Could we make all collegian women read this?

[DubaiSis]

I have lately been banging the drum about our college girls appreciating and wielding their power. I think this article speaks to some of that.

http://www.dailylife.com.au/dl-women...23-gl5wd1.html

Here's an excerpt:
"It is sexism that leads women to feel threatened by one another without cause. While sexism teaches women to be sex objects for men, it is also manifest when women who have repudiated this role feel contemptuous and superior to those who have not...Sexism teaches women woman-hating, and both consciously and unconsciously we act out this hatred in our daily contact with one another."

[NinjaPoodle]

Thank you.

[33girl]

Meh. It's overly simplistic, and to me she's doing the same thing in reverse - putting down women who for whatever reason get along better with men. You need to try to have both in your life - same-sex and opposite-sex friendships. You need to hold both to the same standard of loyalty and support. It might come out in different ways, but who cares as long as you get to the same place.

Sometimes I like hanging out with a bunch of guys. Sometimes I like hanging out with a bunch of girls. Sometimes I feel like eating steak. Sometimes I feel like eating ice cream. Different Things Are Different. It's not a contest.

[DubaiSis]

I think the point you're missing is that it is sexist to expect women to be ANY way and in no way expects women to not be friends with men. That would be ridiculous.

[Munchkin03]

I get what she's trying to say (I think) but it's also overly simplistic. Women who have primarily male friends don't necessarily hate other women, and it's not necessarily driven by sexism. There are women who act like other women are so difficult and want to be the center of male attention. I think they're in the minority.

The primary reason I had male friends in grade school was that my interests lined up with what boys were doing more so than the girls. As I got older, and met a wider range of people, I met more women who shared my interests. Now, most of my friends are women.

[PaddyMaxwell]

I suspect that the whole issue stems from the abstract ideals that will realistically never be achieved; it would be nice to see an equability of sorts amongst the sexes, however there seems to be quite a bit stacked against this ideal in general. First and foremost, in the real world, equality will never be attained - there is far to much ignorance and stupidity for that sort of thing; second, there are legitimate biological differences that create barriers to many aspects of life, of which, pregnancy and the culture surrounding child-rearing throws a proverbial cog into the corporate advancement of females that a male does not contend with; and the physical differences in anatomy (yes, I know a few women can compete against men, but on average, there is a deficiency as a whole). The simple fact that a woman will be down for at the minimum several weeks (to several months) subsequent a birth, gives many corporations a real incentive to place non-pregnancy capable individuals in positions of importance (and increased pay) - this is strictly a cost function analysis. Aggregate this over several instances of child birth and you can theoretically account for the pay differences in men and women's overall respective averages. As for the phycical differences, the US Military is a fine example, many jobs have dual standards for applicants - one for men, and one for women; the women's standard is often (if not always) less strenuous than the mens. Truthfully, it seems the whole debacle stems from the attempts to equalize a field which was designed in such a manner to prevent such action (biologically). With all that being said, I commend those women that attempt to overcome such odds.