The Psychology with Which Women Regard Other Women

By Shere Hite

What is it? Where does it come from? a) constant signals to fear 'competition' (i.e., compete for men, men are the goal, men are the important members of society, women are lesser), and b) early distrust of the mother, i.e., women, buried in the psyche (distrust created by the social system's taboo on direct mother-daughter communication)

A New Choice: Non-Sexual Physical Intimacy between Women

Is there a hidden taboo on women's important alliances?

The Psychology with Which Women Regard Other Women (Fear and its causes)
(Is There a Taboo on Public Loyalty between Women -- a Loyalty Taboo?)
.
Relationships between women are important for women's overall pride -- of course. But we live in a society that has not taken relationships between women very seriously -- unless they were 'lesbian', and then they 'didn't count' because they were 'a perversion of normality'. The society repeats cliches about how women do not like each other, cannot 'get along', cannot work together, and love to be 'bitchy' towards each other.

Do women dislike each other, as is often said -- or is there a hidden taboo on important alliances between women, one that keeps them 'competitive'?

How often is it said at a dinner or party, ''Well, women are 51% of the world, if they want to change it, why don't they do so?' The implication is that most women don't want to change anything, they like their place in society, and in truth, like being the servers of men; that they accept their lesser status, even if they are paid less and respected less. But is this true? Or, as I would theorize, is there a hidden taboo on positive public relationships between women?

Although women can be friends in private, when they try to transfer that relationship to a more public working environment, they may experience hostility. Think of two women approaching a bank to get a business loan together, and the attitudes they may encounter at the bank; or think of a female political candidate with a female campaign manager -- wouldn't some label them 'the lesbians'?

So far, the bug-a-boo word 'lesbian' has been used to keep women strictly in a reproductively-focused mindset, making them fear changing their posture during sex with men lest they be called 'anti-male' or labelled 'neurotic', 'lessie', 'you can't satisfy her', etc.. This is not to say that 'now women must find their lesbian destiny', but that an arbitary black-and-white line has been drawn, one that is no more real than 'the emperor's new clothes', in women's minds.

Clearly psychological identity affects a person's sexual expression. Women need to be able to have full relationships with other women as well as men -- working relationships, business relationships and even sexual relationships -- in order to become all they can be, in order to have their own sexual personality, with men or women.

I propose that a major unidentified taboo on alliances between women exists, one that is expressed 'subtly' through jokes and ridicule. Though women are frequently blamed and ridiculed for their 'shallow inability to get along', 'their petty jealousies', I suggest that women do get along, but that we live in a social structure that seeks to divide and conquer women.

Without a doubt, women, even today, are being educated to feel more pride if they 'identify' with their fathers or men than if they identify with their mothers.Complicating the picture, most young women today legitimately want what their fathers had -- the careers, the status, the money. Most (younger?) women feel safer grouping with men than with other women, unconsciously fearing the consequences of being 'ghettoized' with 'a group of women' -- i.e., marginalized and not taken seriously.

How do women learn this taboo? In part it is learned by girls with their mothers at a very early age (ages 1-3; see part III); in part it is absorbed by women from repetitive messages in the society around them, warning them that 'putting a woman first' is wrong, silly, stupid or 'lesbian'.

This subtly functions as a political taboo on female alliances that is now holding up women's progress in many spheres.

Studies show that women are more likely to vote for a male political candidate than a female candidate, even when the female candidate stands directly for issues the voter agrees with. People claim that women are not rising to top positions in business and politics because women are so busy being rivals that they cannot work together.

In meetings or work situations, sometimes women fear siding with other woman 'against the men', and behave nervously, calling it 'modern' not to 'automatically agree with another woman' -- though men often agree and work in groups with other men with no self-consciousness. Indeed, men feel proud of their male associations (even if they don't like a particular male colleague). If the problem were that women have mixed feelings about each other, don't always like each other, then why isn't this a problem for men too? Men too have mixed feelings, and don't see 'all other men' as equals, but they form successful alliances, corporate boards and sports teams. In fact, men are encouraged by all kinds of unspoken social signals to work together, do business, conduct government, etc.

Cliches abound -- 'a woman will stab another woman in the back over a man', or 'a woman will always break a date with a woman as soon as a man comes along', or 'you can't trust a woman in the office', and so on. Other reverse cliches proclaim 'women will stick together no matter what against men.' Which (if either) is true?

Why do men create male loyalty systems that work (political parties, sports teams, corporations, etc.) whereas women do not?

Although many women have excellent relationships and friendships, women often have a lurking suspicion that a dynamic not yet understood lies under the surface of their relationships, making them unstable. For example, many women want to treat women as equals, but when they try gingerly to shift the center of power to their female colleagues, they can find this shaky ground. Unstable. Women complain that other women don't take them seriously, are 'always late, liable to cancel for any reason, and expected to understand and be sympathetic, no matter what. In general, they treat you shabbily.' Some women throw up their hands in frustration, concluding, 'The cliches are correct! Women are born rivals, sneaky and underhanded!' This generalization is of course not accurate, not on the deeper level we have been discussing here.

I am offering here an explanation of what causes old competitive cliches and jealous situations to be repeated 'even today' between women. One of the accepted explanations for this unsettling hostility is that women are 'brainwashed' to prefer men, to compete with other women for male recognition and love, to think of women as 'second best'. This is true, but I also propose that there is another reason for women's sometime-nervousness with each other: an unspoken taboo on putting another woman first (before others of both genders), a taboo that operates by joky-threats of what will happen if you do ('no one will take you seriously, they'll say you're a lesbian', etc.). Women are therefore afraid, and try to hide their important friendships with other women, deny that they are as meaningful as they are.

Yes, female friendships are accepted, as long as two women are not married, or if married, are ready to put their friendship second to their relationships with their husbands.

The taboo on female physical intimacy called 'lesbianism' is merely a symbol of a wider taboo on female loyalty and allegiances of all kinds.

Friendship between women is an admirable model for forging new relationships between women: the solidarity and beauty of many female friendships in private should now be taken into the public arena.

Could this taboo in part arise from an earlier taboo on any sexual intimacy between mother and daughter (at a very early age)? [see third essay, below*]

A New Physical Intimacy between Women: Proposing A Third Way of Life

Statistically, many women today live as 'single' (as do men); in fact, half of the populations of most Western countries are 'single'. One often hears women say, 'Why can't I find the right man to settle down with? Am I picking the wrong men? I can't seem to get a long-term relationship to work.' These same women often have a best friend, a woman, with whom they do have a good relationship.

Women could get much more physical pleasure and intimacy from their female friends, from other women, than they do now, without being sexually 'lesbian'. Why, for example, should not women as friends lie on the couch stretched out with their arms around each other watching television? Or sleep together at night? If someone walked in, he or she might react as if the women were in a sexual relationship. But this is to think in terms of an 'either-or' dichotomy that no longer should be relevant.

In our society, we are told we can only have deep physical intimacy with a sexual partner. Yet, if today in Europe and the U.S., half the population lives as 'single', this is no longer a workable system. Studies have shown that babies who are not held in a full body embrace can die. But as adults, people are only allowed full head-to-toe body embracing (for more than a few minutes), with a sexual partner. Why? Why can't we tightly embrace the body of a friend for half an hour, or lie together? (This important head-to-toe contact needs a name.) This would not imply a 'lesbian' relationship (erotic togetherness and orgasm are not included), even though extended, serious physical intimacy would be.

I am suggesting there could be a new social institution, a new social category or a third type of women's relationship. In it, women could have a new physical relationship and think of themselves and their relationship not as secondary ('while waiting to find a man, get married and settle down', or someone to call and talk to when their husband is not there, 'until he gets home') -- but as a primary basis for their lives, a primary (and proud, not hidden) partnership. (They need not be 'lesbian' to do this; they could still have relationships with men.) Perhaps they would think of buying a house together, building a home and family. After all, why shouldn't two women, even as friends, buy a house and plan a life together?

This idea can change women's psychological perspective. Women don't need to be enemies and rivals, automatically. Of course, not all women will like all other women, why should they? Jealousy will not disappear, it's normal! But it is a pity to have a psychological mind-set pre-tuned for rivalry built into one's head, pre-programmed. For example, when a woman walks into a room (say, at a business meeting or party), another woman watching her come through the door may automatically think to herself, 'Is she prettier than me? Younger?'

What if a woman thinks instead, 'Here comes a woman. Will she be a good addition to my life? How would I like to relate to her?' If she's 'pretty', the woman could try thinking, 'She is very attractive. I'd like to have her for a friend or a companion, or maybe I'd like to touch her hair or hold her hand. I wonder if I'd like talking to her?' She could think, 'She wants to be attractive for ME so I will like her!' (rather than imagining, 'She has spent time on her appearance to compete with me, to be attractive to the men in this room.') Why shouldn't a woman imagine, when seeing another woman enter a room with a group of people, that the woman is offering her beauty, charm and aliveness to HER and not to the men??? This implies a lack of self-esteem on her part, to think she deserves it, she is worth it...

Though generally women are thought to be most vulnerable to men's rejection, praise or blame, in fact on a deeper level, women often wonder how much other women really like them. 'Would a woman really choose me?', the women wonder. 'Would she put me first in her life if she had a choice between me and a man? At work? In private?' Many women lack the self-confidence to believe a woman would willingly do this. 'Anyway, wouldn't this be a lesbian relationship?'...' Once again, the fear of rejection many women unconsciously feel is linked to body issues, going back to taboos and attitudes a girl learned with her mother. While many women have excellent friendships, they still do not see each other as potential primary partners in life. They do not wonder, 'Could I make a life with her? Would I want to buy a home with hre? Would she be a good business partner?' -- nor imagine celebrating anniversaries of their partnership, boasting to others of their 'successful relationship'.

There could be many relationships with satisfying forms of physical intikmacy that are not 'sex', but we block ourselves from seeing them. This new social institution that I am proposing for women -- neither lesbianism nor simple friendship, but a third type of relationship -- is a logical way forward for women today. This does not mean that 'now all women must become lesbians' but a radical new idea: that any woman could be much more physically affectionate with another woman, even more intimate, and so add a great deal of security and pleasure to her life.

Why does this idea, so logical, ring alarm bells, why do people tend to quickly think, 'Maybe it's logical -- but it's not for me!'? Why is the idea of such intimacy, even just sustained embracing and closeness, blocked, why does it sound threatening? Surely kissing and holding another person, saying words of love and tenderness, are pleasures women can always give each other and enjoy sharing together. Why not be romantic; this doesn't mean you have to 'have sex'.

Physical embracing is one of the most important ways that humans bond, learn to trust, one of the ways fears are allayed and hope is created. It is a natural human desire to touch, enjoy body contact, to embrace and be embraced. Children love to run their hands over the body of the parent, to explore, touch and feel everywhere (even uncomfortable parts, as when they try to touch the parents' eyes or put their fingers up the parents' nose...!). Lovers too want to touch every part of the beloved's body with their hands and the skin of their face and arms

There is no reason to limit extended physical contact to something connected with 'sex' or reproduction. If, as the Hite Reports show, 'sex' is a cultural construction, a way of channeling bodily needs into reproductive activity, this probably originated, historically, early in the development of our social order -- now in process of change. This change is not a sign of 'decay of civilization', but of a society that for all of the twentieth century has been undergoing a social revolution, trying to break through to a new ethical basis for private life. To integrate the equality that democracy promises between women and men, to recreate private life and family, as it were, is the process we have all been witnessing and participating in.

I predict that women in this century will re-design their relationships, see each other as resources not basically rivals (who's the prettiest?) but for love and affection, create new intimate ways to spend time together. They will develop a new vocabulary of loving words (as women seem to have had in the 19th century), make long-term plans for their futures, begin to buy homes together and raise children. Women will build long-term futures around their happy and productive relationships -- and this will be enormously positive for society as a whole.

*Could this taboo in part arise from an earlier taboo on any sexual intimacy between mother and daughter (at a very early age)?

What is Puberty in Girls?

Based on my investigations, girls have a reproductive puberty, but not a sexual puberty. In this way, girls' puberty is significantly different than boys'.

Basically, my research shows that girls have a 'reproductive puberty' rather than a 'sexual puberty' or 'sexual awakening.' At puberty girls become able to reproduce, as their menstrual system begins, they develop breasts and eggs that ovulate monthly. However, most girls can orgasm via self-stimulation from a very early age, many from the age of five or six, and their desire for orgasm does not become notably stronger at 'puberty', nor do they manifest 'a new desire for coitus' -- as discussed above in relation to boys.

There is a large amount of data about girls' sexual identity and experiences at puberty in my research reports. (fn. here with a list of the titles published by Suma de Letras?)

I would like to present here a theory I have recently developed about the development of female sexual identity, based on that research.

Psycho-Sexual Identity as Developed by Daughters with their Mothers

There is a significant moment relating to the body between mothers and
daughters, one that occurs early but influences women psychologically all their lives -- a 'moment' has not been previously identified. The psychology set in motion by this situation is too often presumed to be 'natural', referred to as a product of 'the body and its changes'.

The phenomenon of girls becoming irritable and cross with their mothers during their early teenage years, just after 'puberty', is well known. Where does that anger and alienation begin? Is it simply a product of 'hormones' or 'the changes' that 'make girls want to differentiate themselves from the mother?' This view, the theory of 'separation', assumes that separation or differentiation from the mother is good because 'nature needs it to happen'.

However, does nature or culture wish mother and daughter to be at odds, 'rivals', 'have a problem'?

The estrangement begins, in my analysis, with early sexual taboos between
mother and daughter that have not previously been identified.

Mothers know a lot about sexuality, it appears to daughters, but usually don't share much of this information with their daughters. Sexuality seems to children to be the mother's privilege and secret, something they should not ask too much about, i.e., they should not ask the mother what she feels sexually and experiences. One girl describes being fascinated by her mother's body, while knowing that touching it or asking any direct questions was off bounds: 'I remember looking at my mother one day when I was about ten. She waswearing a thin blouse, you could see the shape of her breasts in her white lacy underwear underneath. I remember staring at her full chest, hertorso, and thinking it was astonishing, magnificent -- so big! Not like mine... I must have been about nine at the time. I wonder if I felt I could never look as sexual and powerful as she, that I was much smaller? Of course, I had no breasts yet. Did I think of myself as alwaysthe thin one, the smaller one -- was my identity set at that time?'

Most daughters feel uneasy: at the same time that they learn they cannot ask the mother about her own sexual feelings, know what the mother experiences -- most also know that they themselves are sexual, that their own bodies have sexual parts that feel good. Still, they cannot directly see 'those parts', since they are located in a part of the body that a girl would have to use a mirror to see. This is different than the way boys grow up, since boys can look down and see their penis and sexual bodies easily, they also can see other boys' and men's sexual anatomy in public urinals and at home in the bathroom; thus boys feel much more comfortable with their sexual identity than girls, who must learn about that part of their bodies, most often, via having a sexual experience.

Could girls learn more about their bodies from their mothers? (This is not to say that a mother 'should' open her body to her child; the point here is to try to look at what is in fact occurring from a new perspective, thus becoming more objective in understanding the development of girls' sexual identity.)

Most mothers hide their own lives, setting up a climate in which they clearly do not expect to be asked 'private questions' by their daughters
-- such as whether they masturbate, how often they have sex, how they achieve orgasm, and so on. Most daughters are given a book and told,'Ask me any questions about what you don't understand.'

Simply because some mothers say 'ask me anything', or 'feel free to talk to me whenever you want about whatever is troubling you' doesn't mean there is real dialogue. The daughter often feels the mother could tell her, could help her, give her information, but she doesn't; she feels her mother is hypocritical, perhaps even stupid. ('Doesn't my mother know about orgasm? How does she have them? Does she live on another planet??'

One girl reacted to her mother's silence by thinking that her new, developing body was 'not her', and tried to get rid of parts of her body
that were feminine -- reminding us of the problems of anorexia: 'I dreaded the moment my mother would discover I had breasts. I was disgusted when I developed hips. I decided I'd better diet to get back to my real shape, my boy shape, my 'normal' shape. At my all-girls school, big breasts were considered tarty; small were better. Having your period later was better too. We were part of the anorexia cult, we were all so thin we began menstruating very late. I desperately didn't want to become like my mother. I wanted to stay a child forever -- not become one of those hated women.'

Why are many mothers so coy with their daughters about sexuality? Why can't a mother show a daughter her vulva, for example, why 'must' it be hidden? Boys see their fathers' penises -- giving them a sense of normalcy and self-acceptance. Why not girls? Would it be wrong?

If mothers must pretend to daughters that they have no sexual life, the daughter wonders: is it bad for a woman to be sexual? If not, why must my mother pretend her sexuality doesn't exist, that she has no sexual life? Why doesn't she talk to me about it? Or why has she decided not to have a sexual life? Does this imply the daughter should have no sexual life either?

All this sets up a climate of distrust and suspicion, a wariness about someone you live next to but do not know intimately, and who refuses to share anything with you. Does this mean that in order to feel closer, daughters and mothers have to become 'sexual', be 'lovers'? No, it simply means that they have the right to relate as complete and honest friends and companions. The rift or problem that occurs between mothers and daughters is not inevitable.

This has been one example of how a major unspoken sexual issue between a mother and daughter can influence and mold female identity; most of the female sexual identity ascribed simplistically to 'hormones' can be shown to be derived from cultural teaching, not 'biology'.

Back to Articles Page