Ladies! It's Time To Stop Judging Each Other And Start Standing Up For One Another

Ladies! It's Time To Stop Judging Each Other And Start Standing Up For One Another

When we stick together we are so much stronger


Let's be frank here: women can be vicious creatures. Just go to any middle school, high school, celebrity Facebook page, or bar and you're bound to hear a woman insulting another woman. Too fat, too skinny, acne, bad dye job, broken nails, nasally voice, slutty clothes, big nose... The list goes on and on.

When we faced these problems as children we were told to "just ignore it" or that "you're the better person, so don't let them win." We were told that the bullies would eventually learn their lesson or stop messing with you, but let's be honest here: the women who insult others won't stop picking on them. Whether they still pick on you or they move on to a new target, they will still be at large, terrorizing others, and your pacifism will do more harm than good.

There is a solution though, one so simple that we tend to overlook it or act as if it's impossible. One so blatantly obvious, so low-risk, and so simplistic that it could be implemented at any time in every part of the world...

Just stand up for each other. Don't be a pacifist, don't watch as it happens and do nothing, and don't join in on the torment that so many women face.

The main reason we don't do this is because of our "let's not get involved" and "what if they ostracize me" mentalities that, let's be honest, are pretty sad. We are allowing someone to be judged or even tormented in some cases just because we don't want to get involved.

We don't want to step in and help get that person out of a bad situation. We don't want to tell our friends that they were being rude. We want to fit in, and who really even cares about the poor girl with nerdy glasses and braces at 23-years-old? She's weird, you're not, and that's all that matters.

We've been shunning "weird" people for millennia, justifying our right to pick on them and make them feel useless, but it's time that changes. If women united to focus on the positive and accept the "weird" in other women, we could create a revolution where the tormentors no longer had a platform to speak on. Their views, now actively rejected, could fade away.

If we push these tormentors out of their comfort zone by actively confronting them and helping their target get away, two things will happen: the women saying those things would eventually be unable to find a target, and the women being judged would feel more confident in who they are—potentially even confident enough to help another woman in a similar situation.

But women aren't the only ones who judge women; there are entire movies, television shows, and events where fraternities rank women by their looks. Men are equally at fault, but if enough women stood up, the push for a more positive and accepting environment would hopefully overwhelm these people who have normalized cruel, judgmental statements.

The choice is yours: do we stick to the status quo, or do we rise up against these comments and start a revolution?

Popular Right Now

I'm A Woman And You Can't Convince Me Breastfeeding In Public Is OK In 2019

Sorry, not sorry.


Lately, I have seen so many people going off on social media about how people shouldn't be upset with mothers breastfeeding in public. You know what? I disagree.

There's a huge difference between being modest while breastfeeding and just being straight up careless, trashy and disrespectful to those around you. Why don't you try popping out a boob without a baby attached to it and see how long it takes for you to get arrested for public indecency? Strange how that works, right?

So many people talking about it bring up the point of how we shouldn't "sexualize" breastfeeding and seeing a woman's breasts while doing so. Actually, all of these people are missing the point. It's not sexual, it's just purely immodest and disrespectful.

If you see a girl in a shirt cut too low, you call her a slut. If you see a celebrity post a nude photo, you call them immodest and a terrible role model. What makes you think that pulling out a breast in the middle of public is different, regardless of what you're doing with it?

If I'm eating in a restaurant, I would be disgusted if the person at the table next to me had their bare feet out while they were eating. It's just not appropriate. Neither is pulling out your breast for the entire general public to see.

Nobody asked you to put a blanket over your kid's head to feed them. Nobody asked you to go feed them in a dirty bathroom. But you don't need to basically be topless to feed your kid. Growing up, I watched my mom feed my younger siblings in public. She never shied away from it, but the way she did it was always tasteful and never drew attention. She would cover herself up while doing it. She would make sure that nothing inappropriate could be seen. She was lowkey about it.

Mindblowing, right? Wait, you can actually breastfeed in public and not have to show everyone what you're doing? What a revolutionary idea!

There is nothing wrong with feeding your baby. It's something you need to do, it's a part of life. But there is definitely something wrong with thinking it's fine to expose yourself to the entire world while doing it. Nobody wants to see it. Nobody cares if you're feeding your kid. Nobody cares if you're trying to make some sort of weird "feminist" statement by showing them your boobs.

Cover up. Be modest. Be mindful. Be respectful. Don't want to see my boobs? Good, I don't want to see yours either. Hard to believe, I know.

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

Taking Your Husband's Last Name Only Perpetuates Patriarchal Ideals

It's time to leave some social practices in the past. Women are not considered male property in America, and our structural traditions should reflect that.


Just because something is tradition, does not mean it is the most effective solution.

For the majority of marriages around the world, it is considered customary for a wife to relinquish her maiden name, and take on the last name of her husband. For many of us, we take this for granted without a second thought. It's what we do, right? People do hyphenate their names after marriage after all, but very few men actually decide to take their bride's last name. "A man taking his wife's name — remains incredibly rare: In a recent study of 877 heterosexual married men, fewer than 3% took their wife's name when they got married."

It's thought the tradition of masculine name inheritance is biblical, although this isn't a fully supported theory:

"The tradition of a wife taking her husband's last name at marriage is not found in the Bible. In Bible times, most people did not even have last names. Women were often identified by where they lived (e.g., Mary Magdalene, Luke 8:2), by their children (e.g., Mary the mother of James and Joseph, Matthew 27:56), or by their husband (e.g., Mary the wife of Clopas, John 19:25)."

The important thing to notice here is that although it was not standard for a wife to become Mrs.Jesus instead of Mary Magdelene. It was still customary to refer to a woman in terms of her relationship with a man (either her Father or Husband). She was not considered an independent being, and the semantics of her name reflects that.

This doesn't sit well with me.

Let's take a moment to question this tradition.

All traditions should be scrutinized and questioned or else they become obsolete in the ever-changing socio-cultural tide.

Why is it male names are only passed on? Essentially, the verbal female line is obliterated in favor of unity under a male surname. This makes sense in a way: a singular family name helps bring everyone together as a unit. The use of the male name over the female name represents male ownership over both women and the family. It unbalanced gender roles in their very structure.

"the matter of a wife taking a husband's surname didn't surface in English common law until the ninth century, when lawmakers began to consider the legalities surrounding personhood, families, and marriage. Thusly (as they would say), the doctrine of coverture emerged – and women were thereafter considered "one" with their husbands and therefore required to assume the husband's surname as their own.
Under the concept of coverture, which literally means "covered by," women had no independent legal identity apart from their spouse. Actually, this "coverage" began upon the birth of a female baby – who was given her father's surname – and could only change upon the marriage of that female, at which point her name was automatically changed to that of her new husband." --Stephanie Reid Law

My mother always told me she never changed our names back to her maiden name after the divorce because she wanted to purport us as a family. In my opinion, a family with an absent father has no obligation to keep his name, as it had no obligation to receive it in the first place.

It may not seem like much as it is just technicalities, but technicalities govern the structure in which we present and define ourselves.

I do not wish to be defined by a patriarchal tradition even if it is as simple in a name. Think about it. A name is not as simple as it seems. A name becomes an identity. A name shapes our understanding of ourselves; if the tradition of male names being passed down continues every family will unwittingly submit to the standards of the patriarchy.

This being said, there is nothing inherently wrong with taking your spouse's name if that feels right to you and has been discussed freely between partners. Sometimes, your partner's last name may be the coolest name in the book and works perfectly syntactically. Sometimes, you may love your partner to death but his last name is Curtle, Assinger, or — god forbid — Smith. Today, we have a choice to keep our names, and as women, we should consider it instead of blindly accepting a name in the name of tradition.

There is a power and a peace that comes from sharing a name, sharing a goal. There are also restrictions and depersonalizing undertones to the tradition as well. Where does the "single woman's" identity go once they are bound to another? The single male identity doesn't change as their name remains untouched by the union.

Why not take your bride's last name? Would it feel emasculating because everybody else is doing the opposite? Why don't more couples hyphenate their names? Are we content with tradition even if it's based on the debasement and slavery of an entire gender?

"'Tis but thy name that is my enemy; Thou art thyself though, not a Montague. What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot, Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part Belonging to a man. O! be some other name: What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet; So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd, Retain that dear perfection which he owes. Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name; And for that name, which is no part of thee, Take all myself." — "Romeo And Juliet," Shakespeare.

Unifying under one name as a family is a type of empowerment, but it also requires the sacrifice of one name. Typically the female name. This being said, keeping or taking back our names is another, higher, form of empowerment.

Related Content

Facebook Comments