[eightpersimmons]

Absolutely - women sometimes internalize and participate in misogynistic and cruel behavior, and it can be hard to talk about.

I've seen this happen with the "fake geek girl" phenomenon - some women who feel that they are legitimate parts of the community participate in this kind of destructive policing because they've bought into the cultural misogyny and are often rewarded and have their status reinforced in their community.

On a much more damaging level, this happens with slut-shaming and sexual policing. One of the major factors in the recent suicides of teen rape victims was the rejection and shaming by their female peers.

[s_baby]

>Absolutely - women sometimes internalize and participate in misogynistic and cruel behavior, and it can be hard to talk about.

I think that's an understatement to say it only sometimes happens. From what I gather it's a part of almost every woman's life. Based on anecdotal data, while men are often a source of unintentional systematic sexism women are the more likely source of intentional malicious misogyny.

[philwelch]

Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? When women bully other women, it's because they're agents of the patriarchy?

[vacri]

'patriarchy' doesn't mean 'an active conspiracy of men; they meet on Tuesdays, bagels will be provided', it means something more along the lines of 'social structures designed/evolved to keep men on top'. Anyone can contribute to the structures, usually unwittingly.

[ucee054]

And that's bollocks, because social structures - including all the "Kinder, Küche, Kirche" stuff - evolved to keep the selfish gene on top.

They had the same sort of social structures in the middle ages, but if you were one of Queen Brunhilde's knights, how exactly were you on top? You were utterly expendable, Brunhilde was on top.

[shardling]

It doesn't sound ridiculous to me; perhaps you have a different conception about what the word patriarchy means in this context?

[eightpersimmons]

I'm honestly not sure what seems ridiculous to you. In these instances, the female bullies are acting out misogynistic discourses. Can you clarify what your sticking point is?

[philwelch]

And what do you call it when boys bully each other to enforce arbitrary social norms? Because I don't see a substantial difference between the two cases.

[shardling]

If you accept that our society suppresses women, it's pretty obvious what the difference is. One type of behavior directly reinforces the status quo, the other doesn't.[1]

And if you want to talk about societal problems, that's pretty bloody important! Yeah, both types of bullying feel just as shitty to the individual, but the broader ramifications are definitely different. Nothing is isolated.

If you disagree with the fundamental premise (society is sexist) that's a whole other issue, but you should be at least able to see why others see a distinction.

1. Keeping in mind that you seem to want to compare arbitrary bullying to the more specific type persimmons references.

[philwelch]

It still doesn't follow from the premise that "society suppresses women to the benefit of men" that "any time an individual woman is suppressed, it is to the benefit of men". How do men even benefit from social taboos enforced my women against other women being geeky, or for that matter, slutty? That's probably the opposite of what would benefit men.

Society is more complicated than that. There are more forces swirling around than patriarchy. Any insular group will eventually enforce arbitrary social norms on each other, and since people tend to socialize with those of the same sex, both genders form insular groups in our society.

[s_baby]

There is no difference. Both are patriarchal discourses if that's the lense you choose to use.

[ucee054]

No, they are not "acting out misogynistic discourses", they are being horrible people. And let's be clear that it is no fault at all of men.

By the way, "sexual policing" comes from sexual competition and evolutionary psychology, which comes from thinking with your ovaries instead of your brain. In much the same way idiot men's one-upmanship comes from thinking with the testicles.

[eightpersimmons]

The fact that people act out larger, structural systems of misogyny doesn't exonerate them. A person still has agency, and to say that they are acting out something that is part of a larger discourse doesn't mean that they are helpless puppets. Another thing to realize when talking about misogyny and structural injustice is that it isn't blaming any given individual - that's what makes it structural. It isn't a cabal of evil men with a maniacal plan forcing women down or a statement that all men are bad and oppressive, it's a deeply rooted system of oppression that lots of people propagate, knowingly or not, through stereotypes, legal injustice, inactivity, social policing, et cetera.

And I think you are too quick to write off people's actions as evolutionarily programmed - it's a somewhat ironic response, given your first complaint. Whether or not there is a biological instinct to compete sexually, the expression of that instinct is a product of social norms. Arguments for evolutionary psychology have a troublesome and pretty untenable tendency to ascribe a complex, culturally-specific, and socially enforced behavior to some magical mystery determinism gene. It's kind of a pet peeve of mine.

[philwelch]

Does it always bother you when people give uselessly reductive, empirically unsubstantiated pat explanations for incredibly complicated social behaviors, or only when they conflict with your own?