What constitutes Misogyny?

[brekin]

.
Was praeclarus banned?

[seemslikeadream]

.
Was praeclarus banned?

if so it was because she didn't hate men who hate women enough or....

she didn't hate herself enough or....

she didn't love the women who hate other women enough

Why Women Hate Other Women
By Cassandra George Sturges Platinum Quality Author

Women compete with each other at a societal level, the criteria for winning is usually set by others and the results are subjective and intangible. Women are usually judged by characteristics that they have little control over; something that they did not create, and that exist outside of themselves such as their physical appearance. Her success is based on subjective, biased, external validation by others. She can't see how to beat her rival because her rival is in no more control of the outcome than she is. How can you really be more beautiful than another woman, when the decision is nothing more than someone else's opinion of beauty?

How can you change someone's personal preference for a certain body size and shape, a particular eye color or a fondness for blondes? How many people are needed to think that you are beautiful before it is a valid or meaningful judgment? Who do you need to tell you that you are beautiful before you can believe it to be true... construction workers, truck drivers, the man walking down the street, your pastor, the Pope, your boss? Women compete with each other for male attention and compliments as if it feeds their self-worth and self-esteem. Women try to dress sexier and have shapelier bodies than other women.

Women instinctively know that men have little power when it comes to sexual intercourse in male and female relationships. Women know that if a platonic relationship exists between a male and a female, ninety percent of the time it is a platonic relationship because the woman does not want to have sex with the man instead of visa versa. Most women do not feel that men are psychologically or biologically capable of resisting another woman's sexual prowess because of their undying love, loyalty and respect for their committed relationship with them. If a man does not engage in a sexual relationship with a woman who is drop dead gorgeous, most women believe that it is because the other woman was in control of the outcome of the type of relationship. Women intuitively know that most heterosexual males find extraordinary beautiful women sexually irresistible and if that extraordinary beautiful woman wanted her man, he would be hers for the taking.

Women are so busy competing with each other for male attention that they do not have the psychological, intellectual or emotional insight to change the social climate that is causing them to suffer from low-self esteem. Women think of men as being promiscuous, unfaithful, lying, cheating dogs. But what most women need to come to grips with and understand is that research shows that a man is most likely to have a sexual affair with a woman's best friend, relative or neighbor... a woman whom she trusts, loves and respects. One of the reasons that men who cheat are so successful at it is because women allow them to because they are in competition with each other.

Women believe that they are superior to other women if they are physically more attractive. In a commercial for a diet pill a woman bragged, "I am now smaller than the woman my husband left me for." This statement leads me to believe that she felt that she deserved her husband's infidelity when she was over weight. Her motive for losing weight was to be physically smaller than the other woman that her husband left her for. She viewed the other woman as competition more so than feeling betrayed by her husband's disloyalty. The wife's motive for losing weight was not to improve the status of her health or increase her self-esteem but be smaller than her competition__ the other woman. The weight control commercial is blatantly telling women that they need to look a certain way in order to earn their husband's love and fidelity. It doesn't matter whether or not you cook his meals, raise his kids, and support his dreams... what matters most in a relationship is whether or not you are physically attractive enough to keep your man at home. There is an assumption that it is natural for a man to cheat on a woman who he feels is no longer sexually appealing. Many women believe that it is their fault when their husband or boyfriend cheats on them because they are not attractive enough to keep him faithful.

A woman's perception of self-worth is validated outside of her self from others and this affects her internal psychological concept of her own value as a human being. Women compete indirectly with other women because they have not learned how to recognize and channel their internal desires, feelings and goals into physical, tangible realities. Once women learn that they can not control or live vicariously through their children or the man in their life; they will stop hating each other and focus on their individual unique gifts, talents and assets.

Why do women hate other women?

1. Women feel that their biological prime-time is limited. She can easily be replaced by a new younger, more beautiful woman. Youth is a woman's fair-weathered friend.

2. Women feel that other women control their man's sexual fidelity.

3. Women feel that their level or degree of physical beauty is based on luck as opposed to something that she controls.

4. Women feel that other women can take something that they have worked hard to earn by using their beauty on the job, school and the legal system because men will be taken by her beauty.

5. Women feel that other women can not be trusted. They gossip too much, they are phony and they would take your man right before your eyes.

6. Women feel that other women divert attention away from them.

7. Women feel psychologically competitive with other women to be more attractive.

8. Women subconsciously believe that if they merely looked like another woman, they could inherit her life, her diamond, her man, and people would look at her with the same admiration.

The following dialogue was edited from a variety of websites discussing how women relate to each other:

Points to Ponder:

o You can never stop a man from looking at or admiring another woman's beauty. Do you really feel that another woman is more valuable as human being than you are simply because of her physical appearance?

o You are more than your physical body. What talents, gifts or skills do you have to contribute to society?

o You can not control what other people think of you. Once you truly accept the truth that you have no control over other people's thoughts about who you are or how you should live your life; you will be free to design your own life from the inside out.

o You can never compete with anyone but yourself.

o The only person who you can control is yourself...period.

o Whatever you seek in other people develop in yourself. You don't need to marry a doctor; become a doctor.

o You are the most important person in the world who must believe, acknowledge and recognize your own authentic and unique beauty. Why should anyone love and respect you more than you love and respect yourself.

[Canadian_watcher]

That article may be true for young women who have not yet been empowered. I am here to help empower them.

[compared2what?]

So, for those who might have missed it, long about page 132 there was this really beautiful healing moment between a number of folks... please revisit or visit it if you haven't already.

That was nice, wasn't it?

.........

When long intact systems undergo change, there usually follows a period of contentious adjustment.

Ain't it the truth. Politics is hard work. I'm not sure what the phrase "the personal is political" is generally understood to mean anymore. But originally, at least, it didn't mean: "You must sit and listen to me speak about my personal experience for the therapeutic value of the thing to me, personally."

It meant something more like: "Persons must know what they want, who they are, where they stand relative to one another, and why in order to develop and realize their political objectives. Because -- duh -- otherwise they'll just be transferring their reactive emotional responses to stuff into the most congenial prefab political-theoretical receptacle available to them forever, which doesn't lead to much apart from rushing around from this goal to that one on a more-or-less ad hoc basis. And while doing that occasionally succeeds in, say, shifting a small pile of rocks from one place to another, it never really changes the world, which is obviously going to remain largely as you found it (ie -- not in your control) until you make it yours.

I don't know if that makes the sense I want it to make. And...I guess I put it in general rather than women-specific terms because while I don't give a damn about this thread's bad reputation on my own behalf, it really does strike me as a terrible shame that engaging in the collective lengthy examination of something politically potentiating with the aim of achieving both personal and political potentiation should be so widely regarded as a frivolous and self-indulgent pursuit that's not all hardcore, constructive and good for the world, like making up imaginary alternative scenarios about what you read in the newspaper based on absolutely nothing except your personal need to....validate ( ) your worldview obviously is.

I mean, at least as a model for the collective work that really is involved in identifying issues, formulating goals, and then developing a plan of action (possibly, eventually) with a bunch of other passionately committed people with whom you have a broadly common interest but are bound to sometimes come into conflict with, it really is of benefit to everybody, this thread. Whether it succeeds or fails, doesn't matter. This stuff is hard. And by "stuff," I guess I mean "understanding what the fuck is going on somehow, starting from scratch, on your own with the help of comrades."

But you have to do it. Your just taking directions from, I don't know, Alex Jones (or whomever) if you don't. Even if you're doing it by rejecting Alex Jones (or whomever). Know what I mean? They're originating from an external locus of control either way. And that always ends badly. I think we all know that by now, right?

Anyway. It's here for anyone who wants to avail themselves of it, at least.

FWIW, here's the essay that first used the phrase. It's somewhat dated, but Carol Hanisch still probably puts it better than I just did.

The Personal Is Political
by Carol Hanisch

February, 1969

For this paper I want to stick pretty close to an aspect of the Left debate commonly talked about—namely “therapy” vs. “therapy and politics.” Another name for it is “personal” vs. “political” and it has other names, I suspect, as it has developed across the country. I haven’t gotten over to visit the New Orleans group yet, but I have been participating in groups in New York and Gainesville for more than a year. Both of these groups have been called “therapy” and “personal” groups by women who consider themselves “more political.” So I must speak about so-called therapy groups from my own experience.

The very word “therapy” is obviously a misnomer if carried to its logical conclusion. Therapy assumes that someone is sick and that there is a cure, e.g., a personal solution. I am greatly offended that I or any other woman is thought to need therapy in the first place. Women are messed over, not messed up! We need to change the objective conditions, not adjust to them. Therapy is adjusting to your bad personal alternative.

We have not done much trying to solve immediate personal problems of women in the group. We’ve mostly picked topics by two methods: In a small group it is possible for us to take turns bringing questions to the meeting (like, Which do/did you prefer, a girl or a boy baby or no children, and why? What happens to your relationship if your man makes more money than you? Less than you?). Then we go around the room answering the questions from our personal experiences. Everybody talks that way. At the end of the meeting we try to sum up and generalize from what’s been said and make connections.

I believe at this point, and maybe for a long time to come, that these analytical sessions are a form of political action. I do not go to these sessions because I need or want to talk about my ”personal problems.” In fact, I would rather not. As a movement woman, I’ve been pressured to be strong, selfless, other-oriented, sacrificing, and in general pretty much in control of my own life. To admit to the problems in my life is to be deemed weak. So I want to be a strong woman, in movement terms, and not admit I have any real problems that I can’t find a personal solution to (except those directly related to the capitalist system). It is at this point a political action to tell it like it is, to say what I really believe about my life instead of what I’ve always been told to say.

So the reason I participate in these meetings is not to solve any personal problem. One of the first things we discover in these groups is that personal problems are political problems. There are no personal solutions at this time. There is only collective action for a collective solution. I went, and I continue to go to these meetings because I have gotten a political understanding which all my reading, all my “political discussions,” all my “political action,” all my four-odd years in the movement never gave me. I’ve been forced to take off the rose colored glasses and face the awful truth about how grim my life really is as a woman. I am getting a gut understanding of everything as opposed to the esoteric, intellectual understandings and noblesse oblige feelings I had in “other people’s” struggles.

This is not to deny that these sessions have at least two aspects that are therapeutic. I prefer to call even this aspect “political therapy” as opposed to personal therapy. The most important is getting rid of self-blame. Can you imagine what would happen if women, blacks, and workers (my definition of worker is anyone who has to work for a living as opposed to those who don’t. All women are workers) would-stop blaming ourselves for our sad situations? It seems to me the whole country needs that kind of political therapy. That is what the black movement is doing in its own way. We shall do it in ours. We are only starting to stop blaming ourselves. We also feel like we are thinking for ourselves for the first time in our lives. As the cartoon in Lilith puts it, “I’m changing. My mind is growing muscles.” Those who believe that Marx, Lenin, Engels, Mao, and Ho have the only and last “good word” on the subject and that women have nothing more to add will, of course, find these groups a waste of time.

The groups that I have been in have also not gotten into “alternative life-styles” or what it means to be a “liberated” woman. We came early to the conclusion that all alternatives are bad under present conditions. Whether we live with or without a man, communally or in couples or alone, are married or unmarried, live with other women, go for free love, celibacy or lesbianism, or any combination, there are only good and bad things about each bad situation. There is no “more liberated” way; there are only bad alternatives.

This is part of one of the most important theories we are beginning to articulate. We call it “the pro-woman line.” What it says basically is that women are really neat people. The bad things that are said about us as women are either myths (women are stupid), tactics women use to struggle individually (women are bitches), or are actually things that we want to carry into the new society and want men to share too (women are sensitive, emotional). Women as oppressed people act out of necessity (act dumb in the presence of men), not out of choice. Women have developed great shuffling techniques for their own survival (look pretty and giggle to get or keep a job or man) which should be used when necessary until such time as the power of unity can take its place. Women are smart not to struggle alone (as are blacks and workers). It is no worse to be in the home than in the rat race of the job world. They are both bad. Women, like blacks, workers, must stop blaming ourselves for our “failures.”

It took us some ten months to get to the point where we could articulate these things and relate them to the lives of every woman. It’s important from the standpoint of what kind of action we are going to do. When our group first started, going by majority opinion, we would have been out in the streets demonstrating against marriage, against having babies, for free love, against women who wore makeup, against housewives, for equality without recognition of biological differences, and god knows what else. Now we see all these things as what we call “personal solutionary.” Many of the actions taken by “action” groups have been along these lines. The women who did the anti-woman stuff at the Miss America Pageant were the ones who were screaming for action without theory. The members of one group want to set up a private daycare center without any real analysis of what could be done to make it better for little girls, much less any analysis of how that center hastens the revolution.

That is not to say, of course, that we shouldn’t do action. There may be some very good reasons why women in the group don’t want to do anything at the moment. One reason that I often have is that this thing is so important to me that I want to be very sure that we’re doing it the best way we know how, and that it is a “right” action that I feel sure about. I refuse to go out and “produce” for the movement. We had a lot of conflict in our New York group about whether or not to do action. When the Miss America Protest was proposed, there was no question but that we wanted to do, it. I think it was because we all saw how it related to our lives. We felt it was a good action. There were things wrong with the action, but the basic idea was there.

This has been my experience in groups that are accused of being “therapy” or “personal.” Perhaps certain groups may well be attempting to do therapy. Maybe the answer is not to put down the method of analyzing from personal experiences in favor of immediate action, but to figure out what can be done to make it work. Some of us started to write a handbook about this at one time and never got past the outline. We are working on it again, and hope to have it out in a month at the latest.

It’s true we all need to learn how to better draw conclusions from the experiences and feelings we talk about and how to draw all kinds of connections. Some of us haven’t done a very good job of communicating them to others.

One more thing: I think we must listen to what so-called apolitical women have to say—not so we can do a better job of organizing them but because together we are a mass movement. I think we who work full-time in the movement tend to become very narrow. What is happening now is that when non-movement women disagree with us, we assume it’s because they are “apolitical,” not because there might be something wrong with our thinking. Women have left the movement in droves. The obvious reasons are that we are tired of being sex slaves and doing shitwork for men whose hypocrisy is so blatant in their political stance of liberation for everybody (else). But there is really a lot more to it than that. I can’t quite articulate it yet. I think “apolitical” women are not in the movement for very good reasons, and as long as we say “you have to think like us and live like us to join the charmed circle,” we will fail. What I am trying to say is that there are things in the consciousness of “apolitical” women (I find them very political) that are as valid as any political consciousness we think we have. We should figure out why many women don’t want to do action. Maybe there is something wrong with the action or something wrong with why we are doing the action or maybe the analysis of why the action is necessary is not clear enough in our minds.

____________________

I mean, the basic premises there have got a lot of utility for any political-interest group that doesn't have a public speaking voice the world acknowledges, and which therefore doesn't get heard, it's not just for women and/or women and men talking about gender. I mean all of this stuff got started by women in movement politics in the 1960s for situational reasons (IOW, misogyny in movement politics in the 1960s!) not for fundamentally wimministic ones. Anyone who wants to can use the it.

Hey! I believe we will get somewhere, I find. Having just talked myself into it. Hm. Well. At that point, we'll run into all the problems that come with popularity, I suppose but whatever. Plenty of bridges to cross before then.

[vanlose kid]

^ ^

read the above, if you were wondering what the use of this thread is and what it's worth.

*

[compared2what?]

.
Was praeclarus banned?

if so it was because she didn't hate men who hate women enough or....

she didn't hate herself enough or....

she didn't love the women who hate other women enough

SLAD, even if you're not trolling, your behavior is so indistinguishable from trolling that I personally can't see any daylight between the two. And it really doesn't help that you also appear to be tag-teaming with brekin to advance the ball that praeclarus (a poster who is manifestly intentionally seeking to create ill feeling and despair on the board and appears to be solely dedicated to that purpose) put in play further down the field.

I mean, appearances can be very deceiving. So I couldn't and wouldn't reach any hard-and-fast conclusion about anyone's motive or intent based on the above.

But I would say that you're being disruptive without cause. Both of you. Write the mods if you want to know about praeclarus, though I very much doubt he was banned, there being no sign of that and no particular reason to think so, unless you willfully and selectively misread the thread.

So cut it the fuck out, please.

[Canadian_watcher]

word.

[barracuda]

Was praeclarus banned?

His account was suspended pending review by the admin.

[JackRiddler]

praeclarus (a poster who is manifestly intentionally seeking to create ill feeling and despair on the board and appears to be solely dedicated to that purpose)

It's easy to confirm this by viewing his past posts. Recent account, lots of flaming and setting people against each other with personalized complaints about this place being downhill from a mythical happytime due to mean posters, otherwise little content or opinion on thread topics.

brekin, you're a frequent contributor who takes the discussions seriously.

.

[seemslikeadream]

.
Was praeclarus banned?

if so it was because she didn't hate men who hate women enough or....

she didn't hate herself enough or....

she didn't love the women who hate other women enough

SLAD, even if you're not trolling, your behavior is so indistinguishable from trolling that I personally can't see any daylight between the two. And it really doesn't help that you also appear to be tag-teaming with brekin to advance the ball that praeclarus (a poster who is manifestly intentionally seeking to create ill feeling and despair on the board and appears to be solely dedicated to that purpose) put in play further down the field.

I mean, appearances can be very deceiving. So I couldn't and wouldn't reach any hard-and-fast conclusion about anyone's motive or intent based on the above.

But I would say that you're being disruptive without cause. Both of you. Write the mods if you want to know about praeclarus, though I very much doubt he was banned, there being no sign of that and no particular reason to think so, unless you willfully and selectively misread the thread.

So cut it the fuck out, please.

congrads you are the first person in 6 years of my being here to accuse me of being a troll or tag teaming with anyone.

[Jeff]

Was praeclarus banned?

His account was suspended pending review by the admin.

And I just thanked barracuda for it. Praelarus returned to trolling after a week's suspension. That merits a ban, IMO.

[brekin]

compared2what wrote:

SLAD, even if you're not trolling, your behavior is so indistinguishable from trolling that I personally can't see any daylight between the two. And it really doesn't help that you also appear to be tag-teaming with brekin to advance the ball that praeclarus (a poster who is manifestly intentionally seeking to create ill feeling and despair on the board and appears to be solely dedicated to that purpose) put in play further down the field.

I mean, appearances can be very deceiving. So I couldn't and wouldn't reach any hard-and-fast conclusion about anyone's motive or intent based on the above.

But I would say that you're being disruptive without cause. Both of you. Write the mods if you want to know about praeclarus, though I very much doubt he was banned, there being no sign of that and no particular reason to think so, unless you willfully and selectively misread the thread.

So cut it the fuck out, please.

Wanting to know if someone has been removed from a discussion is hardly disruptive.
I like to know when people are silenced and for what purpose. I assume it is usually
posted to inform others what the bounds of the discourse are.

I'd like to remind you compared2what that you don't own this thread and
have no special role in vetting what is worthwhile or not. Not liking someone's opinion does
not automatically make them a troll.
And further everyone you disagree with is not in league. I don't even know SLAD and (his or hers) perspective that closely.
I do demand though you cease from using profanity when you address statements to me.

"So cut it the fuck out, please."

I see that as hostile and abusive behavior.

I do want to thank you though for posting the Personal is Political article above.
I think it is a good document which sheds light on some of the problems that happen in the discourse
on this thread. I had posted earlier about the problems of empathy vs. analysis. I think what I find,
in my opinion of the article, is that it is actually good to have a clear knowledge of the context
someone is sharing something and the actually have somewhat of a public vs. private awareness.

For example in a group therapeutic environment when someone shares something you usually wouldn't want
to criticize their "work" even if it stems from what you think is an erroneous premise because it is more about
them exploring and articulating something vulnerable in a safe setting. However in a analytical political environment
(say an activist meeting or town hall meeting) their premises and conclusions should be examined and
debated because that is an environment that is action orientated and can have repercussions for a
great many people.

I leave it to individuals to negotiate the two arenas but I think a clear understanding of the implied expectations
is helpful when people step into either. It is powerful when someone shares something personal in in a political
setting, but its very power comes from exposing vulnerable parts to a greater scrutiny. It is cathartic to
speak Truth to Power, especially a personal truth, but in a public arena one has to be ready for that
truth to be examined and not tacitly accepted as in a therapeutic setting.

Obviously the personal informs the political and vice versa and as the author of the article makes clear some
supposed "personal" problems are created by greater societal factors which is very apt. However there are issues of accountability
that are missing from the article which could make any criticism of a woman's behavior seem to falsely link it to perpetuate oppression of
women in general. For example:

The very word “therapy” is obviously a misnomer if carried to its logical conclusion. Therapy assumes that someone is sick and that there is a cure, e.g., a personal solution. I am greatly offended that I or any other woman is thought to need therapy in the first place. Women are messed over, not messed up! We need to change the objective conditions, not adjust to them. Therapy is adjusting to your bad personal alternative.

Obviously no one is denying the oppression and continued oppression of women but not all the problems individual women face are related to
objective conditions. Really to argue otherwise is to say all women in general aren't responsible for their own behavior in many realms. I
know historically and even now women can be unfairly targeted by the medical/mental/industrial complex but some individual women who through
circumstances aren't as effected by the larger political problems facing women still have personal problems and are in need of help.
I mean there are female Charlie Sheens.

I believe at this point, and maybe for a long time to come, that these analytical sessions are a form of political action. I do not go to these sessions because I need or want to talk about my ”personal problems.” In fact, I would rather not. As a movement woman, I’ve been pressured to be strong, selfless, other-oriented, sacrificing, and in general pretty much in control of my own life. To admit to the problems in my life is to be deemed weak. So I want to be a strong woman, in movement terms, and not admit I have any real problems that I can’t find a personal solution to (except those directly related to the capitalist system). It is at this point a political action to tell it like it is, to say what I really believe about my life instead of what I’ve always been told to say.

This to me seems to be an error in assuming that if one has personal problems one is weak to seek help. This could foster in my opinion a strong reaction to
criticism of any kind. This is in my experience a common problem many men have in seeking help, or even acknowledging a problem they have.

So the reason I participate in these meetings is not to solve any personal problem. One of the first things we discover in these groups is that personal problems are political problems. There are no personal solutions at this time. There is only collective action for a collective solution.

For some issues I can see this; child care, maternity leave, job pay equality, reproductive rights, sexual discrimination and harassment, etc which are
collective issues. There are many problems though that are personal, individual, which I think can't be solved by political solutions. In fact these personal
problems can influence and impede political solutions. For example think of say a ultra conservative wealthy woman who has a rabid hostility and anger towards those of different religious and economic classes and sees them as inferior won't find common cause with say single mothers who are not married.

You can't argue that the conservative women isn't political, and since the weight of political problems that effect women don't effect her as much through
class, religious beliefs and personal outlook one would have to say that she is liberated in her sense. But if one saw her extreme intolerance of lower economic groups and different religious beliefs as not healthy (causes her much distress and others) then you can argue she might want to try therapy for a personal solution to a personal problem if she recognized her issue.

[compared2what?]

Thanks for your feedback, brekin. As I said, the piece is somewhat dated. However, the greater part of your critique derives from a general misapprehension regarding the author's intent, which causes you to think she means something other than what she does when she says as, for example, that women do not need therapy. She is speaking purely about the decision of the activists who were then and later becoming, among other groups, New York Radical Women and Redstockings, to regard their group discussions as political rather than therapeutic, as she fairly clearly states somewhat earlier in the essay. Those were very interesting times, though their details are perhaps now obscure to the average non-politically active American. If you've never read much about them, you might enjoy acquiring a little background.

I apologize for having offended your sensibilities with my language. I'm afraid that in my heart, I still believe that your intent was to cause trouble by asking about praeclarus. So sadly, I cannot apologize for having said you were being disruptive in doing so.

However, I regret that there was friction between us, and also regret very much that for some reason, whenever we interact, we always seem to be discussing some persistent or chronic compaint you have with this or that aspect of a topic, which I somehow happen to be representing in some way.

But onward and upward. Let's try to meet on more positive ground at our very earliest opportunity, okay?

[compared2what?]

.
Was praeclarus banned?

if so it was because she didn't hate men who hate women enough or....

she didn't hate herself enough or....

she didn't love the women who hate other women enough

SLAD, even if you're not trolling, your behavior is so indistinguishable from trolling that I personally can't see any daylight between the two. And it really doesn't help that you also appear to be tag-teaming with brekin to advance the ball that praeclarus (a poster who is manifestly intentionally seeking to create ill feeling and despair on the board and appears to be solely dedicated to that purpose) put in play further down the field.

I mean, appearances can be very deceiving. So I couldn't and wouldn't reach any hard-and-fast conclusion about anyone's motive or intent based on the above.

But I would say that you're being disruptive without cause. Both of you. Write the mods if you want to know about praeclarus, though I very much doubt he was banned, there being no sign of that and no particular reason to think so, unless you willfully and selectively misread the thread.

So cut it the fuck out, please.

congrads you are the first person in 6 years of my being here to accuse me of being a troll or tag teaming with anyone.

I decidedly did not say you were being a troll or that you were tag teaming with anyone. I said you might as well be trolling, and that it didn't help that you were bumping an inquiry by brekin -- who has (like you) been a chronic malcontent wrt this thread -- regarding the fate of a poster who's been suspended for trolling and who was self-evidently trolling this thread last night.

I like you, SLAD. I feel for you. But you don't help yourself, the board or anyone by interrupting the thread with your personal anger. That's not, like, a nasty horrible condemnation or a hostile remark or anything at all of the kind. I'm sure I've done the same in the past, frankly. And I'm equally sure that I didn't help myself, the board or anyone by doing so. But I am, like you, human.

In any event: No, I was not that person. I'm sorry you took it that way, and very much regret having caused you additional distress. I'd prefer not to provoke that but to alleviate it. So please let me know if there's anything I can do along those lines, okay? I wouldn't want to risk becoming a chronic irritant out of good intent.

Bestest,

c2w

[compared2what?]

Why Women Hate Other Women
By Cassandra George Sturges Platinum Quality Author

Women compete with each other at a societal level, the criteria for winning is usually set by others and the results are subjective and intangible. Women are usually judged by characteristics that they have little control over; something that they did not create, and that exist outside of themselves such as their physical appearance. Her success is based on subjective, biased, external validation by others. She can't see how to beat her rival because her rival is in no more control of the outcome than she is. How can you really be more beautiful than another woman, when the decision is nothing more than someone else's opinion of beauty?

How can you change someone's personal preference for a certain body size and shape, a particular eye color or a fondness for blondes? How many people are needed to think that you are beautiful before it is a valid or meaningful judgment? Who do you need to tell you that you are beautiful before you can believe it to be true... construction workers, truck drivers, the man walking down the street, your pastor, the Pope, your boss? Women compete with each other for male attention and compliments as if it feeds their self-worth and self-esteem. Women try to dress sexier and have shapelier bodies than other women.

Women instinctively know that men have little power when it comes to sexual intercourse in male and female relationships. Women know that if a platonic relationship exists between a male and a female, ninety percent of the time it is a platonic relationship because the woman does not want to have sex with the man instead of visa versa. Most women do not feel that men are psychologically or biologically capable of resisting another woman's sexual prowess because of their undying love, loyalty and respect for their committed relationship with them. If a man does not engage in a sexual relationship with a woman who is drop dead gorgeous, most women believe that it is because the other woman was in control of the outcome of the type of relationship. Women intuitively know that most heterosexual males find extraordinary beautiful women sexually irresistible and if that extraordinary beautiful woman wanted her man, he would be hers for the taking.

Women are so busy competing with each other for male attention that they do not have the psychological, intellectual or emotional insight to change the social climate that is causing them to suffer from low-self esteem.

You know, I was beginning to get more than just a little bummed out about thinking, feeling and knowing all those horrible things that I'd always believed were anathema to me. But it turns out that Cassandra George Sturges does not just supply the dilemma. She has the solution, too, and it's so fiendishly simple that it borders on genius. It is, in a word:

Nuns.

Or in three words, if you want to be comprehensive about it:

Nuns and Oprah.

Here. See for yourself.

Hello God? Thanks for bringing me these nuns

By Elizabeth Ross, Editor

Eight years ago, psychology instructor Cassandra George-Sturges saw several nuns on Washtenaw Community College’s campus, and she immediately said a little prayer.

“I told God, I said, ‘Please do not put them in my class because I’m gonna get fired,’” George-Sturges said. “Because I curse, I curse like a sailor, I have cleavage out, I say inappropriate things.”

Turns out, the Lord really does work in strange ways. The next semester, Cassandra George-Sturges had 11 nuns in her class.

And sure enough, they would change her life.

Recently, Sisters Francis Mary and Mary Judith from The Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist, were flown to Chicago to be featured on Oprah’s show. Both are WCC students who’ve had George-Sturges as a teacher in her education of exceptional children class.

“I went to her to tell her that I wouldn’t be able to come to class because I was flying to Chicago to tape for the show, and then she just made it very clear that she was a very big fan,” Sister Francis Mary said.

George-Sturgess has idolized the talk-show host from the beginning and said Oprah has never disappointed her.

“To me, Oprah represents being at the top of where you belong in life,” George-Sturges said.

The nuns remembered that, and while they were with Oprah they got a signed photograph for their instructor. But more important than the photo is the respect George-Sturges said she feels from the sisters. She feels accepted by them even though they’re so different.

“I’ve always been conscientious about them. It does change who I am in the classroom — out of respect,” George-Sturges said, noting that she doesn’t show certain movies and tries not to curse when the nuns are around.

Sister Francis Mary said other students, knowing the way George-Sturges generally speaks and acts, ask her how she’s able to stand being in George-Sturges’ class, but it’s not a problem.

“She is so respectful towards us, and I am so grateful,” said Sister Francis Mary, an education major who is also enrolled at Eastern Michigan University “She really puts that effort forward, and I know it’s hard for her. She just makes it a very comfortable classroom for all of us.”

Sister Francis Mary asked Oprah for the signed photo because she knew it would be special to her teacher and said that Oprah was “more than willing” to oblige.

As for the Oprah show, which aired Feb. 9, it was a hit.

“It was really interesting watching it, especially with the sisters, because it was they first time they were seeing it,” Sister Francis Mary said. “We knew what was coming, but seeing ourselves, it kind of made it real and I finally realized, ‘Wow, I was on the Oprah show representing my community.’”

George-Sturges feels she hasn’t been able to convey her thanks to the sisters.

“How do you thank a person from the depths of your soul so that they understand that it’s not about the picture from Oprah or the autograph, it’s about the love from them?” she asked.

Perhaps it’s time for another little talk with God.

______________

And there you have it. Hang out with nuns, ladies! It worked for Cassandra George Sturges. How come we haven't come up with anything that good?

We're just going to have to work harder, I guess.