What can American women learn from foreign women?

[Anonymous]

I'm starting to think that I'm supposed to feel crestfallen and ashamed that I don't get my chance to make myself small and without any interests or goals of my own, because otherwise I won't get one of those American men who is so rage-y against American women?

That's a raw deal. Never going to fall for that one. I'll take the men in my life who like me the way I am. That includes my dad, my brothers, their male friends, and of course, the love of my life. I'll be just fine, thanks.

---

(By the way, they are all American men, too.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What this comment shows is a commitment to a view called Gender essentialism- which argues that men are one way organically (I.e. decisive, rational) and women are another way ( I.e. docile, peace loving, more compromising). This is a really outdated view that was used in the 1950s and 1960s to argue that women could never be army generals or president, etc. The main issue with this view is that it conflates all women together ( all women are this way) and it kind of awards all the good and fun qualities to men and essentially describes female qualities as second clas or those belonging to broken men ( ie men are rational and women are emotional).

It limits and hurts everyone to simplify this world in such a way that women are assumed not to be good at math and science, business leadership etc. It also hurts men by saying that they are not relational and good at social work etc.

It doesn’t make anyone a joyless harridan to point out how limiting this is. And it’s asinine to say that women should embrace their “femininity” and not pursue occupations like medicine. Get back on your dinosaur and go back to your cave.

It's called Yin and Yang and it exists in nature in just about any species. This energy and traits are not something humans invented through socialization. Femininity is beautiful and essential to life, and it has nothing to do with being subservient, weak or powerless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What this comment shows is a commitment to a view called Gender essentialism- which argues that men are one way organically (I.e. decisive, rational) and women are another way ( I.e. docile, peace loving, more compromising). This is a really outdated view that was used in the 1950s and 1960s to argue that women could never be army generals or president, etc. The main issue with this view is that it conflates all women together ( all women are this way) and it kind of awards all the good and fun qualities to men and essentially describes female qualities as second clas or those belonging to broken men ( ie men are rational and women are emotional).

It limits and hurts everyone to simplify this world in such a way that women are assumed not to be good at math and science, business leadership etc. It also hurts men by saying that they are not relational and good at social work etc.

It doesn’t make anyone a joyless harridan to point out how limiting this is. And it’s asinine to say that women should embrace their “femininity” and not pursue occupations like medicine. Get back on your dinosaur and go back to your cave.

It's called Yin and Yang and it exists in nature in just about any species. This energy and traits are not something humans invented through socialization. Femininity is beautiful and essential to life, and it has nothing to do with being subservient, weak or powerless.

Uh, yes they are. Male and female (and nonbinary) animals act differently in all species.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm starting to think that I'm supposed to feel crestfallen and ashamed that I don't get my chance to make myself small and without any interests or goals of my own, because otherwise I won't get one of those American men who is so rage-y against American women?

That's a raw deal. Never going to fall for that one. I'll take the men in my life who like me the way I am. That includes my dad, my brothers, their male friends, and of course, the love of my life. I'll be just fine, thanks.

---

(By the way, they are all American men, too.)

+1 Why does it seem like the loudest men in these conversations are all so douchey when there are so many wonderful men all around me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What this comment shows is a commitment to a view called Gender essentialism- which argues that men are one way organically (I.e. decisive, rational) and women are another way ( I.e. docile, peace loving, more compromising). This is a really outdated view that was used in the 1950s and 1960s to argue that women could never be army generals or president, etc. The main issue with this view is that it conflates all women together ( all women are this way) and it kind of awards all the good and fun qualities to men and essentially describes female qualities as second clas or those belonging to broken men ( ie men are rational and women are emotional).

It limits and hurts everyone to simplify this world in such a way that women are assumed not to be good at math and science, business leadership etc. It also hurts men by saying that they are not relational and good at social work etc.

It doesn’t make anyone a joyless harridan to point out how limiting this is. And it’s asinine to say that women should embrace their “femininity” and not pursue occupations like medicine. Get back on your dinosaur and go back to your cave.

It's called Yin and Yang and it exists in nature in just about any species. This energy and traits are not something humans invented through socialization. Femininity is beautiful and essential to life, and it has nothing to do with being subservient, weak or powerless.

+2

PP is very misogynistic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with stereotypical American women is that they don't think they have anything to learn. From anyone. Ever.

Ironically
If you are familiar with history
Foreign women were not ashamed to march in NY and declare that in their home country women had the right to vote

You talking about a century ago when American women were more tolerable? I thought we were talking about present day women.

American women have way too much masculine energy. Very unappealing. And they're not even aware of it.

The wording might be offensive but this is probably the stereotypical impression that foreign men have of American women.
Not everyone obviously, but on average they seem to have more masculine energy (loud, talkative, opinionated, assertive, demanding, intimidating, big) compared to foreign women.

💯

But this is a good thing for women and American society. Women should not want to mold themselves into the male ideal if they end up quiet, docile, neutral beings with only their caretaking and sexual appeal to offer. How does that help women advance and secure their own place in society? That only helps men.

But why should women pretend to be/act like men in order to be respected and taken seriously. Women in America think we’ve won, but instead we still have to subjugate those feminine parts of ourselves. That’s not winning. The expectation here is that both men and women kowtow to patriarchal ideals like toughness, decisiveness, boldness etc - but we still hold traditionally feminine values and behaviors in low regard. Surely you see how sexist and misogynistic THAT is.

Femininity can't be decisive or bold? It has to be cloying, indirect, and simpering? Maybe you need to rethink what you believe "feminine" means.

There aren't other females of other species that act this way in the animal kingdom. That's pretty warped.

Why do you portray feminine traits in such contemptuous terms?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What this comment shows is a commitment to a view called Gender essentialism- which argues that men are one way organically (I.e. decisive, rational) and women are another way ( I.e. docile, peace loving, more compromising). This is a really outdated view that was used in the 1950s and 1960s to argue that women could never be army generals or president, etc. The main issue with this view is that it conflates all women together ( all women are this way) and it kind of awards all the good and fun qualities to men and essentially describes female qualities as second clas or those belonging to broken men ( ie men are rational and women are emotional).

It limits and hurts everyone to simplify this world in such a way that women are assumed not to be good at math and science, business leadership etc. It also hurts men by saying that they are not relational and good at social work etc.

It doesn’t make anyone a joyless harridan to point out how limiting this is. And it’s asinine to say that women should embrace their “femininity” and not pursue occupations like medicine. Get back on your dinosaur and go back to your cave.

It's called Yin and Yang and it exists in nature in just about any species. This energy and traits are not something humans invented through socialization. Femininity is beautiful and essential to life, and it has nothing to do with being subservient, weak or powerless.

Uh, yes they are. Male and female (and nonbinary) animals act differently in all species.

DP. What species has females that act as if they have less autonomy than the males -- other than how you want human women to act?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm starting to think that I'm supposed to feel crestfallen and ashamed that I don't get my chance to make myself small and without any interests or goals of my own, because otherwise I won't get one of those American men who is so rage-y against American women?

That's a raw deal. Never going to fall for that one. I'll take the men in my life who like me the way I am. That includes my dad, my brothers, their male friends, and of course, the love of my life. I'll be just fine, thanks.

---

(By the way, they are all American men, too.)

+1 Why does it seem like the loudest men in these conversations are all so douchey when there are so many wonderful men all around me?

If you aren't bringing much to the table, you can always yell about it as a distraction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with stereotypical American women is that they don't think they have anything to learn. From anyone. Ever.

Ironically
If you are familiar with history
Foreign women were not ashamed to march in NY and declare that in their home country women had the right to vote

You talking about a century ago when American women were more tolerable? I thought we were talking about present day women.

American women have way too much masculine energy. Very unappealing. And they're not even aware of it.

The wording might be offensive but this is probably the stereotypical impression that foreign men have of American women.
Not everyone obviously, but on average they seem to have more masculine energy (loud, talkative, opinionated, assertive, demanding, intimidating, big) compared to foreign women.

💯

But this is a good thing for women and American society. Women should not want to mold themselves into the male ideal if they end up quiet, docile, neutral beings with only their caretaking and sexual appeal to offer. How does that help women advance and secure their own place in society? That only helps men.

But why should women pretend to be/act like men in order to be respected and taken seriously. Women in America think we’ve won, but instead we still have to subjugate those feminine parts of ourselves. That’s not winning. The expectation here is that both men and women kowtow to patriarchal ideals like toughness, decisiveness, boldness etc - but we still hold traditionally feminine values and behaviors in low regard. Surely you see how sexist and misogynistic THAT is.

Femininity can't be decisive or bold? It has to be cloying, indirect, and simpering? Maybe you need to rethink what you believe "feminine" means.

There aren't other females of other species that act this way in the animal kingdom. That's pretty warped.

Why do you portray feminine traits in such contemptuous terms?

I don['t think those are feminine traits at all. You're the one making that claim.
Why do you elevate those traits?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, your premise is wrong.

A lot of men go look for foreign women because they can't find desperate enough high value women in the US to date. A lot of foreign women are desperate to come to the US, even if they live in Western Europe.

-signed an Asian American female.

This. The two guys I know who married women from second-world countries are aesthetically-challenged, to put it nicely. I’m sure one has never been on a date with an American woman. He’s now married with two kids. I hope, for his sake, that she sticks around after seven years are up.

The other relationship is a single mother with a teenager married to an American. Frankly, I have less hope for this relationship, but I do wish the guy the best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:American women are this way because of American men. And so then the men go outside the country looking for something better.

/Foreign-born woman

I agree.
To me the US is a very 'masculine' country (more is better, louder is better, bigger everything is better mentality) so it makes sense that men as well as women acquire the same traits growing up here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What this comment shows is a commitment to a view called Gender essentialism- which argues that men are one way organically (I.e. decisive, rational) and women are another way ( I.e. docile, peace loving, more compromising). This is a really outdated view that was used in the 1950s and 1960s to argue that women could never be army generals or president, etc. The main issue with this view is that it conflates all women together ( all women are this way) and it kind of awards all the good and fun qualities to men and essentially describes female qualities as second clas or those belonging to broken men ( ie men are rational and women are emotional).

It limits and hurts everyone to simplify this world in such a way that women are assumed not to be good at math and science, business leadership etc. It also hurts men by saying that they are not relational and good at social work etc.

It doesn’t make anyone a joyless harridan to point out how limiting this is. And it’s asinine to say that women should embrace their “femininity” and not pursue occupations like medicine. Get back on your dinosaur and go back to your cave.

It's called Yin and Yang and it exists in nature in just about any species. This energy and traits are not something humans invented through socialization. Femininity is beautiful and essential to life, and it has nothing to do with being subservient, weak or powerless.

Uh, yes they are. Male and female (and nonbinary) animals act differently in all species.

DP. What species has females that act as if they have less autonomy than the males -- other than how you want human women to act?

I didn't say they acted as though they had less autonomy, I just said they act differently in each species. While I support all gender expression, there is no biological "femininity" and gender is a social construct. But I imagine there are some animal species where females do act as though they have less autonomy than males. The animal kingdom is crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What this comment shows is a commitment to a view called Gender essentialism- which argues that men are one way organically (I.e. decisive, rational) and women are another way ( I.e. docile, peace loving, more compromising). This is a really outdated view that was used in the 1950s and 1960s to argue that women could never be army generals or president, etc. The main issue with this view is that it conflates all women together ( all women are this way) and it kind of awards all the good and fun qualities to men and essentially describes female qualities as second clas or those belonging to broken men ( ie men are rational and women are emotional).

It limits and hurts everyone to simplify this world in such a way that women are assumed not to be good at math and science, business leadership etc. It also hurts men by saying that they are not relational and good at social work etc.

It doesn’t make anyone a joyless harridan to point out how limiting this is. And it’s asinine to say that women should embrace their “femininity” and not pursue occupations like medicine. Get back on your dinosaur and go back to your cave.

It's called Yin and Yang and it exists in nature in just about any species. This energy and traits are not something humans invented through socialization. Femininity is beautiful and essential to life, and it has nothing to do with being subservient, weak or powerless.

Uh, yes they are. Male and female (and nonbinary) animals act differently in all species.

DP. What species has females that act as if they have less autonomy than the males -- other than how you want human women to act?

I didn't say they acted as though they had less autonomy, I just said they act differently in each species. While I support all gender expression, there is no biological "femininity" and gender is a social construct. But I imagine there are some animal species where females do act as though they have less autonomy than males. The animal kingdom is crazy.

So, as an outlier, wouldn't that sort of species be the exception that proves the rule?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Be nice, stay skinny, give your man lots of sex.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What this comment shows is a commitment to a view called Gender essentialism- which argues that men are one way organically (I.e. decisive, rational) and women are another way ( I.e. docile, peace loving, more compromising). This is a really outdated view that was used in the 1950s and 1960s to argue that women could never be army generals or president, etc. The main issue with this view is that it conflates all women together ( all women are this way) and it kind of awards all the good and fun qualities to men and essentially describes female qualities as second clas or those belonging to broken men ( ie men are rational and women are emotional).

It limits and hurts everyone to simplify this world in such a way that women are assumed not to be good at math and science, business leadership etc. It also hurts men by saying that they are not relational and good at social work etc.

It doesn’t make anyone a joyless harridan to point out how limiting this is. And it’s asinine to say that women should embrace their “femininity” and not pursue occupations like medicine. Get back on your dinosaur and go back to your cave.

It's called Yin and Yang and it exists in nature in just about any species. This energy and traits are not something humans invented through socialization. Femininity is beautiful and essential to life, and it has nothing to do with being subservient, weak or powerless.

Uh, yes they are. Male and female (and nonbinary) animals act differently in all species.

DP. What species has females that act as if they have less autonomy than the males -- other than how you want human women to act?

I didn't say they acted as though they had less autonomy, I just said they act differently in each species. While I support all gender expression, there is no biological "femininity" and gender is a social construct. But I imagine there are some animal species where females do act as though they have less autonomy than males. The animal kingdom is crazy.

So, as an outlier, wouldn't that sort of species be the exception that proves the rule?

I guess? I wasn't trying to make an argument about autonomy, though.