Feminism versus Aggressive Behavior

Feminists are united in their abhorrence of aggressive behavior, specifically when it is on the part of any member of the male gender, and directed at any member of the female gender.

For example, Danica Johnson wrote:

Sexual Harassment at Work Shouldn’t Be Your Reality

Before we can think about whether or not we’ve ever experienced sexual harassment in the workplace, we need to become familiar with different definitions of sexual harassment and the fact that it comes in different forms.

 The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) describes sexual harassment as a form of gender discrimination that is in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

 But what does that mean exactly?

 Sexual harassment is intimidation of a sexual nature. It is any type of unwelcome sexual advance, from a crude joke to aggressive sexual bullying (physical, verbal, or both).

The two most commonly recognized types of sexual harassment are what we call quid pro quo and hostile work environment.

Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment is, essentially, when someone at your job tells you that they will fire you or inflict other negative consequences on you (such as holding back salary increases, promotions, shift, or work assignments) if you will not have sex with them or perform a sexual favor for them. The Latin, of course, translates to: This for that.

Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment, on the other hand, is the creation of an antagonistic environment, expressed in sexual terms. This might include statements of a sexual nature expressed by coworkers and/or supervisors, comments made about your appearance, staring in a suggestive manner, inappropriate touching, or even the presentation of pornography in the workplace. It’s any form of sexually inappropriate behavior that makes being at work feel uncomfortable....

...While this type of discrimination affects all genders, it is overwhelmingly inflicted upon females and is extremely effective at keeping women out of lucrative jobs....

...Sexual harassment is most common in low-wage jobs, workplaces staffed primarily by young employees (such as restaurants), and vocations where the vast majority of the workforce (or management) is made up of men....

...However, sexual harassment and discrimination on Wall Street and in other high-power industries is rampant as well....

Of course, "sexual harassment" is a form or manifestation of "sexual objectification", which, as discussed in my opening post, just means whatever the Hell a Feminist wants it to mean.  It merely signifies that the Feminist objects to something, and she is transferring her experience to the perpetrator, to accuse him of doing, saying, or thinking something to which she objects.  Linda LeMoncheck points out:

...the process of sexual harassment is a dialectical one, given the ways in which sexual harassment shifts in meaning and interpretation.  In addition, it is importantly dialectical in virtue of the sexually harassed victim herself.  Because many harassed women who live under patriarchal constraints are resisting those constraints, I believe it is useful to understand the metaphysics of men's sexual harassment of women in terms of a dialectic between the gender politics of women's sexual objectification and the political liberation of women's sexuality.  In short, women are both the objects and the subjects of their experience of sexual harassment...

Miss LeMoncheck doesn't deploy the standard Feminist dodge of using the third-person-plural pronoun to avoid gender specificity, nor the cowardly passive voice.  It is men who harass women sexually.  And, the meaning is entirely up to the woman.  The woman is both the object and the subject of her experience of sexual harassment.  The interpretation is completely hers.  Which means that a woman possesses an extremely powerful weapon, utterly at her disposal.  The United Nations maintains a rather long list (which is by no means intended to be a comprehensive inventory) of things that "sexual harassment" comprises: a variety of offenses from rape, to giving a neck massage, to touching someone, to looking at someone, to standing too close or brushing up against someone.  It is entirely at the the woman's discretion to decide whether she has experienced sexual harassment.  She is both the object and the subject of the experience.  One salient example: Adria Richards and Donglegate.

If a Feminist is listening in on your conversation and considers the discussion to have taken even a mildly risqué turn, then she can get you removed from a building, and even get your ass fired.  That's all it takes.  As mentioned in my earlier post Sexual Objectification in the Military, even the Defense Department has clamped down especially hard on male sexuality, particularly over the past 18 years, and is concocting justifications to suppress male sexuality even further.  By now, the men have already got the message:  a man who holds a door open for a Feminist can get fired (and, possibly at some point in the future, arrested) if the Feminist feels that she is experiencing "sexual harassment" as a result of his holding the door for her.  A man who doesn't hold a door for a Feminist can get fired if the Feminist feels that she is experiencing "sexual harassment" as a result of his not holding the door for her.  Approaching a door in the proximity of a woman may be a man's most perilous adventure during the course of a day.  We already know very well that we must do our utmost to elude eye contact in such situations, and certainly to avoid gazing in her direction.  Keeping the eyes focused on the floor or wall is the safest strategy.

We are all keenly aware that it just doesn't work the other way around.  People who ascend to supervisory positions (especially in government bureaucracies, but elsewhere as well) tend to be depraved narcissists to begin with.  A male supervisor who tries to bully a female subordinate (or other female employee) just isn't going to succeed, particularly with all of the tools in the Feminist arsenal.  Suffering the opprobrium of other employees for bullying a woman will be the least of his worries.  It is extremely dangerous for a man to bully a woman.  But, God help anyone whom a woman decides to bully in a workplace.  Especially if her target a man.  Harassment and discrimination laws just don't apply when a woman is the perpetrator.  If a woman bullies and intimidates a male subordinate, and pushes him out of his job, then the woman will not only be protected, but other female employees will unabashedly admire and visibly respect her for her manifest "toughness."  She can even get away with mocking a male subordinate's disability.  A female in a workplace is absolutely invulnerable, with one exception: she can only be done it by another higher-ranking female (whether ranked formally or informally). 

Samantha Brick was quite naïve when she imagined that she could produce a utopic conflict-free workplace by employing only women:

Catfights over handbags and tears in the toilets. When this producer launched a women-only TV company she thought she'd kissed goodbye to conflict...

Over in one corner sat Alice, a strong-minded 27-year-old who always said what she thought, regardless of how much it might hurt someone else. In the other corner was Sarah, a thirty-something high-flier who would stand up for herself momentarily - then burst into tears and run for the ladies.

Their simmering fight lasted hours, egged on by spectators taking sides and fuelling the anger. Sometimes other girls would join in, either heckling aggressively or huddling defensively in the toilets. It might sound like a scene from a tawdry reality show such as Big Brother, but the truth is a little more prosaic: it was just a normal morning in my office.

The venomous women were supposedly the talented employees I had headhunted to achieve my utopian dream - a female- only company with happy, harmonious workers benefiting from an absence of men.

It was an idealistic vision swiftly shattered by the nightmare reality: constant bitchiness, surging hormones, unchecked emotion, attention-seeking and fashion rivalry so fierce it tore my staff apart.

When I read the other day that Sienna Miller had said there was no such thing as 'the Sisterhood', I knew what she meant.

I can understand why people want to believe that women look out for each other - because with men in power at work and in politics, it makes sense for us to stick together.

In fact, there was a time when I believed in the Sisterhood - but that was before women at war led to my emotional and financial ruin.

Five years ago, I was working as a TV executive producer making shows for top channels such as MTV, and based in Los Angeles. It sounds like a dream job and it could have been - if I'd been male.

Working in TV is notoriously difficult for women. There is a powerful old boys' network, robust glass ceiling and the majority of bosses are misogynistic males.

Gradually, what had started out as a daydream - wouldn't it be great if there were no men where I worked? - turned into an exciting concept. I decided to create the first all-female production company where smart, intelligent, career-orientated women could work harmoniously, free from the bravado of the opposite sex.

In hindsight, I should have learned the lessons of my past - at my mixed secondary school I was bullied by a gang of nasty, name-calling girls, so I knew only too well how nasty groups of women could become.

And working in TV, I'd met lots of super-competitive 'door-slammers' who'd do anything to get to the top. But I told myself that, with the right women, work could be wonderful.

So, in April 2005, I left my job, remortgaged my house - freeing up close to £100,000 - and began paying myself just £700 a month to set up this utopian business. Having worked extremely hard for 12 years, I had lots of experience and a good reputation. What could go wrong?

Picking my battles

I hired a team of seven staff and set up an office in Richmond upon Thames, Surrey. While the women I interviewed claimed to be enthused by the idea, they still insisted on high salaries. Fair enough, I thought at the time - they are professionals, and I knew most of them were talented and conscientious because I'd worked with them before.

But within a week, two cliques had developed: those who had worked together before and those who were producing 'new ideas'.

Most days would bring a pointed moment when some people were invited out for lunch or a coffee break - and some weren't. Nothing explicit was ever said; the cutting rejection was obvious enough.

Even when we all went to the pub after work, strict divisions remained, made clear according to who sat where around the table and who would be civil - or not - to whom.

Fashion was a great divider, though in this battlefield everyone was on their own. Hideously stereotypical and shallow as it sounds, clothes were a huge source of catty comments, from sly remarks about people looking over-dressed to the merits of their fake tan application.

I always felt sorry for anyone who naively showed off a new purchase in the office, because everyone would coo appreciatively to their face - then harshly criticise them as soon as they were out of earshot. This happened without exception.

My deputy, Sarah, the general manager, first showed how much style mattered when she advertised for an office assistant and refused to hire the best-qualified girl because she could not distinguish Missoni from Marc Jacobs. This girl would have been making tea and running errands. But I didn't challenge the decision not to hire her because I had a policy of picking my battles carefully.

The office was like a Milan catwalk, but with the competitiveness of a Miss World contest - and the low cunning of a mud-wrestling bout.

A fashion spat ended one friendship when Sarah and our young development researcher received the same surprise Christmas gift - a Chloe Paddington bag worth £900.

 When they clocked the matching bags in the office, it was like pistols at dawn. They forced a few compliments, but relations never recovered, to the expense of my company.

Another time, when two members of staff bought the same jeans, one proclaimed: 'They'll look better on me, because I'm a size eight and she's a ten.'

 It didn't take long for the office to become divided between the girls who wore make-up and those who didn't. Comments from the former were typically 'Doesn't she know what spot cover-up is?' or 'Has she ever met a hairbrush?', while the no-make-up clan were equally biting, with comments - behind their backs, naturally - such as 'People on the morning bus must think she's a prostitute'; or 'She looks like a slapper'.

The obsession with appearance meant nearly all the staff were on diets. If I bought a tuna mayonnaise baguette for lunch, I would overhear staff commenting that I was pig - I'm a size 12.

Two of the skinny girls often snidely said about the largest girl: 'I'd kill myself if I got that fat.' One of the assistants got her own back on the food police for several weeks by pretending to buy them fat-free lattes. . . which were really full-fat.

Employees considered it acceptable to take time off for beauty treatments - and not out of their holiday allowance. One girl regularly came in late because she was getting her hair coloured, and when I mentioned this she blew up in outrage. Though at least she had a reason; most just turned up late regardless, and huffed 'That's the time my train gets in' if I pointed at the clock.

In hindsight, I can see I should have been more strict. My idealism was my downfall because I tried to see the best in people - I was convinced they would behave as they were treated, so I treated everyone kindly.

 Snide comments

 If I'd have been more cynical, I would have been more successful.

 I was often out trying to win contracts, but back at the office, work was an afterthought. It came second to conversations about shopping, boyfriends and diets - oh, and spiteful comments from my two development researchers, who were sharpening their acrylic nails against another staff member, Natasha.

 Six months after the company's inception, tensions spilled over when one of the researchers took Natasha's laptop and refused to return it. That day I was forced to cancel my meetings and return to the office to patch up relations.

 Though Sarah, my general manager, was present, she refused to get involved because she didn't want to be the 'bad cop'.

Despite being in charge, she was scared at the prospect of being bitched about - it was as though, in a women-only environment, staff were unable to keep their defined roles.

Soon, arguments became a daily occurrence. It would start with snide comments between two people then, as others joined in, emotion and anger would grow until an eruption - shouting, screaming, swearing - which always left someone in tears.

Then the friends of the woman who was upset would follow her to console her, leaving one group in the office and another group in the ladies. Both would then bitch unreservedly about each other - and do absolutely no work.

It reached the point that I even wrote a handbook for staff on how to be nice to each other. The advice centred on being respectful to everyone and treating people equally - taking phone messages properly whether the call was for me or a junior.

I also said there should be no more criticising or whispering in the office. But although when people read it they said they loved the idea, it made no difference.

 Many of the women were aggressive or defensive, or both. The most aggressive masked a host of insecurities with their outgoing nature, while the defensive ones opened up only when provoked.

The worst type I encountered, however, was the 'passive aggressive-She doesn't seem mean, but is the worst of the pack, ruthlessly bringing you down in such a sweet and unassuming manner that you don't realise what she's done until long after the event.

 Broken hearts

 She conceals her bitchy words in flowery phrases - one of my staff told another sweetly: 'I don't mean to be a bitch, but I just can't bear to be in the same room and breathe the same air as you right now.'

But the biggest force wasn't personality type, it was hormones. When one woman started having IVF, she unleashed her rage without warning and without apology.

At 'that time of the month' - which in an office staffed only by women meant someone was always at that point - any bad mood was swiftly passed on to the rest of team as if by osmosis.

Hormones came second as an excuse for absence and bad temper only to love life problems. When one woman split up with her boyfriend, I was told in no uncertain terms by her that I must 'be super-understanding and sensitive towards her at work' - in an email she sent me. A true drama queen, her tears went on for a week.

 Naturally, her enemies in the office delighted in her broken heart.

 Another girl, juggling two relationships at once, frequently primed everyone in the office about what to say to whom whenever either of the men called the office.

Another woman had a voracious sexual appetite and, in a female-only environment, saw nothing wrong with screeching across the open-plan room details of her marathon sex sessions. I received frequent complaints about her crude language.

I can still remember the name of all of my staff's partners and their affairs because it interfered with our work so often.

 Professionally, however, the company was somehow thriving.

We secured two programme commissions, one with ITV and a series with Living TV, so could afford new offices in West London.

 But this brought another explosion from Sarah when she paid out for a parking permit while another girl was given a free space by the building's landlord.

 During a massive row, Sarah said the girl had over-stepped her rank, while the girl told her it was just 'tough'. They never spoke again.

The effect a lack of testosterone was having in our office was even more apparent when I temporarily hired two male directors to work on a series (camera operators are usually men because of the heavy equipment). The team suddenly became quieter, more hard-working and less bitchy - partly because they were too busy flirting.

Two girls openly went after one director, even though he had a live-in girlfriend - his partner didn't stand a chance against their relentless flirting, and was dumped when one of them won his affections.

When we had meetings with men, staff turned ferocious, each out to prove that they were the sexiest in the room. With a male commissioner at Channel 4, one employee said 'Watch this!', then stuck her hand down her bra and tweaked her nipples. The man and I were speechless.

 In this climate, I didn't dare employ any men because of the distraction and - even worse! - catfights they created. I hate how much that sounds like stereotyping, but I'm afraid it's what I found to be true.

 And while I stand by my initial reason for excluding male employees - because they have an easy ride in TV - if I were to do it again, I'd definitely employ men. In fact, I'd probably employ only men.

Making close to half a million in our first year should have meant profit, but this was wiped out by high salaries and accounting errors by staff. Then, when we began having cash-flow problems, Sarah signed herself off sick with stress for a month. She also confessed she'd been dodging calls from people who were due payment, thus ruining my firm's reputation.

By then I was back and forth on a plane between Britain and the U.S. dealing with fractious staff in London and barmy LA producers.

My general manager was nowhere to be found, bills hadn't been paid and the tension in the office was palpable.

To pump extra cash into the business, I sold both my cars, but it was too late and we went bankrupt in March 2007, less than two years after I'd formed the company.

Though I will not absolve myself of all guilt, I believe the business was ruined by the destructive jealousy and in-fighting of an all female staff. Their selfishness and insecurities led to my company's demise. When I needed the socalled 'Sisterhood', believe me, it just wasn't there.

Miss Brick is an obvious sexist.  She admits that she chose to hire only women,  and imagined that she was going to build a "workplace utopia", where there would be "no bravado from the opposite sex."  If she had said that she was going to hire "only men", so that there would be "no bravado or distractions" from women, then she would have found herself in quite a stew with the Feminists.  If she had said that she wasn't going to hire any Blacks, then she would have been condemned for racism.  In the end, she admits "if I were to do it again, I'd definitely employ men. In fact, I'd probably employ only men." Now that's sexism, too. But that's the only kind of sexism that matters.  Sexism against men is perfectly legitimate.

Imagine what would have happened if a man had acted like any of her female employees.  He would have been fired on the spot for "sexual harassment", and possibly arrested and placed on a registry of "sex offenders."  But, women may behave as aggressively as they wish.  No problem with that.

"

 From the Mirror:

Sienna Miller Blasts Other Women as Being Too Bitchy

Sienna Miller has admitted being "at war" with other women over the way they judge her.

 The Factory Girl star – who caused controversy by stepping out with married Balthazar Getty – said: "I've been at war, without a doubt. I've really experienced the judgment of women in the past year."

 In an interview with Style Magazine the 27-year-old actress added: "We say we want to be equal, but men don't sit around bitching at each other. There's no sisterhood."

 Some insights from Roy Sheppard on working with a dangerous woman:

Kelly Valen had an interesting New York Times article: My Sorority Pledge? I Swore Off Sisterhood:

My life’s greatest sorrow stems from my inability to feel close to other women. At 41, I’ve cautiously cultivated a few cherished female friendships. But generally I feel a kind of skittish distrust and discomfort when dealing with most women, particularly women in packs....

 ...At 18, I had bought into the talk of sisterly solidarity. I adhered to their customs and mores, relied on them for nurturing and intimacy, trusted them.

And they not only failed to support me in crisis, they collectively kicked me as I lay in the gutter, judged me from under a veil of hypocrisy, then cast me out, leper-style. Their betrayal cut so deep that it has left me anxious and cowering to this day.

For the last 20-odd years, I’ve slapped Band-Aids on my wounds while avoiding any kind of group female intimacy....

...But to my enduring wonder, I have never felt the same anxiety about men. To be sure, their violence and misogynistic rituals stole my innocence and triggered the demons of shame and repression that shackle me still.

Yet their actions, however crude and criminal, ultimately hurt me far less than the judgments, connivance and betrayal of women. The men in my drama acknowledged wrongdoing, apologized, showed remorse. Punishment, however minor, was meted out. They did not blame me, and they shouldn’t have. But the women shouldn’t have, either, and they did....

In the two decades since...I’ve found my fears about women’s covert competition and aggression to be frequently validated: the gossip, the comparisons, the withering critiques of career and mothering choices. We women swim in shark-infested waters of our own design. Often we don’t have a clue where we stand with one another — socially, as mothers, as colleagues — because we’re at once allies and foes.

I want to remain optimistic. After all, here I am with three daughters. What am I to teach them? Cautionary tales about men’s harmful proclivities abound. But how do we help our girls navigate the duplicitous female maze? How do we ensure that they behave authentically, respect humanity over fleeting alliances, and squash the nasty tribal instincts that can inflict lifelong distress? I don’t know. I’m afraid I never will.

Mrs. Valen later wrote a book, The Twisted Sisterhood: Unraveling the Dark Legacy of Female Friendships.  This book was reviewed by Amelia Hill for The Guardian:

 Girls can be mean to other girls, but it is adult women who vie to destroy each other, according to a new book hitting the headlines in America.

Kelly Valen's The Twisted Sisterhood...reveals that almost 90% of the 3,000-plus women who took part in her survey frequently felt "currents of meanness and negativity emanating from other females".

Almost 85% of those who took part in the 50-question survey admitted having suffered serious, life-altering knocks at the hands of other women.

They reported that many of their female friendships had an "intense, sinister underbelly", characterised by "intrafemale incivility" and insidious, "gratuitous negativity". More than 75% had been hurt by the jealousy and competition of a friend.

Valen said there was "a distinct undercurrent of meanness and negativity plaguing our gender".

"These secret, social battles are waged, in many cases, by the very same women singing the praises of girl power, feminism, and female friendship in their lives."

Valen said she was shocked by the number of women who told her that they endured their female friendships behind "frozen smiles and a facade of intimacy". The battles waged beneath the surface were so merciless, she was told, that women felt unsafe with each other.

"They have correctly identified that the primary threat to [their] emotional security radiates ... from fellow females," Valen said.

The prestigious New York Times Book Review had added its voice to the chorus, praising Valen for challenging the last female taboo: the adult sisterhood.

But Valen said that despite the praise, she had "donned a suit of armour" and was steeling herself for a furious backlash. Her fears are based on the savage reaction to an article she wrote for the New York Times three years ago, in which she admitted opting out of the "so-called sisterhood". In the highly personal article, she first broached the idea that "our greater society of women is idling in an unhealthy, disconnected, and discombobulated state".

"The reaction to my 2007 article was devastating to me personally," she said. Valen was accused of being heretical and disloyal to the gender. She was lambasted on forums such as the website Jezebel, the blog Feministe and the Washington Post. Female academics, book clubs and the greater blogosphere reacted with fury. "Some dealt vicious blows," said Valen. "How dare I air the ladies' dirty laundry! I was anti-woman, a 'femalesogynist' and an obviously bad mother."

"Any suggestion that women are co-architects of their unhappiness for failure to prosper [was considered to be] tantamount to misogyny, horizonal hostility and internal sexism," she added.

Supporters, however, pointed out that the savagery of the attacks reinforced Valen's argument.

The attacks became so personal that Valen was hesistant to develop her thesis in Twisted Sisterhood. "My skin isn't all that thick. I wanted nothing but to crawl back to my cave and forget the whole thing.

"But intentionally or not, I'd found myself scratching the surface of something significant: Hadn't the very concept of sisterhood become downright twisted?"...

 For The Atlantic, Olga Kazan summarized a number of studies on female bitchiness.

 The Evolution of Bitchiness: Women engage in indirect aggression and slut-shaming, even in clinical research studies. Why?

One day in Ontario, 86 straight women were paired off into groups of two—either with a friend or a stranger—and taken to a lab at McMaster University. There, a researcher told them they were about to take part in a study about female friendships. But they were soon interrupted by one of two women.

Half the participants were interrupted by a thin, blond, attractive woman with her hair in a bun, dressed in a plain blue t-shirt and khaki pants, whom the researchers called “the conservative confederate."

The other half found themselves in the company of the “sexy confederate,” the same woman, instead wearing a low-cut blouse, a short black skirt, boots, and her hair sexily un-bunned.

Tracy Vaillancourt, a psychology professor at the University of Ottawa, and a PhD student, Aanchal Sharma, then gauged the women’s reactions as the confederates, both sexy and not, left the room. The metric they used? A “bitchiness" scale, of course.

“Why bitchiness?” I asked Vaillancourt, wondering why she chose to use such a loaded word.

“Bitchiness is the term that people use,” she explained. “If I ask someone to describe what this is, they'd say it’s ‘bitchy.’”

The women doing the rating were roughly the same age as the participants, 20 to 25, and watched for signs like eye-rolling, looking the confederate up or down, or laughing sarcastically. In one case, a participant said the sexy confederate was dressed to have sex with the professor. One didn’t wait for the sexy woman to leave the room before exclaiming, “What the fuck is that?!”

“That was a 10 out of 10 as far as bitchiness,” Vaillancourt told me.

What Vaillancourt and Sharma found, according to a study published recently in the journal Aggressive Behavior, was, essentially, that the sexy confederate was not going to be making sorority friends anytime soon. The women were far more likely to be bitchy to the sexy confederate, with the large effect size of 2, and their bitchy reactions were more pronounced when the participants were with friends, rather than strangers.      

Vaillancourt had always been interested in bullying and popularity, but to her, this showed that women tend to haze each other simply for looking promiscuous.

The clinical term for the womens’ bitchiness is “indirect aggression"— essentially, aggression we don’t want to get caught for.

“You tend to do it such that you won't be detected,” she explained. “Or you make an excuse for your behavior, like, ‘I was only joking.’ Direct aggression is just what it is: physical or verbal aggression.”

Psychologists Roy Baumeister and Jean Twenge have also theorized that women, not men, are largely the ones who suppress each others’ sexualities, in part through this sort of indirect aggression.

“The evidence favors the view that women have worked to stifle each other’s sexuality because sex is a limited resource that women use to negotiate with men, and scarcity gives women an advantage,” they wrote.                                      

Some might argue that it’s only natural for the women in the lab to treat the provocatively-dressed woman poorly. After all, this was a university setting, and in comes an intruder whose, “boobs were about to pop out,” as one participant put it. How untoward!

So Vaillancourt performed another experiment in which she simply showed study participants one of three images: Two featured the conservatively dressed woman and the sexy woman, dressed as described previously. Another showed the sexy woman with her body and face digitally altered so as to appear heavier.

She then asked a different group of women whether they’d want to be friends with the woman in the photo, to introduce her to their boyfriend (if they had one), or to let her spend time with their boyfriend alone.

The participants tended to answer “no” to all three questions for both the heavy and thin sexy women. They were nearly three times more likely, for example, to introduce the conservatively dressed woman to their boyfriend than the thin sexy woman.

To Vaillancourt, this showed that women, “are threatened by, disapprove of, and punish women who appear and/or act promiscuous,” regardless of their weight.

Vaillancourt’s is a small study, but it is one of the first to demonstrate slut-shaming in an experimental context. But women don’t come off very well in past research on indirect aggression, either.

Other studies have shown that undergraduate college women are more likely to gossip about someone rumored to have undermined their own reputation. Women are more likely to form social alliances and then manage threats from outsiders through social exclusion, rather than, say, beating each other up. Girls are more likely to ostracize a newcomer or befriend someone for revenge.

In his research in the 1990s, University of Texas psychologist David Buss found that women were more likely than men to “derogate,” or insult, their mating rivals in two ways, as he described to me in an email:

First, the “slut” factor: “spreading gossip that the rival woman is 'easy,' has slept with many partners, and is basically, in my terms, pursuing a short-term mating strategy.”

Second, on physical appearance: “Saying the woman is ugly, has fat thighs, and an astonishing variety of other vicious things about a rival's physical appearance and mode of dress, such as wearing revealing clothing, plunging necklines, or short skirts.”

In his book, The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating, Buss argues that women do this because, evolutionarily, women who are willing to have casual sex undermine the goals of women who want long-term relationships. "Slutty" women hint to men that it’s okay not to commit because there will always be someone available to give away the milk for free, as it were. Their peers' “derogation” is thus intended to damage the reputation of these free-wheeling females.... 

 Chris Rock seems to have been absolutely correct.

And we saw some examples of this phenomenon of "bitchiness" in some of my prior posts.  For example, in Femen versus Feminism, I quoted Louise Pennington, who wrote:

 ...Femen are using some fairly basic signifiers of woman as object. Their message is obscured by the medium of their protest because the medium conforms to the normalised construction of the Patriarchal Fuckability Test....we will not smash the Patriarchy by reinforcing its belief that the only women who matter are those who conform to the Patriarchal Fuckability Test....if the penis is keen, it probably demeans. And, that's the problem with Femen. Men aren't listening to the message. They are wanking to the image.

Oh, Miss Pennington absolutely loathes those fuckable bitches, doesn't she?  As Mr. Baumeister and Mr. Twenge wrote: "women...are largely the ones who suppress each others’ sexualities, in part through this sort of indirect aggression....the evidence favors the view that women have worked to stifle each other’s sexuality because sex is a limited resource that women use to negotiate with men, and scarcity gives women an advantage.”  Miss Pennington's aggression is more than indirect.  Some of those fuckable bitches may have read her article.  She has to regard those fuckable bitches, on some level, as mating rivals, to want to derogate them to that extent.                

Regarding their opinions on the fuckable skinny bitches who participated in the Victoria's Secret pageants, the Feminists could scarcely contain themselves.  The pageants are "pornographic", contribute to "the pornographication of culture", contain "sexualized female bodies", and are filled with "sexual objectification" and "sexual subjectification." And, worst of all,  the models are much too skinny.  Even "unhealthily" skinny.  One of Feminists posted a picture of Victoria's Secret models, with the caption "these are not real, normal, everyday women", which she followed with a photograph of some fat broads with the caption "These are…and they’re pretttyyyyy hot by the way…"  I don't think that this particular Feminist can deny that she feels threatened by these skinny "mating rivals."  Otherwise, why the aggressive, derogatory comments?

Given that so many women, at least in America, are so intolerably mean and spiteful, one might wonder why Feminist witches continue to stomp on the Patriarchy?  The Patriarchy is dead.  They grabbed us by the testicles, and squeezed tight enough and long enough that we're completely emasculated.  We no longer pose the least threat to them.  The world is theirs, and we're not coming back. 

The latest strategy that the Feminists have developed, in support of their conspiracy to take over the world, is their Ban Bossy campaign.  If we have a young daughter, who we think is maybe getting a little too imperious and overbearing, we must--by no means--ever ask her to "stop being so bossy", even if we say "please", or her self-esteem will plummet and she will be doomed not to become a "leader" when she grows up.  Fathers are to be doormats, and the new role model for girls is Veruca Salt.

Far too many grown women act far too much like Veruca Salt as it is. 

I disagree with the experts who claim that competition for mating partners has a whole lot to do with women being nasty to each other.  Consider the thousands of dollars that women will spend on a handbag. 

This has absolutely nothing to do with winning a man's affection.  A man isn't going to have the slightest interest in what brand of handbag a woman is carrying.  He just isn't going to notice.  If he thinks that he can get away with it, or if you allow him, then he will examine your tits and ass.  But definitely not the handbag.  The handbag isn't going to advance anyone's breeding potential at all.  The handbag is strictly about competing for status against other women.  The dame with the most expensive handbag wins.

We surrender, Feminists.  The world is yours.  We're done.  The Patriarchy is no more.  We recognize that any further resistance on our part would be absolutely futile.  As long as we can get some food and some silence, we'll be fine, somewhere.