Conference turris::womannotes-v2

>"A fourth way is addiction. Addiction to "Love"[...]; to sex as a 
junkie-trip[...] Addiction to depression [...] Addiction to male approval..."

Wow.  Story of my life.

>I know I've felt each of these four attitudes at one time or another. I 
>think they're the result of women's "internalized misogyny" and can require 
>special effort to get past.

Is hatred of self/lack of self-worth by a woman misogyny?  If some women 
don't love themselves, it is because they are women and they think women
aren't worthy of love, or is it because they don't think *they* are worthy
of love (which could have to do with growing up female in a male-dominated
society without being misogyny)?

I generally think my problems come from me, because I am who I am, part of
which is female.  My femaleness is only part of my identity, and only part
of my poor self-image...

>Does anyone else?

I dunno.  But that paragraph (quoted above) *really* hit home.  What's this
book about?

D!

D!>Wow.  Story of my life.

         You too, huh....are sure you just aren't me in disguise?  ;-)

>I know I've felt each of these four attitudes at one time or another. I 
>think they're the result of women's "internalized misogyny" and can require 
>special effort to get past.

         I've had all these four attitudes on a continuing basis for
         most of my life.  I can be a very self-destructive person
	 person when it comes to just about anything, EXCEPT my job.
	 Relationships/friendships/family/etc.....

	 But I really don't feel it's BECAUSE I am a woman, but rather
	 that I just fall into one of those personality
	 characteristics that lends itself to low self-esteem and
	 self-worth.  I feel I don't deserve a lot of the things I
	 get, and many times I run and hide from them when they start
	 feeling too good.

	 I feel that perhaps, while women might feel more PRONE to
	 having these types of personality traits, I don't feel that
	 femininity is the cause of these traits. (Because women DO
	 have dramatically different personality traits than men, for
	 the most part)...But I know many men with the same problems I
	 have.

	 My hatred of myself comes from my upbringing......the fact
	 that I was never commended for my successes and I was never
	 pushed to succeed, so when I do succeed, I tend to only
	 accept it is an "accident."  But, my brother isn't pushed to
	 succeed either, so it wasn't because "I was a female", but
	 rather it's just how my family was.
	 
D!>I generally think my problems come from me, because I am who I am, part of
D!>which is female.  My femaleness is only part of my identity, and only part
D!>of my poor self-image...

	 Exactly.  Perhaps it's a contributing factor, but I don't
	 feel it's contribution is a major one.

	 Never in my life have I ever even THOUGHT that "I don't
	 deserve this because I'm a female."  But, I can sit here and
	 list tons of reasons why I am the way I am...why I am
	 self-destructive.....and never once would being female ever
	 figure into it......influence it, yes, not not dramatically.
	 


	 My counselor told me that 80+% of the people he sees on a
	 continuing basis are self-destructive and have low
	 self-esteem/self-worth problems.  They are addictive because
	 they feel that what they are addicted to....drugs, alcohol,
	 love, etc.....is going to make them feel more worthy...and it
	 does....temporarily.


	 kath

    re .1 D!
    
    The book is *Lies, Secrets, and Silences* by Adrienne Rich, first
    published sometime in the mid-70s, I believe.  It's a book of
    feminist essays.  I read it in 1981 at a growth stage in my
    life when I was moving from college to the "real world", and I
    was very much influenced by it.
    

    >Are women self-destructive?

    YES!
    
    >Self-trivialization is one. 
    
    Yes.  I do this all the time.  Yet I know that if anyone else had done
    some of the things I did, I'd applaud them heartily.
    
    >Believing the lie that women are not capable of major creations. 
    
    Oh yes.  And also that I am not capable of making informed decisions,
    or brainstorming and carrying through complete processes without the
    approval of someone else (colleague, friend, whatever).
    
    >always finding the needs of others more demanding than our own. 
    
    YES!  Spending time, money, energy on others is so much "easier" and
    seems "so much more rewarding" than spending it on myself (I know it
    probably sounds foolish all typed out like this, but it's not something
    I consciously think about - it's like it's hardwired....)
    
    >Addiction to "Love"--to the idea of selfless, sacrificial love 
    >as somehow redemptive, 
    
    I'm struggling out of this one right now...
    
    >Addiction to male approval: as long as you can find a man to vouch for
    >you, sexually or intellectually, you must be somehow all right, your
    >existence vindicated, whatever the price you pay. 

    This one, too.  It's hard, but worth it....
    
    -Jody
    

    Ah, yes, the four sides of female dependency: self-trivialization, contempt
    for other women, misplaced compassion, addiction.  In short, anything
    but MYSELF must be more worthy, because I'm a woman and that's the way
    of the universe. 
    
    Lots of sarcasm there, folks, but still so true.  It's an equation with
    two parts:  the roles other people try to assign to us (at work, at
    home, at leisure, in the media, on and on ad nauseum) and the roles we
    assign to ourselves.
    
    I have a friend who is fond of saying that "the future of feminism
    begins with what we teach our sons", but I disagree.  The future of
    feminism, and following upon that humanism (by which I mean the
    nuturing of all people regardless of any factor other than their
    humanity), depends on the role models we set, and what expectations we
    allow ourselves to accept and live up to.
    
    That doesn't make it easy, or less hurtful, as we attempt to extricate
    ourselves from the boundaries we set upon ourselves and the boundaries
    that others set upon us, though. It's good to have files like this one
    to hash it out in.
    
    Lynn

>"*Self-trivialization, contempt for women, misplaced compassion, addiction*; 
>if we could purge ourselves of this quadruple poison, we would have minds 
>and bodies more poised for the act of survival and rebuilding."

I agree that they are the result of "internalized misogyny" in a great
number of women.  Each of these attititudes are encouraged in women
in the society around us.  

Lots of people might have these attitudes, for various reasons.  I
believe that society encourages them in women especially.  For any 
individual that sees them in herself, she may or may not choose to believe
that society's attitude toward women has anything to do with it, but
isn't it hard, if not impossible, to figure out which discrete
factors made any of us what we are today?  And how could any of us
have escaped the influences of the society we grew up in?  Our parents
were shaped by it, and they shaped us, so even if one had no exposure to
mass media or never went out of the house, one is still influenced by
society.

The women I've seen who have been most successful in minimizing
such attitudes in themselves are those who recognized them and their
sources, a major source being society's sexism.  By recognizing the
source, it's easier to exorcise the attitude.

Recognizing the symptoms has to happen also, of course.  And that
can be dangerous, because one can say "Oh, I'm an awful person to
have those attitudes" unless one can also see "Oh, I see why I might
have them, that they might have been taught to me, as opposed to me
being born with them".  

	MKV

    Part of the misogeny is our assumptions that these characteristics
    are "just" individual, just mine because I am a person, instead of
    mine because I am socialized ("misogenized?") to have them!  This is
    part of that old "personal is political" thing!
    
    Nancy

re .7 -

I think this is an excellent point. Women have always been made to feel 
that everything about them is personal and private (childbearing, wife-
battering, rape, etc. to name a few, not to mention their own lives), and
didn't "count" in the public, male sphere. So now, when women notice
certain self-defeating tendencies in their psyches, it's consistent that
some would interpret these as once again just part of their own individual,
personal psyches rather than having anything to do with their being members
of a group called Women. I agree that it's another aspect of the
internalized misogyny that's been mentioned. "It's not the way society has 
discriminated against women for so long, it's just me..."

And goddess forbid that women should define themselves as a political
group...they might get hold of some political power! 

Dorian

Dorian (-1):
>Women have always been made to feel 
>that everything about them is personal and private [...]
>and didn't "count" in the public, male sphere. So now, when women notice
>certain self-defeating tendencies in their psyches, it's consistent that
>some would interpret these as once again just part of their own individual,
>personal psyches rather than having anything to do with their being members
>of a group called Women. 

I never said "just me", as that is clearly not true (as evidenced by the
descriptions in the book.)  But the paragraph above implies that it would
somehow be "better" or "more healthy" for women to look at their problems
as derived from society, rather than being a part of themselves.  For myself,
that isn't true.

I know that my problems are part of *me*.  But I also know that *me*, and
therefore any problems with the entity that is *me*, is largely shaped by
society, and a big part of that societal influence is directly related to
my being a woman.  So of course, a lot of my problems (and a lot of my good
points, and in fact, a lot of everything about *me*) has to do with
society's treatment of women.

However, I find my healing process requires that I *own* my problems.  And
my good points.  Society may have helped create me, but today, I am just me,
and my problems are just mine, regardless of where they came from or who
else shares them.  For me to find the strength to overcome my own weaknesses
(addicted to love!) I need to acknowledge that this problem is with *me*,
and not with society.  (It's true.  Maybe society should change, but my problems
make me unhappy, and the person that affects most is me and only me.)  I find
it very empowering to say: I know this is a problem.  It is a problem about
me and within me, and therefore entirely under my control.  I can fix it,
and I am the *only* one who can fix it; it is my responsibility, my right,
my success or failure.

The problem (for me) with viewing a problem as societal in nature is that
then I feel I have very little control over it.  I can work to change society,
and while this may be noble and useful, it won't help *me* to be happy.  
Making society morehealthy for the children of the world is a good thing,
needs to be done, but right now I need to work on *me*, and the problems
that society has already helped create within myself, and the way for me to
do that is to own my problems.

I find it similarly empowering to own my successes and good points.  And how
can I really say "All my successes are truly from my personhood" at the
same time as I am saying "All my failures are due to society."  It doesn't
fit.

D!

�    And how can I really say "All my successes are truly from my
�    personhood" at the same time as I am saying "All my failures are due to
�    society."  It doesn't fit.
    
    That's interesting, D, and I think I know what you're saying.  But I
    would pose for your consideration the depressingly clear example of
    blacks[^1] in the US.  Although until the advent of EEO/AA they had
    essentially *zero* opportunity for fair treatment, many blacks
    nonetheless succeeded in ways that are even obvious to whites.  It
    seems to me that it fits very well to say that their successes were due
    to their individual natures and their failures were due to (white)
    society's oppression.  
    
    Sure, a person who fails at being a composer because she's utterly tone
    deaf is failing because of personal characteristics...but that's not
    what our failures are usually like, we typically aren't that far out of
    touch with our native abilities.  What's more often the case is that we
    fail despite what appears to be adequate preparation, motivation, and
    application.  We fail where our male peers succeed.  Hard to account
    for that as a personal problem.
    
    				   		=maggie
    
    
    
    [^1]  I apologise to all the black members of our community for, once
    again, using black people as an example.  I do it only because I can't
    find a better way to make my point.

re .9, .10

    Sometimes our failures are caused by things outside
    ourselves.  But sometimes it's useful, even when the cause
    is outside, to realize that it is, in fact, *my* problem,
    because *I* hurt from it.  The solution may be to work on
    fixing society rather than fixing my attitudes or whatever,
    but if it is *my* problem and *my* pain, then it's not useful
    to say, "Oh, society (or some other person/group) caused
    this, therefore it's not really my problem and I don't have
    to fix it, even though I'm hurting because of it." 

    Actually, I guess this is kinda what .7 was saying about "the
    personal is the political."


re .0, and the comments about self-trivializing

    Yesterday I wandered over to the other side of the building
    to talk with a friend.  I was feeling depressed and
    head-achey, and I just needed someone to talk to.  We talked,
    and she asked some questions about some stuff going on in my
    life, and I talked about that, and she said

	"You're a strong woman."

    At first I felt baffled:  I mean, I was talking to her
    because I was needing a (figurative) shoulder to cry on!
    Then I started to apologize or something, to say "Oh, it's
    not that I'm so strong, it's just that, you know, I'm
    muddling through, I'm just doing what I have to do."  Then I
    thought about this conversation, and not giving myself enough
    credit, and then wondered whether "doing what I have to do"
    might be just exactly what she meant when she said "strong."


    -- Linda, who is trying to believe she's a strong woman and
       feeling pretty good and just a little scared about it 

Maggie,

I understand your pint, and as I said, I know very well that our thoughts and
actions are strongly influenced by our environment.  Certainly I am not
denying that other people's prejudices, etc, can enourmously affect our
successes.  I was suggesting more of a way of *looking* at in...Linda said
it very well...

>    Sometimes our failures are caused by things outside
>    ourselves.  But sometimes it's useful, even when the cause
>    is outside, to realize that it is, in fact, *my* problem,
>    because *I* hurt from it.  

Also, when I was talking about "Successes" and "problems" I wasn't really
talking about things like being a successful composer, etc.  I meant
successes and problems and such with our *characters*.  The base note
talks about problems within ourselves, such as a dependency on validation
by men, and fear/anger towards other women.  I meant "success", as in
success at overcoming our own internal problems, and "failure" as our own
subcumbing to those problems.

Those problems, and the ability to overcome them, are affected greatly by
society, including misogyny.  But they are still *our* problems and no one
else's, and when we overcome them it is *our* strength that allows us to
do so.

That's why I say it doesn't fit to claim your sucesses but blame your
failures on others...because the both come from the same character within
yourself.  Society affected that character - perhaps creating the problem
itself, and perhaps creating the strength to overcome it.  But it is all
within, and must be dealt with there.

In psychology, they talk about people who are internalizers and externalizers.
(I don't remember the technical terms.)  Some people internalize - they feel
that events that happen to them are due to their own actions/character. 
Others externalize - they feel they are being acted upon by their environment
and have little control.

Reality doesn't affect this at all.  It's *perception*.  (Obviously, everything
is a combination of our own actions and the environment.)  Internalizers
tend to be happier than externalizers.  Actually the happiest people tend
to be those that internalize their successes always, and those who externalize
or internalize their failures accurately.  That's tough though.  Unfortunately,
the worst way to be is the way many women are, (I am, but am fighting it)
which is internalizing their failures and externalizing their successes.

(It's a truth that one's happiness/healthiness has more to do with how you
see the world than how it really is.  Healing your own wounds can often be
achieved better and more easily by changing your outlook/inlook than by
changing your environment...in fact, often changes to the environment that
seem impossible because almost inevitable after you have succeeded in the
change in perception.  Take, for instance, the woman in an abusive situation.
If she really believes she *deserves* it, leaving the situation will be
incredibly difficult.  Once she has changed her perception to the point where
she believes she doesn't deserve it, leaving becomes much easier.)

D!

>>                    Take, for instance, the woman in an abusive situation.
>>If she really believes she *deserves* it, leaving the situation will be
>>incredibly difficult.  Once she has changed her perception to the point where
>>she believes she doesn't deserve it, leaving becomes much easier.
    
    And she may find it easier to recognize that she doesn't deserve an abusive
    situation when she sees the ways our society teaches that men are more 
    valuable than women. It can be very empowering to discover that you
    are not alone...
    
    Kathy