well away from it.

I think as a Gender we've had more time to create an identity, but also an almost universal personality, tiny little traits that most men share. E.g. knowing when to keep your gob shut when two women are having it out with each other.

 

[Charisma]

Let me go ahead and make a couple blanket statements to answer a few of the criticisms people have had that have missed the point.

And by that I mean, it's okay to disagree with me, but not to do so based on a miscommunication, so let me just clear those up:

1. I don't think women are jealous of THE male identity. Just that men HAVE one. Ideally, women will sooner or later discover their own unique and valuable gender identity, and will be secure and comfortable in it and won't have to rage at men for being men. Like one poster said, we can all hug and get along.

2. It's not just feminist extremists. It's women in general. In my opinion, an objective and critical analysis of many common female behaviors suggests a general insecurity of which men aren't as guilty.

3. I'm totally, 100% open to exceptions. If you're a confident, happy woman with a strong sense of self, then #1 you are a paradigm to which your whole gender should aspire, and #2 why do no girls like you live in my area?

4. No, I'm honestly not trolling.

5. Each internet awarded is worth ninety billion cool points.

6. Thanks for the cookie. It looks fucking delicious.

7. Yes, you can be a manly man and enjoy a scented bath. You just have to crush a few beer cans on your forehead, or wrestle a couple bears later on to make up for it.

 

[Charisma]

Yeah, last time I checked that's not a woman thing. It's a human thing.

Also, generalizing post is generalizing.

I hate generalization. And gender identities? I think they're a load of rubbish. Things are only defined as "manly" or "girly" because society has made it that way. And society needs to change.

We need to stop lumping people together and start treating them like individuals.

I agree with you. But hating something because you believe it shouldn't exist stunts your intellectual growth. You can't deny reasonably that "most" dogs are loyal and happy, "most" cats are independent and self-interested, and "most" women are insecure; that is, more so than men.

 

[The_ModeRazor]

Yeah, but thing is, people are individuals, not some fucking numbers.
They apparently have these strange things called "emotion" and "personality".
Generalising is the worst thing you can possibly do.

 

[Xanadeas]

I really don't think women behave irrationally because they're "jealous" of men. It's not because they're lacking and identity as a whole... Women have an identity, it's whatever the hell they want it to be. The same with men. We're not gassy, stupid, bottomless pits that devour everything in our path. We're whatever we decided to be.

Women are exactly the same, they have as much power to decided as any man does. Some may be inferior physically or mentally to some men... But the same can be true for men. Some may not be as amazing as some women.

Me? I see most women as: angry, selfish, greedy, ignorant. Now don't get me wrong... Not all women are like this. But a large majority have become so because of current "role models". The identity is formed by the individual not by the whole. To classify an entire group as one thing is ignorant because there are always exceptions.

The same thing can happen to men. They can become arrogant, stupid, simple-minded, greedy... All because they were not given proper role models. It has nothing to do with a group's identity but a singular identity.

 

[mattman106]

It's really nice to actually see a discussion piece on a forum for once

You have structured this really quite well and I agree quite wholeheartedly with about 70% of your points. The part about no over arching idea of femininity is a very interesting idea and something I will think on.

I remember reading in a girlfriends Cosmo once that women often suffer more emotional drama because most of a womens realationships are based on jealousy either of those friends or a group of friends who are jealous of others whereas as blokes tend to base their friendships on things like shared interests etc.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

If you want to make a historical argument, at least do it right. Women have, historically, been just as important as members of society as men have. A peasant woman was not just the wife of a peasant, she was a woman who worked the fields with her family. Most women in cities and towns helped their husband with whatever field of work he had (and in many cases, they retained their husbands profession as widows in case he passed away before them). Who do you think ran the family business/farm when the men went out to war, the kindly leprechauns? Or the wives?

The whole "women have *always* been in the kitchen/taking care of the children" thing comes from America in the late 19th and early 20th century because of the massive increase in industrialization and worker rights. This allowed the families to sustain themselves on the income of just one person. It arrived in Sweden (where I live) in the 1950's, before then it was fully expected that a woman had a job to help support the family. This American Dream/Core-Family value is in fact not even a century old. So trust me, women have had plenty of time to establish their own identity as a gender, at least here in the western world.

That you have no idea of what the female gender identity (and let us be clear with the fact that it is just as stereotyped as the male gender identity is) is only suggests that you either haven't cared enough to find out (which isn't meant as criticsm) or that you haven't spent enough time with girls to figure it out.

It is a product of a society that has spent the last 70 years or so with telling us how strong men are and how protected women need to be. That's all there is to it. Women are not "historically" as subservient as the prevailing conception today wants to make them out to be. I could go on, but it would do no one any good. So, to sum it up, get the facts right before drawing conclusions.