Bros Before Hos--Gender and Solidarity

[RisiaSkye]

I've read recently that people are dissatisfied with the perceived gender politics of the board, under which women face considerably harsher judgement for their faults than do men with similar issues. In response, others have countered that women undercut other women far more often than men attack women.

While I can't speak for the veracity of these claims (or I could, but will not), it does raise an interesting issue. In all the years I've had male friends, I've often heard the expression "Bros Before Hos" as a somewhat misogynistically worded spoken signal that men support each other. The solidarity among men indicated by this phrase is interesting to me: in male friend vs. female SO situations, friends tend to win; in a He Said/She Said scenario, men tend to believe each other before they believe women. Obviously, this isn't universal, but it does suggest some interesting questions.

1) Is there actually solidarity among men? If so, to what extent? Is it only among those who know each other, or does it tend to extend to strangers in a situation one is asked to judge?
Sub-question: What role might this play in situations like the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, in which Anita Hill testified to his history of sexual harassment?

2) Do women continue to exert less social power at least in part because we undercut each other rather than forming a more cohesive group?

3) Assuming that anything is wrong with this difference--that it promotes power inequality, for example: Would more solidarity among women or less solidarity among men be the better solution?

What do you think?

 

[Starfish]

Someone needs to come play in the Menstrual Hut.


Seriously, I can't speak for men, but I am starting to try and work toward female solidarity to match, but not with distaste or a grudge toward male solidarity.

In real life, my female counterparts are ALL my sisters. They are all shining gems in my eyes. I believe that in many cases though, women do not feel this way or have ever been introduced into female solidarity.

I don't want to criticizie men and thier groupings because the only complaint that can be made is that there is injustice in the way that power struggles occur and that is all of our faults.

Women let men walk on them. Women let each other walk on each other.

I would reccomend to any man who is part of a group to try and remember that a group isn't bad, but make sure not to comprimise what you know is sound, just and right in your heart.. not just based on what your brothers are saying to preserve the unit.

I reccomend that women seek out and strive to create solidarity among their sisters in whatever way they can, without comprimising thier beliefs to create a group.

Groups don't have to equal group mentalities.

 

[riff]

brothers gotta get along

I don't know.

I have a much easier time showing my soul to a woman because I have always considered my soul a form of woman.

Guys are guys. It is much more easy for me to reveal my soul to a woman because she already is one?

It takes me longer to trust a guy before it does for me to trust a woman.

Bro's befo' ho's has always been interpreted by myself as a way of saying, "Welcome to hell, motherfucker, we're in the same boat."

Don't know much a bout sociology.

 

[Starfish]

Re: brothers gotta get along

Bro's befo' ho's has always been interpreted by myself as a way of saying, "Welcome to hell, motherfucker, we're in the same boat."

And you claim to not know much about sociology.

I am still laughing at how true this seems.

riff, wanna get inimate?

 

[riff]

Starfish

Read the promiscuity thread. hehehe

 

[RisiaSkye]

Bump for the day crowd

 

[KillerMuffin]

You know, I must be incredibly dense because I never noticed this sort of thing on the board. Either that or I have no social skills to speak of. Or both.

I don't get it.

 

[RisiaSkye]

damned double post...

 

[RisiaSkye]

You know, I must be incredibly dense because I never noticed this sort of thing on the board. Either that or I have no social skills to speak of. Or both.

I don't get it.

KM, I never said it actually *exists,* only that people complaining about it got me thinking about gender solidarity. Now, love, wanna go back and address the actual issue? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

 

[riff]

You know, I must be incredibly dense because I never noticed this sort of thing on the board. Either that or I have no social skills to speak of. Or both.

I don't get it.

Come to think of it, I haven't either, not at least in any obvious way. But I have used the phrase in RL before.

This is what I get for skimming posts.

You have plenty of social skills, KM. All bad. heh. That's why we like you.

 

[Zamdrist]

I just want to add something. I left my girlfriend of 5 years because I had no time for male companionship. Everything was about her and I. What were we gonna do when we got home, the weekend, what movies are we gonna watch, etc.

I left because I know that I need male companionship in my life to be 'complete' and thus a better partner.

RisiaSkye: You make good points and I think you are right on about most of it.

 

[sexy-girl]

ok i know i dont know much about this but is it true ... a guy would never sell another guy out when its a matter concerning a woman ? ... even if two guys dont know eachother to well they have in common that they both wish to have sex with women so if they know the other is telling a lie to get a woman he wouldnt question that lie infront of the woman and maybe would even help with that lie ?


im not saying this is a bad thing ... its just my view of male solidarity isnt about soul sharing but more to do with the fact that they help eachother because they know that they might need help the next time maybe from a different guy ?


where as maybe female solidarity is a more soul full thing but maybe its harder to form then the kind of male solidarity that seems to exist universally among guys


(excuse any poor spelling its late)

 

[KillerMuffin]

Can I do it after tomorrow? I have a sociology test in the morning and my brain is babbling with sociologylogical things now and it kind of hurts.

 

[RisiaSkye]

Zam--thanks for your input, and the compliment.

sexy-girl: you raise an interesting point. From what I read, it seems like you're saying maybe male solidarity is more common, but also more superficial. I'll have to think on this futher. Thanks for giving me something to ponder on.

KM-- The whole idea of you *asking* me (or anyone, for that matter) if it's okay should keep me giggling well into tomorrow. Good luck on the Soc. test.

 

[riff]

Irony- a bro's befo' ho's thread and .....

well now....

~tip toes on out~

 

[Black_Bird]

1) Is there actually solidarity among men? If so, to what extent? Is it only among those who know each other, or does it tend to extend to strangers in a situation one is asked to judge?

I think only among friends is there any type of solidarity... and even that is questionable. It's a "play or be played" type of world out there... some of us play even our friends and some of us refuse to play at all.

2) Do women continue to exert less social power at least in part because we undercut each other rather than forming a more cohesive group?

You don't undercut each other any more then men do... it only seems like it.

3) Assuming that anything is wrong with this difference--that it promotes power inequality, for example: Would more solidarity among women or less solidarity among men be the better solution?

In some instances, there is more solidarity among women then there is among men.

One thing I *really* regret is not joining my friend, Brian, two years in a row so I could spend time with my exgirlfriend. I should have never done that.

Guys do tend to dump their friends for women, and when the women dump them, they have no one to turn to... I think maybe that's why guys talk so much about sticking by their friends side before their lover's; nobody wants to be without a shoulder when the shit hits the fan.

 

[RisiaSkye]

Irony- a bro's befo' ho's thread and .....

well now....

~tip toes on out~

LOL. Funny, isn't it? Awfully lot of women around here...which is interesting in itself.

So, tell me riff--why do educated people persist in using apostrophes to indicate plurals?

 

[RisiaSkye]

Re: Re: Bros Before Hos--Gender and Solidarity

You don't undercut each other any more then men do... it only seems like it.

If you would, please elaborate: why does it seem like it, do you think?

Guys do tend to dump their friends for women, and when the women dump them, they have no one to turn to... I think maybe that's why guys talk so much about sticking by their friends side before their lover's; nobody wants to be without a shoulder when the shit hits the fan.

Of course, women also tend to dump their friends in favor of their SO; however, there's no compensating phrase expressing the need for solidarity, at least not one that I've ever heard. Definitely not one that's in circulation heavy enough to be instantly recognizable--unlike "Bros Before Hos." What do you think accounts for the difference?

 

[Dillinger]

While I can't speak for the veracity of these claims (or I could, but will not), it does raise an interesting issue. In all the years I've had male friends, I've often heard the expression "Bros Before Hos" as a somewhat misogynistically worded spoken signal that men support each other.

Fuck that.

I've never actually heard that expression and would personally find it repulsive if anyone said something like that to me.

How about "Friends before assholes." *lol*

I don't care about the gender or race of a person. I have no loyalty to someone just because they also happen to be male. An accident of birth isn't going win them any respect from me.

I support people who deserve it. Period.

 

[riff]

LOL. Funny, isn't it? Awfully lot of women around here...which is interesting in itself.

So, tell me riff--why do educated people persist in using apostrophes to indicate plurals?

u new I would look

Actually 'ho'es would be correct. The apostophies indicating the lack of "w" and "r" in the term "whores." No possession.
I am sleepy. I'm go to bed and read about Stalin until I fall asleep and if ever they have the damned book thing start up.

Goodnight! And goodnight all!

 

[Black_Bird]

Re: Re: Re: Bros Before Hos--Gender and Solidarity

If you would, please elaborate: why does it seem like it, do you think?

In this society, and at least in my experience, women are more social oriented then men. When a women undercuts another woman its in a more social context and so it becomes more public. When a man undercuts another man, its more political; who can I get on my side? Men electioneer and back-room deal.

In the end there are just as many backstabber females as there are males, the females are just more visable.

I could be wrong... I just think both sexes have their fair share of assholes.

Of course, women also tend to dump their friends in favor of their SO; however, there's no compensating phrase expressing the need for solidarity, at least not one that I've ever heard. Definitely not one that's in circulation heavy enough to be instantly recognizable--unlike "Bros Before Hos." What do you think accounts for the difference?

Men aren't as healthy emotionally as women...

Maybe that's a crock of shit, I'm not sure, but if you think about it, it rings true. Men aren't suppose to be as emotional, or so the rest of society tell us. Be strong - be a "man." etc etc. When the shit hits the fan, we someone that will let us be weak for a while so that we can heal... it's hard finding a friend like that - maybe it's even harder for a guy?

Again, I could be full of it up to my eyeballs. *shrugs* It's what I can see from my perspective, though.

 

[Black_Bird]

Re: Re: Bros Before Hos--Gender and Solidarity

I support people who deserve it. Period.

*chuckles* I think Dillinger is right, though... One of my best friends is a female and I don't think I'd give her up for some jealous little girl - especially concidering the bullshit she's helped me through.

 

[IA951]

u new I would look

Actually 'ho'es would be correct. The apostophies indicating the lack of "w" and "r" in the term "whores." No possession.
I am sleepy. I'm go to bed and read about Stalin until I fall asleep and if ever they have the damned book thing start up.

Goodnight! And goodnight all!

Sorry dude I have to call you on this.
"ho'es" is not correct either.
The word "ho" is a slurred pronunciation of "whore".
If you are looking to make ho a plural you don't need to add an e.
Psychos and typos are examples.

Speaking of Stalin, he is quite the interesting character.
I once read a book titled "the rise and fall of Joseph Stalin"
Damn good reading.

 

[Juspar Emvan]

Where I'm from we go with 'Mates before Dates', it's the same idea, just the language seems more acceptable. My take on the prase is two fold. First existing relationships (ie. friends) are more important and possible sex. Second it's a cry for solidarity, not a proof of it. Guys tend to get all wound up in new women in their lives, to the exclusion of thier long term best buds. And that includes the girl best buds too.

 

[Dillinger]

Well if that's the case - then you should read this, if you haven't already done so?

A Friend - http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=69071&highlight=friend - regarding "mates before dates" - more so my second post addresses this - more so than the opening of the thread...