Men can be targeted by female bullying in the workplace too, and it can be even harder for men to combat because men are even more blind and unaccustomed to the tactics that some women use for this purpose. This is exacerbated by the fact that men are often more familiar and comfortable with openly expressing themselves in the face of conflict, which can be misconstrued as “aggressive” even if the women are the ones undertaking the aggression. In this context, women bullying men can become DARVO in an especially intense and exaggerated form. The cultural default assumption of males being aggressive and females being cooperative can thereby be exploited to devastating effect. I have heard of this happening to a number of men. It is also really hard to talk about due to prevailing cultural assumptions that I think really need to be reevaluated.
This is absolutely true for all the reasons you stated. Men are either blind to female aggression either because this is 'normal' women behaviour from their own parent modeling or denial about aggression because it is psychological and social rather than physical. Aggression in females through social exclusion, bullying, smear campaigns is a well known phenomenon during adolescence. There's a flawed assumption that girls 'grow out of it'. The high school mean girls just become the workplace bullies targeting anyone they view as a threat to their success. I agree that it's a big problem especially because men are assumed to be the aggressor and are not believed/mocked when they disclose abuse by women.
Yes, but not just "blind" to female aggression, but also unwilling to "play the game", so to speak. Professional men want to get on with the work at hand. The social manipulation, recruitment of allies, spreading of rumors, in short the "politics" of female workplace aggression/conflict is exhausting, unproductive, and the majority of professional men simply want to avoid participating. This, naturally, allows poorly behaved women to "win" these conflicts in the white collar workplace.
I’m starting to wonder if it’s a huge unacknowledged factor in why men historically excluded women from certain spaces. In effect to avoid female relational aggression style and how it men perceive to a sign of character weakness. Tell me what you think.
A common feminist trope is that men see women as “half-children”. If this true, I wonder if, in part, it’s due to men and women compete differently. Men trend toward task-based, open, and objectively measurable competition. Women trend toward more covert and subjective measures. In other words, fair vs. unfair competition. That’s precisely why European armies stood directly across from each other before battle. Guerrilla warfare was considered unfair and therefore dishonorable.
In harsher ye olde times, it follows that women would reputationally trash competition by any means, even with petty superficial stuff, in order to secure a high value male. But such behavior is out of place in the modern workplace where competition favors the masculine style.
Since women’s relational aggression style trends to nursing grudges, taking things more personally, hiding seething resentment beneath cordiality, and recruiting others to fight their personal battles, and pretending there is no hierarchy within groups -- I can see how some men dismissed women as childish. It’s all behavior contra the masculine competition/aggression style, and deemed weak in adult men.
Imagine an 18th century male member of parliament witnessing the women in his life competing in this manner. Add hormonal fluctuations to mix, and it’s not without some merit why, in part, many men believed women weren’t fit for government or the vote. If nothing else, female relational aggression style complicates the game -- one men aren’t as adept at playing.
I do not consider it a feminist lie that men see women as children. That is just straight up wisdom. Women might enter puberty a bit earlier then men, but they never seem to get out of it. The idea that women are children has to do with their behavior and way of thinking. Children are selfish, as they have not yet gained enough life experience and exposure to the "unseen" aspects of life, such as how much your family members had to sacrifice in order to make xyz happen when you were younger. The women that seem to "grow out of it" are the ones with parents that are ice cold gangsters and place the same expectations on their daughters as on their sons. No freebies, safety nets or other horseshit. There will be suffering one way or another if you want to get what you want. The ones that get preferential treatment end up with Peter Pan syndrome and always want a daddy or a mommy to get shit done for them. They are the ones that absolutely despise accountability and will do anything in their power to avoid it, and will do anything in their power to get what they want. Playing dirty is just part of playing the game. It is just a type of selfish, egocentric, narcissistic way to live life. Very much in line with what Nathalie wrote about how women just close their eyes and pretend the problems don't exist.
'A common feminist trope is that men see women as "half-children".'
I think the more common related trope from women, at least the married ones, is that they see their husbands as a "child" they need to take care of. That attitude is unlikely to benefit their marriage.
Very true. And claws seem to be longer when said male is somehow distinguished from his cohort.
I've noticed this in schools. Students who are disabled, but not disabled ENOUGH, become targets. The perps are the very women who are supposed to teach, assist, and support them.
I honestly don't understand why you get pushback, anyone with any life experience at all should well know that some women can be just as nasty as some men, they just express it differently.
Literary cancel culture is a huge example of this phenomenon of women bullying women. Their harassment of Elizabeth Gilbert last year was absolutely appalling.
I witnessed the backlash. It was very interesting to watch a much loved public figure known for helping people ignite creativity become accused of being a perpetrator.
This is an old comment, but the Elizabeth Gilbert thing can still get me going. What they did to her is just disgusting. On the plus side, though, I got in a life-altering level of trouble with a family member who kept pushing me to publish my old novel because she didn't believe literary cancel culture was as bad as I said it was. The Elizabeth Gilbert thing flagrantly demonstrates that literary cancel culture is even more messed up than I could have ever imagined. I feel vindicated because I have proof that they are real and they really are that bad.
None of these people have done anything that is actually illegal. I realized when I walked away from the fiction writing community in 2016, shortly before I turned 30, that the only thing the First Amendment of the United States Constitution guaranteed was that the US government wouldn't pile on if my local unhinged mob decided that they wanted to use their free speech to ruin my life. I don't know if it is possible to address something like this as a legal issue — laws won't do much if you don't have a culture willing to support them.
If I were a hotshot lawyer hoping to take this whole mess to some hypothetical Court of Feelings, though, my ideal plaintiff would not be 20-something Eva Sylwester, who was pretty young and immature during her time in the fiction writing community and contributed to some of her problems herself. My absolute dream plaintiff for the class action suit to end all class action suits would be Elizabeth Gilbert because her case was extremely clear and uncomplicated.
It's horrible in the arts because a lot of women have fooled themselves into believing they are magical spiritual fairy creatures, and individualism and success are prime indicators of male- behaviorleaning women. And male-leaning behavior women must be winnowed out at any cost.
Oh, wow, you just reminded me of something amazing: my fantasy of watching an epic brawl between Camille Paglia and Carter Heyward.
I found Heyward's book When Boundaries Betray Us at a used bookstore. Heyward, an Episcopal priest, sought counseling in the late 1980s and became obsessed with the idea that she and her therapist should become friends. The therapist, having been trained to avoid socializing with patients, refused and eventually terminated therapy. Heyward then wrote a book to prove that she was right and her therapist was wrong.
I think any reader of Nathalie Martinek's would find Heyward's book thrilling as an example of all the things Martinek regularly rails against — from the confident perspective that doing such things was right!
Anyway, Heyward was also openly lesbian, and her description of her social circle gives me an idea of why Paglia, who is two years younger than Heyward, often complained of difficulty getting along with lesbian social circles in that era.
The feminist/leftist movement has long gone after their elders for singling out so called bad behaviours. I have seen older feminist women drummed out of positions they created by attack mobs. Women tend to attack in groups too.
I witnessed the mental gymnastics performed regarding female violence. I worked with a young lesbian in her 20’s. She had 3 roommates, all young lesbians, 2 of which were involved as a couple. The couple had a volatile relationship, which culminated in one woman exploding in anger and punching the other, all this in front of the other 2 roommates. I was appalled and was worried about the victim of what seemed to me like clear domestic abuse. My co-worker didn’t see it that way, and had plenty of excuses for the behavior. I asked what she would think if the perpetrator was male instead of female. She had to pause and think before stating that it would be clear domestic violence. But since the puncher was a woman…it wasn’t abuse. Or violence.
Sadly unsurprising. Many lesbians will continue to associate violence with men only, often because they hate men and want to distance themselves and their tribe from negativity that they only want to believe men are capable of doing.
a) the idealization of women (along with the devaluation of men) hints at the split representation of objects; and
b) the professionally successful female narcissist may need to sabotage other female professionals, especially subordinates, as being that near-unique woman who achieved success ‘in a man’s corporate world’ could be foundational in her grandiose false self.
Both are excellent points. Success in a man's world is a badge of honour that conveniently ignores that playing dirty isn't exactly how men compete in the corporate world (unless they're narcissists).
Regarding your comment about women ‘displaying Alpha male characteristics that are more respected’….when I have seen women bullies they don’t ever display Alpha male traits. A true Alpha can deal equally well with lawyers, finance people, investors (if needed), politicians, underlings, labourers…all the way down to the dishwasher or janitor. And feel perfectly comfortable sitting on a box at a job site eating a Big Mac or a pizza with the guys, or having a $100 lunch with a B’aire investor. Maybe during Mad Men days an Alpha was a bully, but I doubt it. Certainly not the case now. The Alpha is the one people look to for decisions. His confidence settles people and causes them to rise up and perform well.
Case in point. I was watching Sunak and Truss debating to see who would become the head of the UK Conservatives, as Boris had stepped down. Making whoever won the runoff the PM. During the debate the moderator collapsed on camera. (A likely Pfizer Pflop). Liz Truss stepped forward, stepped back, looked worried. She clearly had no idea what to do. It was pathetic. She dithered and couldn’t make a decision. I thought ‘this woman can’t become PM. She can’t make decisions.’ An Alpha, if there had been one would have been taking charge and making decisions. And everyone would naturally follow them. Alphas are NOT obnoxious or usually even outwardly aggressive. They are not feared.
B) This doesn’t seem dissimilar to male behavior as well. In the absence of “old school” male behavior, I’d guess this dominates in many social constructs.
Thank you Rooster! Male vs female aggression does have overlap but women's aggression can be covert and subtle before it becomes as obvious as old school male dominance behaviours.
I actually chickened out (god, that was horrible). When I read it, I was shocked because I checked the box on all eight items as having happened to me except it was almost exclusively by males. But then I felt embarrassment and anxiety and I don’t want to keep connecting things back to my own experiences. Except it’s finally being able to understand that I’m not alone in my experiences that have drawn me to your work.
So I should’ve just said, “that’s what happened to me, only it was all dudes. And I didn’t know what to do because I’ve never experienced guys acting like that and it felt really emasculating and humiliating and helpless.”
Those emasculating dudes were always the problem, projecting their self loathing all over you. You have the courage now to acknowledge what's happened to you and knowledge that you're far from being alone in this. I also write from my own experience that I have analysed to death and that no longer angers me. I feel detachment that it requires effort to recall details that felt so overwhelming and scary at the time I was experiencing them. Adolescent male aggression have been overlooked because adolescent female aggression 'mean girls' are more overt and seem like a bigger issue. This seems to flip during adulthood.
Overall, the stats show that the largest proportion of reported bullying is still men on men. Unfortunately Rooster, you're far from being alone but denial can still be strong among men to save face and protect the fraternity.
I wish you hadn’t gone through that, but it’s a testament to your character that you’ve confronted those experiences and repurposed them into a unique field of expertise.
When my youngest, now 36, was young I had a serious enough car accident that for a number of years I stopped working. During that time he and I hung out together a lot. A wonderful time for me actually. Other than all the pain. We used to go to the park and play. Lots of fun. Me and about eight cute Moms every day! And the kids. I saw this scene play out 100s of times. Groups of little girls. One alpha, three subs, and one little girl being ostracized. The one being ostracized would change. Each of the subs would get her turn. They were devastated. The Alpha stayed Alpha though. Usually the Alpha’s best friend would not be circulated out, but the other ones would be. This went on in every park, with every group. It was brutal watching one little girl be excluded and to watch her be horrified. This sort of Alpha with a small support group I began to see in adults. Which, being a guy, I had never seen before. A mean girl is somewhat harder to deal with because she works in groups. But attacks an individual with her group.
Wow Mystic William, you're describing exactly what happened to me during adolescence with my 'friends'. Alpha girl never changed, her passive, quiet best friend who lived across the street from her was always protected and the rest of us 3 were circulated as targets. Yes I participated in the exclusion of one of them and the I learned the lesson of not doing that real fast when they all started a burn book about me and brought in the entire class to target me. It all ended when I violently and repeatedly yanked the artist friend's hair as she was adding to the book sitting on front of me in class, so the back of her head kept hitting the front of my desk. No one fucked with me again after that.
Girls who get away with that behaviour grow into women who continue to bully others. Age doesn't correlate with maturity and these women won't stop until a larger force/authority exposes and holds them to account.
Thank you for your observations - it's a history that plays everywhere!
Our society lacks female archetypes. We have Madonna, Mother Mary, and we have the Whore. Other societies had Medea, the Scold, the Shrew, Kali, Durga etc. other societies Goddess them, or archetype them. We idolize Mother Mary and sort of weirdly idolize the Sex Bomb. The rest though we don’t have an answer for.
I think melting pot culture has swallowed archetypes into invisibility - the Crone is one that resonates with me but has less appeal to women who suffer from Shiny Object Syndrome. Thankfully we can turn to other traditions (which I do) to connect with archetypes like Kali and Narayani to guide our way.
My wife, when she was little, went through that. When she was in elementary school, she got so frustrated and was so embarrassed that she beat the living sh*t out of the alpha mean girl.
She told me about it years later while we were still in high school. I’d noticed that none of the other girls were catty around her, but also she didn’t act like a mean girl. She told me something that’s so brilliant because it’s said by one of us while we’re still figuring out the world:
“When you don’t know the rules, you look for solutions.”
That must have been awful and I’m so glad you are sharing the experience. It’s great to be in conversation with others interested in learning and supporting each other.
Absolutely Janedra! I kept it broad and general because when I contemplated adding a racial dominance lens, I would have also needed to include other intersections and contexts, making it more complicated than I wanted. It's great though that you can apply this to a racialised situation.
White women bullying WoC is a thing. But skinfolk ain’t necessarily your kinfolk. WoC target other WoC -- and not just in White dominant spaces. White women and WoC sometimes team up against another woman. Aging women target younger women. So on and son.
Seems like bullying just occurs at every power imbalance.
Yes, power imbalances are the key. Here's what I struggle with, when we have this conversation without context (the individual situation) and without a discussion of the social hierarchy that we're socialized to adhere to in America. There are deep rooted reasons for 'skinfolk ain't necessarily your kinfolk' that Harriet herself struggled with.
I was absolutely thinking of the racialized component. The woman on woman aggression I've seen between women of color is what came up for me, in particular. There are also unique dynamics pertaining to deniers/flying monkeys--who themselves are either WOC or White. I enjoyed reading this!!
Thank you so much Rupi for reading it! I had a feeling it would conjure up images of WOC on WOC aggression and denial. It opens the seemingly taboo conversation about whether intersectionality is always relevant when speaking about WoW aggressions vs class and assimilation privilege.
I agree that it's a taboo subject. And I wonder what it is rooted in. There's the basic that WOC are women, therefore have competitive instincts because their human. I've done some research around "The Sojourner Syndrome" and the "Superwoman Syndrome" that talks about the societal expectation that Black women are required to be nurturing and caregiving, with the projection being the selfless mother figure with no ambitions of her own.
Along these lines , there was something that surprised me; in my social group when one woman had been the victim of SA and other women in the group either shamed her or played-down the severity of the thing. I thought this was weird and cruel .To be clear the assault had been real. I don't get it, especially since it was a man did the assault. Why weren't they against him more than her?
It’s a good question with a complex response that I’ll address in another piece on why women shame women of sexual abuse rather than direct their vitriol at the male abuser. Overall, these women unconsciously protect the protector. They align with the protector, the man, even though he’s harmful.
It happened to me recently and I found myself excusing the woman instinctively, even wondering if it’s my fault. Perhaps it’s the people-pleaser’s urge to explain away hidden aggression.
This makes sense when you consider systems justification theory. We tend to want to ignore the bad things 'our people' do so we never have to admit we belong to a toxic order. If we disapprove of their behaviour, we're guilty by association. Better to distance ourselves from believing their behaviour, therefore ours, is bad in order to belong.
Are we still treating women as an identity group? Are we treating women as a social construct? Does this include trans women? Are we treating women as individuals? Are we doing all four at one time?
I have also noticed the depressing trend of clearly abused people defending their childhood abusers actions as justified and even blaming themselves for it.
Truly harrowing stuff right out of a psychological horror film.
It is depressing. It’s the internalised voice of the abuser and conditioned shame responses that prompt victims of abuse to punish themselves in order to protect their abusers from the abusers actions. I think the words here are ‘it’s fucked’.
Men can be targeted by female bullying in the workplace too, and it can be even harder for men to combat because men are even more blind and unaccustomed to the tactics that some women use for this purpose. This is exacerbated by the fact that men are often more familiar and comfortable with openly expressing themselves in the face of conflict, which can be misconstrued as “aggressive” even if the women are the ones undertaking the aggression. In this context, women bullying men can become DARVO in an especially intense and exaggerated form. The cultural default assumption of males being aggressive and females being cooperative can thereby be exploited to devastating effect. I have heard of this happening to a number of men. It is also really hard to talk about due to prevailing cultural assumptions that I think really need to be reevaluated.
This is absolutely true for all the reasons you stated. Men are either blind to female aggression either because this is 'normal' women behaviour from their own parent modeling or denial about aggression because it is psychological and social rather than physical. Aggression in females through social exclusion, bullying, smear campaigns is a well known phenomenon during adolescence. There's a flawed assumption that girls 'grow out of it'. The high school mean girls just become the workplace bullies targeting anyone they view as a threat to their success. I agree that it's a big problem especially because men are assumed to be the aggressor and are not believed/mocked when they disclose abuse by women.
Yes, but not just "blind" to female aggression, but also unwilling to "play the game", so to speak. Professional men want to get on with the work at hand. The social manipulation, recruitment of allies, spreading of rumors, in short the "politics" of female workplace aggression/conflict is exhausting, unproductive, and the majority of professional men simply want to avoid participating. This, naturally, allows poorly behaved women to "win" these conflicts in the white collar workplace.
I’m starting to wonder if it’s a huge unacknowledged factor in why men historically excluded women from certain spaces. In effect to avoid female relational aggression style and how it men perceive to a sign of character weakness. Tell me what you think.
A common feminist trope is that men see women as “half-children”. If this true, I wonder if, in part, it’s due to men and women compete differently. Men trend toward task-based, open, and objectively measurable competition. Women trend toward more covert and subjective measures. In other words, fair vs. unfair competition. That’s precisely why European armies stood directly across from each other before battle. Guerrilla warfare was considered unfair and therefore dishonorable.
In harsher ye olde times, it follows that women would reputationally trash competition by any means, even with petty superficial stuff, in order to secure a high value male. But such behavior is out of place in the modern workplace where competition favors the masculine style.
Since women’s relational aggression style trends to nursing grudges, taking things more personally, hiding seething resentment beneath cordiality, and recruiting others to fight their personal battles, and pretending there is no hierarchy within groups -- I can see how some men dismissed women as childish. It’s all behavior contra the masculine competition/aggression style, and deemed weak in adult men.
Imagine an 18th century male member of parliament witnessing the women in his life competing in this manner. Add hormonal fluctuations to mix, and it’s not without some merit why, in part, many men believed women weren’t fit for government or the vote. If nothing else, female relational aggression style complicates the game -- one men aren’t as adept at playing.
I do not consider it a feminist lie that men see women as children. That is just straight up wisdom. Women might enter puberty a bit earlier then men, but they never seem to get out of it. The idea that women are children has to do with their behavior and way of thinking. Children are selfish, as they have not yet gained enough life experience and exposure to the "unseen" aspects of life, such as how much your family members had to sacrifice in order to make xyz happen when you were younger. The women that seem to "grow out of it" are the ones with parents that are ice cold gangsters and place the same expectations on their daughters as on their sons. No freebies, safety nets or other horseshit. There will be suffering one way or another if you want to get what you want. The ones that get preferential treatment end up with Peter Pan syndrome and always want a daddy or a mommy to get shit done for them. They are the ones that absolutely despise accountability and will do anything in their power to avoid it, and will do anything in their power to get what they want. Playing dirty is just part of playing the game. It is just a type of selfish, egocentric, narcissistic way to live life. Very much in line with what Nathalie wrote about how women just close their eyes and pretend the problems don't exist.
'A common feminist trope is that men see women as "half-children".'
I think the more common related trope from women, at least the married ones, is that they see their husbands as a "child" they need to take care of. That attitude is unlikely to benefit their marriage.
This is all very true. Men favor fair competition. Outcomes that can objectively measured toward a standard.
Very true. And claws seem to be longer when said male is somehow distinguished from his cohort.
I've noticed this in schools. Students who are disabled, but not disabled ENOUGH, become targets. The perps are the very women who are supposed to teach, assist, and support them.
I honestly don't understand why you get pushback, anyone with any life experience at all should well know that some women can be just as nasty as some men, they just express it differently.
Some women like to deny reality to stop them from examining themselves.
True.
Some people think the movie Mean Girls, wasn't based on life experience
Literary cancel culture is a huge example of this phenomenon of women bullying women. Their harassment of Elizabeth Gilbert last year was absolutely appalling.
https://open.substack.com/pub/astrologybooks/p/happy-birthday-elizabeth-gilbert?r=rzj4n&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I witnessed the backlash. It was very interesting to watch a much loved public figure known for helping people ignite creativity become accused of being a perpetrator.
This is an old comment, but the Elizabeth Gilbert thing can still get me going. What they did to her is just disgusting. On the plus side, though, I got in a life-altering level of trouble with a family member who kept pushing me to publish my old novel because she didn't believe literary cancel culture was as bad as I said it was. The Elizabeth Gilbert thing flagrantly demonstrates that literary cancel culture is even more messed up than I could have ever imagined. I feel vindicated because I have proof that they are real and they really are that bad.
None of these people have done anything that is actually illegal. I realized when I walked away from the fiction writing community in 2016, shortly before I turned 30, that the only thing the First Amendment of the United States Constitution guaranteed was that the US government wouldn't pile on if my local unhinged mob decided that they wanted to use their free speech to ruin my life. I don't know if it is possible to address something like this as a legal issue — laws won't do much if you don't have a culture willing to support them.
If I were a hotshot lawyer hoping to take this whole mess to some hypothetical Court of Feelings, though, my ideal plaintiff would not be 20-something Eva Sylwester, who was pretty young and immature during her time in the fiction writing community and contributed to some of her problems herself. My absolute dream plaintiff for the class action suit to end all class action suits would be Elizabeth Gilbert because her case was extremely clear and uncomplicated.
I wound up expanding this comment into a giant rant on my own Substack. Thanks for the inspiration!
https://astrologybooks.substack.com/p/a-law-written-in-tears?r=rzj4n
It's horrible in the arts because a lot of women have fooled themselves into believing they are magical spiritual fairy creatures, and individualism and success are prime indicators of male- behaviorleaning women. And male-leaning behavior women must be winnowed out at any cost.
Reminds me of Camille Paglia -- she could be described as a woman with male-leaning behavior, and she took a lot of flak for it.
I just discovered her recently. Instantly liked her. Also, instantly knew without being told she was horribly bullied by other women.
Oh, wow, you just reminded me of something amazing: my fantasy of watching an epic brawl between Camille Paglia and Carter Heyward.
I found Heyward's book When Boundaries Betray Us at a used bookstore. Heyward, an Episcopal priest, sought counseling in the late 1980s and became obsessed with the idea that she and her therapist should become friends. The therapist, having been trained to avoid socializing with patients, refused and eventually terminated therapy. Heyward then wrote a book to prove that she was right and her therapist was wrong.
I reviewed the book on my Substack: https://astrologybooks.substack.com/p/weekend-entertainment-guide-92024
I think any reader of Nathalie Martinek's would find Heyward's book thrilling as an example of all the things Martinek regularly rails against — from the confident perspective that doing such things was right!
Anyway, Heyward was also openly lesbian, and her description of her social circle gives me an idea of why Paglia, who is two years younger than Heyward, often complained of difficulty getting along with lesbian social circles in that era.
The feminist/leftist movement has long gone after their elders for singling out so called bad behaviours. I have seen older feminist women drummed out of positions they created by attack mobs. Women tend to attack in groups too.
This 10000X
I witnessed the mental gymnastics performed regarding female violence. I worked with a young lesbian in her 20’s. She had 3 roommates, all young lesbians, 2 of which were involved as a couple. The couple had a volatile relationship, which culminated in one woman exploding in anger and punching the other, all this in front of the other 2 roommates. I was appalled and was worried about the victim of what seemed to me like clear domestic abuse. My co-worker didn’t see it that way, and had plenty of excuses for the behavior. I asked what she would think if the perpetrator was male instead of female. She had to pause and think before stating that it would be clear domestic violence. But since the puncher was a woman…it wasn’t abuse. Or violence.
Sadly unsurprising. Many lesbians will continue to associate violence with men only, often because they hate men and want to distance themselves and their tribe from negativity that they only want to believe men are capable of doing.
Two thoughts:
a) the idealization of women (along with the devaluation of men) hints at the split representation of objects; and
b) the professionally successful female narcissist may need to sabotage other female professionals, especially subordinates, as being that near-unique woman who achieved success ‘in a man’s corporate world’ could be foundational in her grandiose false self.
Both are excellent points. Success in a man's world is a badge of honour that conveniently ignores that playing dirty isn't exactly how men compete in the corporate world (unless they're narcissists).
Thank you. There is lots of woman-on-man aggression, too.
Regarding your comment about women ‘displaying Alpha male characteristics that are more respected’….when I have seen women bullies they don’t ever display Alpha male traits. A true Alpha can deal equally well with lawyers, finance people, investors (if needed), politicians, underlings, labourers…all the way down to the dishwasher or janitor. And feel perfectly comfortable sitting on a box at a job site eating a Big Mac or a pizza with the guys, or having a $100 lunch with a B’aire investor. Maybe during Mad Men days an Alpha was a bully, but I doubt it. Certainly not the case now. The Alpha is the one people look to for decisions. His confidence settles people and causes them to rise up and perform well.
Case in point. I was watching Sunak and Truss debating to see who would become the head of the UK Conservatives, as Boris had stepped down. Making whoever won the runoff the PM. During the debate the moderator collapsed on camera. (A likely Pfizer Pflop). Liz Truss stepped forward, stepped back, looked worried. She clearly had no idea what to do. It was pathetic. She dithered and couldn’t make a decision. I thought ‘this woman can’t become PM. She can’t make decisions.’ An Alpha, if there had been one would have been taking charge and making decisions. And everyone would naturally follow them. Alphas are NOT obnoxious or usually even outwardly aggressive. They are not feared.
A) This was great
B) This doesn’t seem dissimilar to male behavior as well. In the absence of “old school” male behavior, I’d guess this dominates in many social constructs.
Thank you Rooster! Male vs female aggression does have overlap but women's aggression can be covert and subtle before it becomes as obvious as old school male dominance behaviours.
The covert part is one aspect that can make it particularly difficult to deal with.
Ah, okay. 🙂
I actually chickened out (god, that was horrible). When I read it, I was shocked because I checked the box on all eight items as having happened to me except it was almost exclusively by males. But then I felt embarrassment and anxiety and I don’t want to keep connecting things back to my own experiences. Except it’s finally being able to understand that I’m not alone in my experiences that have drawn me to your work.
So I should’ve just said, “that’s what happened to me, only it was all dudes. And I didn’t know what to do because I’ve never experienced guys acting like that and it felt really emasculating and humiliating and helpless.”
Those emasculating dudes were always the problem, projecting their self loathing all over you. You have the courage now to acknowledge what's happened to you and knowledge that you're far from being alone in this. I also write from my own experience that I have analysed to death and that no longer angers me. I feel detachment that it requires effort to recall details that felt so overwhelming and scary at the time I was experiencing them. Adolescent male aggression have been overlooked because adolescent female aggression 'mean girls' are more overt and seem like a bigger issue. This seems to flip during adulthood.
Overall, the stats show that the largest proportion of reported bullying is still men on men. Unfortunately Rooster, you're far from being alone but denial can still be strong among men to save face and protect the fraternity.
I appreciate you sharing that! 😊
I wish you hadn’t gone through that, but it’s a testament to your character that you’ve confronted those experiences and repurposed them into a unique field of expertise.
When my youngest, now 36, was young I had a serious enough car accident that for a number of years I stopped working. During that time he and I hung out together a lot. A wonderful time for me actually. Other than all the pain. We used to go to the park and play. Lots of fun. Me and about eight cute Moms every day! And the kids. I saw this scene play out 100s of times. Groups of little girls. One alpha, three subs, and one little girl being ostracized. The one being ostracized would change. Each of the subs would get her turn. They were devastated. The Alpha stayed Alpha though. Usually the Alpha’s best friend would not be circulated out, but the other ones would be. This went on in every park, with every group. It was brutal watching one little girl be excluded and to watch her be horrified. This sort of Alpha with a small support group I began to see in adults. Which, being a guy, I had never seen before. A mean girl is somewhat harder to deal with because she works in groups. But attacks an individual with her group.
Wow Mystic William, you're describing exactly what happened to me during adolescence with my 'friends'. Alpha girl never changed, her passive, quiet best friend who lived across the street from her was always protected and the rest of us 3 were circulated as targets. Yes I participated in the exclusion of one of them and the I learned the lesson of not doing that real fast when they all started a burn book about me and brought in the entire class to target me. It all ended when I violently and repeatedly yanked the artist friend's hair as she was adding to the book sitting on front of me in class, so the back of her head kept hitting the front of my desk. No one fucked with me again after that.
Girls who get away with that behaviour grow into women who continue to bully others. Age doesn't correlate with maturity and these women won't stop until a larger force/authority exposes and holds them to account.
Thank you for your observations - it's a history that plays everywhere!
Our society lacks female archetypes. We have Madonna, Mother Mary, and we have the Whore. Other societies had Medea, the Scold, the Shrew, Kali, Durga etc. other societies Goddess them, or archetype them. We idolize Mother Mary and sort of weirdly idolize the Sex Bomb. The rest though we don’t have an answer for.
I think melting pot culture has swallowed archetypes into invisibility - the Crone is one that resonates with me but has less appeal to women who suffer from Shiny Object Syndrome. Thankfully we can turn to other traditions (which I do) to connect with archetypes like Kali and Narayani to guide our way.
Wow, that’s a REALLY good example, Bud.
My wife, when she was little, went through that. When she was in elementary school, she got so frustrated and was so embarrassed that she beat the living sh*t out of the alpha mean girl.
Yet she got in so much trouble.
It came to define who she is - both good and bad.
I love this story. The alpha getting her comeuppance brought me joy.
She told me about it years later while we were still in high school. I’d noticed that none of the other girls were catty around her, but also she didn’t act like a mean girl. She told me something that’s so brilliant because it’s said by one of us while we’re still figuring out the world:
“When you don’t know the rules, you look for solutions.”
That must have been awful and I’m so glad you are sharing the experience. It’s great to be in conversation with others interested in learning and supporting each other.
That’s very kind of you to say, Lee. Thank You!
This dynamic is so true. It can be racialized as well, the "Pet to Threat" dynamic.
Absolutely Janedra! I kept it broad and general because when I contemplated adding a racial dominance lens, I would have also needed to include other intersections and contexts, making it more complicated than I wanted. It's great though that you can apply this to a racialised situation.
White women bullying WoC is a thing. But skinfolk ain’t necessarily your kinfolk. WoC target other WoC -- and not just in White dominant spaces. White women and WoC sometimes team up against another woman. Aging women target younger women. So on and son.
Seems like bullying just occurs at every power imbalance.
Yes, power imbalances are the key. Here's what I struggle with, when we have this conversation without context (the individual situation) and without a discussion of the social hierarchy that we're socialized to adhere to in America. There are deep rooted reasons for 'skinfolk ain't necessarily your kinfolk' that Harriet herself struggled with.
I was absolutely thinking of the racialized component. The woman on woman aggression I've seen between women of color is what came up for me, in particular. There are also unique dynamics pertaining to deniers/flying monkeys--who themselves are either WOC or White. I enjoyed reading this!!
Thank you so much Rupi for reading it! I had a feeling it would conjure up images of WOC on WOC aggression and denial. It opens the seemingly taboo conversation about whether intersectionality is always relevant when speaking about WoW aggressions vs class and assimilation privilege.
I agree that it's a taboo subject. And I wonder what it is rooted in. There's the basic that WOC are women, therefore have competitive instincts because their human. I've done some research around "The Sojourner Syndrome" and the "Superwoman Syndrome" that talks about the societal expectation that Black women are required to be nurturing and caregiving, with the projection being the selfless mother figure with no ambitions of her own.
I'm curious, what do you think was at play between the WOC?
Along these lines , there was something that surprised me; in my social group when one woman had been the victim of SA and other women in the group either shamed her or played-down the severity of the thing. I thought this was weird and cruel .To be clear the assault had been real. I don't get it, especially since it was a man did the assault. Why weren't they against him more than her?
It’s a good question with a complex response that I’ll address in another piece on why women shame women of sexual abuse rather than direct their vitriol at the male abuser. Overall, these women unconsciously protect the protector. They align with the protector, the man, even though he’s harmful.
"Women are Wonderful" effect
Aren’t we though? 😂
It happened to me recently and I found myself excusing the woman instinctively, even wondering if it’s my fault. Perhaps it’s the people-pleaser’s urge to explain away hidden aggression.
This makes sense when you consider systems justification theory. We tend to want to ignore the bad things 'our people' do so we never have to admit we belong to a toxic order. If we disapprove of their behaviour, we're guilty by association. Better to distance ourselves from believing their behaviour, therefore ours, is bad in order to belong.
I am not terribly interested in why, although I will wager that a lot are.
I just want women to stop.
I think I favor male aggression so much more. Good gut punch and you are done.
Women go after each other in humiliating and devious ways, not the least of which is the plot called: “I made a mess — you clean it up!”
Female competition style can be ruthless and covert making us prefer masculine forms of violence so we know where they stand!
Wait. I'm confused.
Are we still treating women as an identity group? Are we treating women as a social construct? Does this include trans women? Are we treating women as individuals? Are we doing all four at one time?
I can't keep up & going to sit this one out.
I'll make it easy for you. Human adult females.
But still as a group. No?
Phew. Thank you 🙏...
I have also noticed the depressing trend of clearly abused people defending their childhood abusers actions as justified and even blaming themselves for it.
Truly harrowing stuff right out of a psychological horror film.
It is depressing. It’s the internalised voice of the abuser and conditioned shame responses that prompt victims of abuse to punish themselves in order to protect their abusers from the abusers actions. I think the words here are ‘it’s fucked’.