"The Sisterhood" Ignored or Unheard Of?

[Confusion_Reigns]

The Sisterhood doesn’t exist. It’s a fable made up to make some women feel better, maybe even to make some women feel worse. I think that we all need to transcend the whole idea of ‘the sisterhood’ or ‘the good old boys’ and get ourselves to *humanity* of all…..and let’s take it further to all beings great and small….I come from a different POV in that I view all life as equally important….all life….

 

Anyway, I think that much of these types of discussions tend to keep everyone looking at a singular piece of a much larger (more important)picture. If we spend our time squabbling about this ‘sisterhood’ what time do we have to think about the larger picture that includes women and men…not to mention the rest of LIFE on Earth?

 

I understand that this is important to some of you to understand this idea of ‘sisterhood’ or to at least have your voice heard, nothing wrong with that. I am saying that to spend too much time on this particular thought is kinda pointless. There’s more work to do for all life not just female life.

[Furious]

 

I'm not girly, I hate shopping, I've never been inside a beautician's or a nail salon, and I don't watch Downton Abbey, so that immediately reduces the proportion of women I'd have anything in common with.

 

 

Wow....the sisterhood has nothing to do with shopping, nail salons and Downton Abbey...

Edited March 6, 2014 by Furious

[janedoe67]

You don't have to believe in sisterhood to KNOW that screwing someone else's spouse is wrong. Let's call a spade a spade.

[Spark1111]

Wow....the sisterhood has nothing to do with shopping, nail salons and Downton Abbey...

 

THIS is exactly my point. If you haven't experienced women helping and supporting women; or purposely NOT harming women....then you do not understand or don't want to.

 

.....and you do not belong to a sisterhood, an alliance, a subset group of woman who bond over humanizing the planet, feminizing the future.....and never will. Those who work to respect and empower others recognize it in each other.

Edited March 6, 2014 by Spark1111
Word omission

[Spark1111]

You don't have to believe in sisterhood to KNOW that screwing someone else's spouse is wrong. Let's call a spade a spade.

 

And this proves that when a class of people, in this case women, start to make inroads in equality, they begin to adopt the worst traits of those in power, men.

 

They grow more ambitions, competitive, more promiscuous, more self and goal-oriented.

 

They entered the workplace, but failed at feminizing it.

 

We have a long, long way to go.

[anne1707]

The longer this thread goes on, the more thankful I am that I am not part of this so-called "sisterhood". Seems rather ironic that some of the nastiest posts are from women who say they are pro-sisterhood whilst attacking other women.

[Spark1111]

The Sisterhood doesn’t exist. It’s a fable made up to make some women feel better, maybe even to make some women feel worse. I think that we all need to transcend the whole idea of ‘the sisterhood’ or ‘the good old boys’ and get ourselves to *humanity* of all…..and let’s take it further to all beings great and small….I come from a different POV in that I view all life as equally important….all life….

 

Anyway, I think that much of these types of discussions tend to keep everyone looking at a singular piece of a much larger (more important)picture. If we spend our time squabbling about this ‘sisterhood’ what time do we have to think about the larger picture that includes women and men…not to mention the rest of LIFE on Earth?

 

I understand that this is important to some of you to understand this idea of ‘sisterhood’ or to at least have your voice heard, nothing wrong with that. I am saying that to spend too much time on this particular thought is kinda pointless. There’s more work to do for all life not just female life.

 

Idk....what do we need to give men that they do not already have or have first dibs to get?

[Spark1111]

The longer this thread goes on, the more thankful I am that I am not part of this so-called "sisterhood". Seems rather ironic that some of the nastiest posts are from women who say they are pro-sisterhood whilst attacking other women.

 

really, Anne, that is your perspective? I find that surprising.

 

I am gobsmacked that so many doubt its very existence. having raised children in a small town, the women who bent over backwards to lend each other a helping hand...is but one example.

[anne1707]

really, Anne, that is your perspective? I find that surprising.

 

I am gobsmacked that so many doubt its very existence. having raised children in a small town, the women who bent over backwards to lend each other a helping hand...is but one example.

 

As I said in my first post in this thread, why treat someone differently because of their gender? We are all as good, as bad as each other.

 

I really don't understand why it is such a surprise that I believe in equality and real fairness.

[Confusion_Reigns]

THIS is exactly my point. If you haven't experienced women helping and supporting women; or purposely NOT harming women....then you do not understand or don't want to.

 

.....and you do not belong to a sisterhood, an alliance, a subset group of woman who bond over humanizing the planet, feminizing the future.....and never will. Those who work to respect and empower others recognize it in each other.

 

I don't believe in "the sisterhood" but have plenty of experience of women helping and empowering other woman AND men. See, I just don't think it's right to divide humanity into two groups of US against THEM. It sets the whole dang thing up for failure.

[Confusion_Reigns]

Idk....what do we need to give men that they do not already have or have first dibs to get?

 

everything they don't have without us. I believe that that there is a reason that there are men and women. Each have their own strengths and weaknesses. There is a reason for this and I believe that when we can see this clearly without fear then we all become stronger than we are divided.

 

adding: in my culture, we are taught that women are the most powerful creatures in existence. That men revere women because we hold the power of creation. However, we cannot create life without the men so they are also honored as well. It's a balance that has existed forever. No amount of words will ever change that reality.

Edited March 6, 2014 by Confusion_Reigns

[Bruce Leigh]

Sisterhood/brotherhood or at least the idea of it really does come down to values.

 

But even members of your own family, depending if you are unlucky or not, have been known to sleep with your partner.

Mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, cousins, uncles, aunties, even grandparents in some cases.

Again you would have to be unlucky and these relatives would have to be horrible to do such a thing.

 

But if your own blood has the capacity to do it, should you expect it from someone who doesn't have this supposed closer bond?

 

Comes down to values.

[rumbleseat]

Not being a religious sort, I'm no expert in the subject, but I do believe that for a great many, one their reasons for existence is to provide guidance in how people should get along and live with one another in society.

 

One of the tenets found in many us the notion of treating others the way we would wish to be treated ourselves.

 

I try and do that, but of course, I don't always succeed.

 

I don't think I will ever stand a woman (or man for that matter) who would cry out against injustice and the willful hurting if others Turing around and being a-okay with being with a married person.

 

Does this mean it's okay to deliberately undertake actions that cause great hurt and harm to someone else so long as we don't know them and it's for our own gain?

To me that is very hypocritical. At least if someone says that they don't care if any of their actions hurt someone else so long as they are happy, at least they are being honest.

[krazikat]

Sure, I am for all groups that are at a disadvantage. With my position and role my job is to promote and create policy and initiatives that will promote all levels of diversity. But I do not have to be part of each protected class to promote them. So I am for all individuals who need supporting but it isn't a carte blanche that I must support each individual in said group nor does it mean I have to identified by said group either.

 

I promote respect, support and trust among humans. Period. I do not put this bar higher for other females nor do I expect it from females more than males. It is a baseline for the human species. When one transgresses in these areas, it is against the human race and the individual specifically and not because of their gender.

 

The only time that would happen would be, say work related, where I helped implement a practice/policy that was actually against a protected class and so based on a class action concern would conclude it is a sweeping discrimination.

 

My question was because if you expect women to highlight respect, support and concern of other women as their primary focus that, then, could be at the detriment of those that don't fall into that class, i.e. men. So if one is favoring or prioritizing one class/gender over another then by default they are discriminating favorably for said class and unfavorably for other(s).

 

If one feels that you should support, respect, etc. all humans in the human race then it includes all subsets of said race and then would not discriminate against others unfavorably.

 

Well, I suppose it could be a detrimate to some men if, say, all women decided they would not sleep with another womans man...I mean, who could they have an affair with if no one would be their ap?

 

Just another thought...

 

If all is equal, why the apparent need, and interest, in classes specific to women in the workplace...do you consider that discriminatory?

[krazikat]

It's unfortunate that many women today take for granted the rights that not so long ago were denied them. Basic rights that denied a woman even the right to vote.

 

Throughout history women were denied equality and it was women banding together who fought and were persecuted in their endeavour in sisterhood.

 

In western culture women outnumber males in higher education and that is a direct connection to sisterhood.

 

In our grandmother's day it was rare for women to be doctors, lawyers, CEO, business owners...etc,....

 

My mother,for example, was encouraged to be a secretary...find a husband and be a housewife. Whereas her brothers were encouraged and supported to achieve college degrees and to aim high.

 

Sisterhood is not about knocking down men, but rather being recognized as equals.

 

Women who have strong bonds with their mother and have strong bonds with their daughters are passing it on.

 

I have a son and he is so proud of his sister and likewise.

 

In western culture equality is mandated but there still lingers many inequalities that are gender based.

 

Millions of women throughout the world are voiceless and treated as second class citizens. I participate in giving financial support to organizations that are geared toward empowering women in third world countries. Help a woman and she will raise her children's standard of living.

 

Sisterhood is alive and well, sadly the generation that most benefitted from it say they never heard of it.

 

Well said, Furious. It is baffling to me that some actually seem truly offended by the idea of sisterhood?

[anne1707]

It is baffling to me that those who argue for "sisterhood" feel the need to undermine those who don't. Can't be much of a sisterhood in reality.

[lollipopspot]

It is baffling to me that those who argue for "sisterhood" feel the need to undermine those who don't. Can't be much of a sisterhood in reality.

 

If that's the case, I'd figure that it's about helping and supporting those who appreciate the support, and want to give it back and pass it on. Those who would denigrate it or not appreciate it probably wouldn't be supported in their beliefs, and that makes sense. I don't know that it would be about supporting any female just because she's female, but because she has something to offer that's worth supporting.

 

But I'm not sure what's being referred to as "sisterhood" in this thread.

 

I can say that I wouldn't support a woman like Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann. I don't want them to do well and infect more of the world with their values. But I would support those who share values that are similar to my own. So if you don't feel supported by those who are talking about support, it's probably because they don't support your values.

[Eternal Sunshine]

I haven't read other posts, but: I wouldn't go after another woman's man because it is a situation where I am likely to get hurt. So in essence it's a selfish act as I am really looking out for myself.

 

When it comes to my friends though, I truly place them above men. I have never dated a guy that any of my friends crushed on. I never flirt with their bfs or husbands even if they try - many of their SOs think that I am snobby or cold as a result. Maybe it's one of the reasons why I keep so many long term female friendships.

[Taramere]

I saw this incredibly upsetting youtube video of a mother penguin whose chick had died. I'm not even going to post it, because it was so sad. Anyway, while the mother was trying to warm up this dead chick, all the other penguins were standing quite a distance away. Another female penguin was standing close to the mother, placing her head on the bereaved mother's back in a comforting gesture and just generally not seeming to know quite what to do with herself but appearing to want to show the mother "I'm here for you, you're not alone".

 

That's sisterhood, I think. But it's not something you reserve for other women. I don't have a sister. I have a brother, so I only really know how to be a "sister" to a man. When women I know who have sisters have tried to treat me like an adopted sister it's been nice at first, but I generally end up getting into problems because (and this is just my experience) the demands sisters sometimes place on eachother - the expectations they have - can sometimes be a bit OTT. I think you'd probably have to have grown up as a woman with sisters, and in a very close relationship with those sisters, to manage that.

 

So really, I prefer to have female friends than "sisters" - but I certainly don't object to the term "sisterhood" or the notion that women will help eachother out. For instance when that reporter was sexually attacked in Egypt a few years ago, a group of Egyptian women were reported to have waded in and helped her. That's a magnificent type of sisterhood.

 

I'm far less keen on the notion of sisterhood as a way of building up unfair advantages....and I think the discomfort many people have with that is at the root of dissatifaction with some brands of feminism. The trouble is, of course, that what one person sees as "creating unfair disadvantage" another will insist is "levelling the playing field."

Edited March 7, 2014 by Taramere

[Bruce Leigh]

When it comes to my friends though, I truly place them above men. I have never dated a guy that any of my friends crushed on.

 

I understand the thinking behind that but it in my opinion it is flawed.

As a man, I too have liked someone but they werent interested in me but they have dated one of my friends.

I would be lying if it doesn't hurt a little bit but consider that if I asked one of my closest friends "can you not date her."

They have been together for 7 years, married for 3 of those years and have 4 yr old twin boys. And they are the happiest couple I know.

I understand that this is a rare outcome but it is a possibility nonetheless.

[Got it]

You don't have to believe in sisterhood to KNOW that screwing someone else's spouse is wrong. Let's call a spade a spade.

 

See, this is what I was saying. That the crux of this "sisterhood" is really about sexual control of our partners through the control of a third party.

 

This isn't about promoting women's rights and equality, it is about believing that since we can't control the men to keep it in their pants, if we control and shun others through this propaganda then we can indirectly (by default) get the men to keep things in line.

 

The sisterhood should not be about not screwing someone else's spouse. There should be OBVIOUSLY far more over branching ideals that teach that. And it is NOT the onus of women to control sexuality and sexual transgressions. THIS IS NOT WHAT FEMINISM IS ABOUT!!!! This is EXACTLY the opposite of it. This is continuing to propagate the belief that women are the ones to control this area because men are not responsible for it.

 

UGH!!!! :eek: (sorry lots of caffeine this morning!)

 

Jane - I am not trying to pick on you, just using this as the crux of what I think a lot of the fluff is really covering up.

 

Why is what is pulled out of this whole sisterhood concept sexual control? Why is that even the focal point?

 

I think this "sisterhood" idea is a regional/communal ideal that is different in different areas. I would suspect you would see far more of this in the southern states as well as the midwest and more religious areas. I think that sisterhood can transcend a wide spectrum of "ideals" as well as behavioral expectations. I do think that it can be, in its worse manifestation, a way to control women's behavior through socially assumed concepts and expectations and in it's best a Utopian ideal of women's equality, rights and advancement.

 

What, I and others are trying to argue, is that the mere idea of needing to focus on the gender as a defining point only propagates the continuing segregation and separateness of the two sexes. Which, in my beliefs, is the opposite of what the feminist movement is/was about. That the true belief of the feminist movement, universally, is the defocus of the genders and an assessment based on skills, talent, experience, and achievement.

 

If one likes their beliefs in a sisterhood that is great. That is a fine belief and set of rules and expectations for those who are also in agreement. This does not mean, though, that there should be an assumption that it transcends the entire population and an understanding that this is not a universal ideal.

 

For myself, I do not want my womanhood to be a focal point when someone sees me, interacts with me, expects of me. I do not want to have that as any type of defining point both good and bad. I chaff at the generalized stereotypes of genders and I have never believed that I needed to follow them (nor was I raised with that belief).

 

Having grown up with a twin brother there was no difference between us, we did the same things, had the same expectations, had the same requirements. There was never anything taught differently between us. Actually the memory of when we were teens and my father saying that my brother could drive somewhere at night and I couldn't was the FIRST time that I recall and difference based on gender and the unfairness of it. It was such a rare event that it is still vivid in my mind (and I defied my father because of the lack of logic and inequality tied to it).

 

I am very logical and the idea of bonding of gender doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't follow a line of logic that is based on fairness or equality even if it is being explained as a way to "make more fair" prior inequalities.

 

I don't see how two roads of separateness equal inclusion.

[Got it]

I haven't read other posts, but: I wouldn't go after another woman's man because it is a situation where I am likely to get hurt. So in essence it's a selfish act as I am really looking out for myself.

 

When it comes to my friends though, I truly place them above men. I have never dated a guy that any of my friends crushed on. I never flirt with their bfs or husbands even if they try - many of their SOs think that I am snobby or cold as a result. Maybe it's one of the reasons why I keep so many long term female friendships.

 

I agree, I have never gone for a guy even my friend liked unless they gave the okay. And I have never had sex with anyone any friend had sex with.

 

But this is for both men and woman. I hold the same standards to my guy friends, I do not align with exes of theirs that they ended badly with. My loyalty is first to them so that is where it stays.

 

While I don't think anyone's spouse or SO thinks I am snobby or cold, I am polite but reserved and greatly respect the lines of decorum.

[Got it]

I wanted to add to my prior post, that bonding over shared interests, hobbies, beliefs is quite common and assumed. So yes a mother may bond with another mother because they have walked similar paths. A English major may bond with an English major because of their shared interest.

 

I am very liberal so while I respect those of a conservative belief to the right of their viewpoint, the differences are too great for me to truly bond with someone because of it. I am into horses, horse people will almost ALWAYS bond with each other and pretty much monopolize the conversation discussing a foreign language for everyone else.

 

But I have never bonded with another person just for the sheer fact that they are female. That identifier alone does not give me enough information or attraction to feel any sort of pull. It is everything else after that which will either pull me or repel me based on further information from them. Just their gender is still a blank canvas of which their life story, feelings, and beliefs need to be painted upon for me to know anything about who they are.

[cocorico]

Wow....the sisterhood has nothing to do with shopping, nail salons and Downton Abbey...

 

That is how it is represented in popular culture. Middle class women surrounded by their piles of shopping sitting in coffee shops or hair / nail salons kvetching and scheming about how to right the perceived wrongs inflicted on one of their number. Wheel the wagons (or shopping trolleys) into the laager, defend our own against the hordes of The Other Who Is Not Like Us. It is not a way I would choose to live. I abhor classifying people into Us vs Them groups based on race, religion, sexual orientation, class or gender. I hate stereotypes, refuse to conform to them and refuse to perpetuate them.

 

By all means have your sisterhoods, your sororities, your cliques and your girl zones, but not in my name.

Edited March 7, 2014 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[cocorico]

THIS is exactly my point. If you haven't experienced women helping and supporting women; or purposely NOT harming women....then you do not understand or don't want to.

 

.....and you do not belong to a sisterhood, an alliance, a subset group of woman who bond over humanizing the planet, feminizing the future.....and never will. Those who work to respect and empower others recognize it in each other.

 

Nope, haven't experienced that. Perhaps it doesn't exist outside S&TC or whatever celluloid world created the notion? Blaming those of us who grew up and live beyond the influence of Hollywood for "not understanding" some North American artifice seems a little parochial to me, but I guess it's just another way of delineating who is in and who is out of The Club.

 

Nor do I think it bears the remotest resemblance to "humanising the planet" if its raison d'être is the exclusion of half of humanity by virtue of the accident of their gender, and a further proportion who reject the discriminatory premise required for inclusion.