Conference turris::womannotes-v3

"...women in general are actually better able to cope [with stress] than 
men, possibly because they are more in touch with their feelings and are 
too concerned about the problems of others to be wrapped up in their own."

"The moral code of women is based on avoiding hurting others and being 
emotionally responsible for others," explains Dr. Rona Klein, a 
psychiatrist at McLean Hospital and research associate at Wellesley 
College's Stone Center for Developmental Studies..."That code really 
contradicts the notion of suicide; it's what keeps many depressed women 
alive."

Wonderful.  Men commit suicide when they feel depressed.  Women get
depressed but they feel too guilty to commit suicide, so they just stay
depressed *and* guilty.  

While I do think it is good *not* to commit suicide, I think using
*guilt* to prevent depressed people from killing themselves doesn't do
anyone any favors.

D!

    
    
    I agree, D, that it doesn't seem like much of a deal when women feel
    too "guilty" to commit suicide, but I think the point is that women
    tend to feel more connected to people and more responsible for people
    and things, and that can keep them alive -- at least long enough to
    find someone to work with on the stuff that's troubling them.  Sadly
    though, I think some women just hang in there until they feel they're
    no longer needed -- kids grown, for example.
    
    Dorian, can you say more about what you mean about this "female value
    system?"    Thanks for starting this topic.
    
    Justine

       
re .2 -
        
>    Dorian, can you say more about what you mean about this "female value
>    system?"  


Only what the article said, and what you said - that women tend to be more
into *supporting others* emotionally, *avoiding hurting* others,
*listening* to what others have to say, *feeling responsible* for people.
The article implied too that if men took their cue from women along these
lines they'd also be less inclined to kill each other as well as
themselves. 

I wanted to ask if people agree that this supportive value system is really
specific to females, and if men really devalue it; and (whether it's
specifically female or not) to suggest that if we put more effort into
teaching people this value system, there might be a lot less dying going
on. We might even avoid a war or two! 
    
Dorian 

>I wanted to ask if people agree that this supportive value system is really
>specific to females, and if men really devalue it; 

Yes, I think that females (in our culture) generally have a different 
value system, and that that value system places high value on connection,
on responsibility to others, etc.

>and (whether it's
>specifically female or not) to suggest that if we put more effort into
>teaching people this value system, there might be a lot less dying going
>on. We might even avoid a war or two! 

Agreed, there would be less dieing and less killing.

On the other hand, the "feminine" value system is not necessarily better
in allways.  I think while it is less violently inclined than the
"masculine" value system that it is less supportive of the ego of women.
I think that the feminine value system has a lot to do with women
frequently seeking validity from outside sources rather than internally;
women who define themselves in terms of their relationships to others
rather than being self-identified (as we discussed in V2).

I have found one of the big obstacles I have had to overcome in my own
life is the feeling that my only value lay in how much I could help
other people.  So other people's problems became my problems, and I
felt frustrated and worthless when I couldn't fix them.  I think this
is largely part of my having internalized that "feminine value system."

D!

> On the other hand, the "feminine" value system is not necessarily better
> in allways.  I think while it is less violently inclined than the
> "masculine" value system that it is less supportive of the ego of women.
> I think that the feminine value system has a lot to do with women
> frequently seeking validity from outside sources rather than internally;
> women who define themselves in terms of their relationships to others
> rather than being self-identified (as we discussed in V2).

    Yep, I agree.  Part of this is the cultural socialization of a culture
    that has cast women in "support network" roles, and part of it is just
    plain practicality: if a girl wants to do atraditional things, she'll
    learn pretty briskly that there are a lot of people who will stand in
    her way unless she manages the politics of the situation properly.  I 
    think that therefore, women are forced to be aware of their 
    interdependence on others - and to manage that interdependence - to a 
    degree that most men are not forced to do.  Therefore, the state of the
    relationships they maintain with those around them provides a 
    "how'm I doing?" measurement.

    This is a double-edged sword; call it "peacemaking by self-detriment"
    in its most extreme form.  I think it can be a real obstacle to
    independence and self-worth, although it can be a boon for building 
    support systems.

	Sharon

    re .6 -
        
    The article implied that women are naturally inclined to be more
    emotionally supportive and connected with others, than men are. 
    It implied that emotional connectedness is a good thing, tending to 
    curb violence against one's self and others, and that it would be a 
    good thing (for men and for women) if men had more of it. In this
    context, the suggestion was made that the well-known line from My Fair 
    Lady, "Why can't a woman be more like a man?" be reversed.
    
    Dorian
                                           

    
    .8 -
    
    I guess the article didn't address the issue you're getting it. It was
    about women's and men's respective tendencies to connect & support &
    listen.
    
    D.

>	The article seems to imply that many women tend to accept more
>    of an emotional load than they really want or need.

>	Do you read the article that way?

No, that is not what I read the article as saying.  however, that is
(more or less) my interpretation of the ways things are (having nothing
to do with the article.)  not more than they *want*, really, but
more than they should be expected to take.

>	Forgetting the nature of the emotional load (good/bad, stressful/
>    relaxing), do you think these women would find themselves with less
>    of an emotional load if they had fewer people dumping� on them?

There are a couple of things here.  I don't think it is just a matter
of people "dumping" on women.  i think a lot of women actively *seek*
to take other people's problems onto their own shoulders.  This is
because society, and the "feminie value system" say that women's worth
is measured in their ability to absord and lighten the burdens of
others.  I myself have adopted this value system, and so I find myself
almost *seeking* *out* people with problems.  They don't have to dump
on me, I'll extract it myself.  I *like* helping people, even when it
hurts me.

This is not always healthy.  

But, to answer your question, no, I don't think fewer or more people
with problems around a woman will make her more or less burdened.  As
you said, I think people reach a natural plateu of emotional absorbtion.
I think most women's plateau's are higher than most men's.

------

And example of this is in relationships - it has been discussed elsewhere
9in the file and out) how women often take upon themselves the burden
of maintaining the Relationship, emotionally.  While men and women may
work equally hard to make the relationship work, women are more inclined
to feel like they, personally, have failed if the relationship fails.
In my experience (and that of many other women) is that men say "Well,
I tried hard to make it work, but it just couldn't.  We are just
incompatible."  whereas women are more inclined to say "I worked hard
to make it work, but *I* just couldn't.  If I had only worked harder,
sacraficed more, etc, it would have worked.  It's my fault."

The pop-psych book "Women Who Love Too Much" discusses a lot about women
who take on the emotional burdens of their partners, and who feel
guilty and worthless when it doesn't work out - and who in fact, seek
out such relationships to validate themselves in the context of their
"feminine value system".  I think the nature of that value system has
a lot to do with why many women are co-dependent, but I'll leave the
discussion of that to someone more experienced in that area.

D!

    
    Thanks, Dorian, for posting the basenote -- I read that article, 
    too, and thought of posting it.  I'm glad you beat me to the punch. 
    :-)

    I agree with you, D! -- I didn't get the impression that the author 
    of the article was saying that women accept emotional responsibilty 
    more than they want to.  I think the author was just saying that 
    this is something women do (and that we are better able to not reach
    the end of our rope because of it).  I do it.  I _do_ feel 
    responsible to those around me, and I don't think that's "bad".  It 
    is important to me to know that what I do and say has an affect on 
    those around me.  I want to hear about what that effect is.  However, 
    and especially in intimate relationships, I expect this to be "mutual", 
    and I've been disappointed.  (It's important for me to know that those 
    close to me will behave responsibly towards me; that's the basis for 
    trust.)  This hasn't (at least not for very long) led me to believe 
    that the fault is with me (in feeling _too_ responsible, abnormally 
    responsible); it's led me to believe that the men I've known haven't 
    felt responsible enough.

    I guess it was your last paragraph, D!, that really got me, because 
    lately I've been thinking someone should write a book titled "Men 
    Who Don't Love Enough".  :-)  (OK, I admit it.  I read the book.  I 
    even have two copies of it.  I found them while unpacking.)  I think
    it's a dangerous book, and now I don't know what to do with mine; 
    dangerous or not, I find it almost impossible to burn a book.  Maybe
    it would be cathartic?

    CQ

>I think
>    it's a dangerous book, and now I don't know what to do with mine; 
>    dangerous or not, I find it almost impossible to burn a book.  Maybe
>    it would be cathartic?

I don't understand, why do you consider Women_Who_Love_To_Much a 
"dangerous book"?  I thought, as far as pop-psych/self-help books go
it was very insightful...

D!

    As I've mentioned before in this conference, I just finished reading
    _Reflecting_Men_ by Cline and Spender.  (It is not that this is the
    Ultimate Book or anything; it's just one of the first books in the
    305.31 area of the library I've read since my schedule started to
    clear.)
    
    The authors describe the ways and the occasions on which women put
    themselves out to make men, even strangers, feel better.  After they
    had gone on about this for many pages, I put the book down.  "Wait
    a minute!" I thought.  "These authors are going to tell me (as reader)
    that I shouldn't `make nice'.  I won't do that.  What I'm doing
    makes the world a more pleasant place, and I do it for women as well
    as for men, and to h-- with their radical, separatist [Well, I wasn't
    that articulate, actually.] urgings."  Then I continued reading.
    
    After they had summarized the behaviors to their satisfaction, they
    presented their conclusion:  These were very nice behaviors, and
    there was nothing wrong with women engaging in them.  The only thing
    wrong was that men did not engage in them *enough*.
    
    Well, to my mind, that is a very sensible and gratifying conclusion,
    and I apologize for thinking uncharitably about them, but I'm glad
    that I bothered to think it out for myself first.
    
    (The book then goes on to cover various other aspects of the, um,
    situation.  The last few chapters are a bit on the tedious .ior.
    depressing .ior. thin side, but most of it is quite meaty.)
    
    						Ann B.

    Mike, I think you're forgetting part of the scenerio. The support
    network that women have does just that, it supports them. The women who
    tell us their troubles also let us tell them ours. They hurt we hurt,
    they make us feel better, we make them feel better. Men (*some*) only
    contribute to half of this. They lay their hurts on the woman but don't
    offer the return. There is healing in nurturing others (I know about
    co-dependancy but I think it's been over rated). And many men deny
    themselves this healing.

    While I believe there are tendancies towards either extreme in both
    sexes it seems that men more often are "broken" when it comes to
    sharing in the full "female" sense of the word. As usual the real
    answer seems to be that all of us should land more in the middle. liesl

>	In light of that, how can the following be correct (re: positively
>    affecting the mental health of women)?

.0>"If men were more caring and had more social support networks, they would 
.0>be less vulnerable to suicide," says R. Jay Turner, a prominent sociologist 
.0>at the University of Toronto. At the same time, he says "making men more 
.0>like women in the regard would positively affect the mental health of 
.0>women." 

Oh that's an easy one.  It isn't because (as I presume you thought) because
then men will lay less of their burdens on women; it is because women will
now be able to lay their burdens on men.  Women will still have the
same plateau level, and will gravitate toward that level. But the more
people a person has to share his or her problems with, the more they will
be able to handle those problems.

I think the flaw in your thinking here is that a "burden" is some sort
of resource, where if you ask me for support, you are asking me to take
some percentage of your burden *away* from you.  But "burdens" are not
resources, and do not divide up in that way.  I can't truly *take* your
burden, or even a piece of it. I can help you carry it - that will not
lessen the amount of your burden, but *will* make you less tired, depressed
and beaten from holding it.  (It will correspondngly make me a little
*more* tired, depressed and beaten from holding it.  That is the price
of helping, and the reason why I don't feel the feminine desire to take
on the burdens of others is an unqualified good.)

Having more people around to putproblems *on* you will not increase your
own burden level past a certain point.  Having more people around to help
you carry your load will make you more able to support that load.

D!

    Mike,
    
    go back and read the base note. Yes, women get depressed, and
    *consider* suicide. But they don't do it. And they are more likely to
    be able to express these feelings and find outlets for them than a man
    who keeps things bottled up.  The suicide rate for women is DEcreasing.
    The suicide rate for men is INcreasing.

    
    re: D! in .13, I think.
    
    Well, your question made me go look at WWLTM to refresh my memory and 
    I'd like to retract my statement.  It/I was misdirected.  It probably 
    isn't "dangerous".  To repeat what's been said many times in this 
    conference about many different issues, I (as a woman) am just sick 
    and tired of all the books and articles (that I've read in the past 
    and new ones that I see every time I go into a book store) that tell 
    me how I as a woman can get-along-with men.  
    
    I think I've reached some kind of critical state here. :-)  
    
    CQ