Female Competition and Short Hair

whitecoast

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I found an interesting study online that shows that more competitive women recommend other women cut their hair shorter, presumably because they think it would make their competition for mates less attractive.


Highly competitive women are more likely to recommend shorter haircuts to other women, potentially to diminish the physical attractiveness of their romantic rivals, according to new research. This phenomenon occurs even among women who are unfamiliar with one another, suggesting an innate tendency among some women to sabotage potential rivals even without a direct threat.

The new findings, published in Personality and Individual Differences, provide unique insights into an understudied aspect of intrasexual competition, which refers to competition between members of the same sex. Intrasexual competition has been a subject of interest in psychology, particularly in understanding how individuals vie for social status, access to resources, and desirable mates.
….

The researchers conducted two separate studies, which included 450 women (aged 17-67) who were recruited from an undergraduate participant pool and the general public. The participants were presented with hypothetical salon clients, each with a portrait image that varied in attractiveness, a close-up image of their hair (described as either good or poor condition), and the client’s preference for cutting off “as little as possible” or “as much as necessary” hair. Participants were asked to recommend the amount of hair to be cut off for each client.

The researchers found that women who reported higher levels of intrasexual competitiveness were more likely to recommend that clients have more hair cut off when the hair was in good condition and clients expressed a preference for minimal cutting. The reason behind this recommendation might be to subtly manipulate the appearance of their rivals. By advising more extensive haircuts, these women could potentially diminish the physical attractiveness of other women.

Another intriguing finding is that women advised clients of similar attractiveness as themselves to cut off the most hair. In this scenario, participants effectively targeted women they perceived as being on the same attractiveness level as themselves. This suggests a form of competitive behavior known as horizontal competition, which occurs when individuals compete with others of similar attributes or qualities.


“The way we set up the scenario in this study was such that the ‘hairdresser’ and the ‘client’ didn’t know each other, and there was no implied competition between them (no suggestion that they would ever compete with each other for men, jobs or anything else). The implications of this are substantial. It suggests that at least some women engage in sabotage of other women as almost a default response – in the complete absence of any identifiable reason to do so.”

“It’s understandable, and expected, for women to engage in some sort of sabotage if another woman is a direct threat – if she’s flirting with your partner, for example. But the suggestion that at least some women might engage in sabotage of other women as a default setting whenever the opportunity presents itself, is a new implication from the current study.”

Looking at the pervasiveness of severely short haircuts in a lot of progressive or feminist women, I can’t help but think they have been victims of a subtle con by the women who write, publish, or run a lot of the media, who due to their more competitive nature are spreading certain fashion trends for self-serving ends.
 
I found an interesting study online that shows that more competitive women recommend other women cut their hair shorter, presumably because they think it would make their competition for mates less attractive.
[…]
Looking at the pervasiveness of severely short haircuts in a lot of progressive or feminist women, I can’t help but think they have been victims of a subtle con by the women who write, publish, or run a lot of the media, who due to their more competitive nature are spreading certain fashion trends for self-serving ends.
I find this study to be very superficial and portrays women in a rather shallow, 2 dimensional way.
I’m also gonna remind readers, that these “studies” are biased, and it helps to keep the statement “correlation does not always indicate causation” handy, especially when weeding through mainstream material.

First, my disclaimer, in case any “dedicated White Coats” take offence for what I’m about to post:

“The “medical” information in this post is provided as an information resource only, and is not to be used or relied on for any diagnostic or treatment purposes. This information does not create any patient-physician relationship, I do not claim any degrees or authority, and should not be used as a substitute for professional diagnosis and treatment.”
Hopefully that will suffice.

I’ve dedicated the last 20 some years to learning all I could regarding the human psyche, or as Pierre so brilliantly reminded me, the “Bodymind”.

Accusing these so called “competitive, manipulative women” of evily plotting against other women to chop off their flowing locks of beautiful cascading hair, because of jealousy and female competitive behaviour, is nothing short of pathological, in my humble opinion.
In my experience, as a woman, these actions are not done consciously, or “on purpose to harm”.
The behaviours are hormonally and instinctively acted out.

Historically, women cooperated, women helped each other, assisted in births, and nursed each other’s babies, nurtured and cared FOR each other, for Pete’s sake!
What’s happened to that?
Abuse, Shocks, traumas and conflicts have impacted and constellated the human brain so severely, that it’s gonna take more than a few generations to even begin to remember how to be “excellent to each other”, in my opinion.

Our personality is shaped tho’, BY the registered conflict shocks that are activated in our brains, by our psyche, our Bodymind.
Our Bodymind is not our personality, it is the equivalent to a computer mother board, in a way, but the sum total of constellations and active conflicts, DO make us “who we are”, that is, until we heal the conflicts, if they are caught in time.

The Psyche, our Bodymind is the complete, innate operating mainframe, it’s on 24/7, always on alert for dangers, and triggering Biological programs, in nanoseconds, in response to conflict shocks sustained by the surprise events that take us “off guard”.
Biological programs are the template for the diversity of being, in every living organism on this planet.
So, here’s what my point is based on:
“[…]
FEMININE AND MASCULINE BEHAVIORS

Dr. Hamer discovered that feminine and masculine behaviors are controlled from the same areas in the brain that regulate the estrogen and testosterone levels. Next to the hormone status, a person’s biological handedness is of equal significance.

Generally, both males and females can exhibit feminine and masculine traits. However, independent of one’s gender, conflict activity related to the left temporal lobe accentuates a masculine behavior, whereas a feminine behavior prevails with conflict activity linked to the right temporal lobe. Based on Dr. Hamer's findings, gender roles are first and foremost determined by biological conflicts a person experiences in the course of life rather than solely a result of social and cultural conditioning, as suggested.”
[…]
Link if anyone is interested:
 
Maybe whitecoast should have written "Trigger alert" at the beginning of his post :lol: .

Jokes aside, nobody is "accusing" anyone here, @Debra , and what is pointed out is that a small cohort of more character-disturbed women might be using this as a type of con. It's just a data point, as we strive to point out various pathological phenomena out there without drawing definite conclusions. Obviously the majority of women are supportive and all that as you mentioned.
 
Accusing these so called “competitive, manipulative women”

It doesn't say they're manipulative.


of evily plotting against other women to chop off their flowing locks of beautiful cascading hair

The article doesn't moralise about it. It doesn't use words like bad, or evil. It's just pointing out an objective finding about horizontal competitiveness in women.


because of jealousy and female competitive behaviour, is nothing short of pathological, in my humble opinion.

The article doesn't say anything about jealousy. It doesn't say anything about it being done in a conscious way. It does say that this type of behaviour is exhibited by women who class themselves as more highly competitive though. Which you say is "nothing short of pathological" to suggest. But you then go on to confirm the existence of this type of behaviour and to give reasons for it:

In my experience, as a woman, these actions are not done consciously, or “on purpose to harm”.
The behaviours are hormonally and instinctively acted out.

Historically, women cooperated, women helped each other, assisted in births, and nursed each other’s babies, nurtured and cared FOR each other, for Pete’s sake!
What’s happened to that?
Abuse, Shocks, traumas and conflicts have impacted and constellated the human brain so severely, that it’s gonna take more than a few generations to even begin to remember how to be “excellent to each other”, in my opinion.

Our personality is shaped tho’, BY the registered conflict shocks that are activated in our brains, by our psyche, our Bodymind.
Our Bodymind is not our personality, it is the equivalent to a computer mother board, in a way, but the sum total of constellations and active conflicts, DO make us “who we are”, that is, until we heal the conflicts, if they are caught in time.

So if you say that it's pathological to suggest that women who are higher in competitiveness would unconsciously cut a client's hair shorter if that client was typically in the same 'pool' of sexual competition as them, then why are you giving reasons why it is probably true?

As an outside observer, it looks to me like the article pushed some buttons in you that caused you to dump a lot of stuff onto it that isn't really there and to miss the technical nature of the wording of it, and from there your thinking was clouded by emotional energy and the things you wrote in your post didn't logically follow.

I hope you're not offended by what I've said. I'm basically just curious how you're doing? If there's anything you want to get off your chest then you could post in the "How are you feeling?" thread or make your own. I hope you take that as being of genuine care and concern, and not patronising. But if you do take it as the latter, then I apologise because I don't mean it like that.
 
Accusing these so called “competitive, manipulative women” of evily plotting against other women to chop off their flowing locks of beautiful cascading hair, because of jealousy and female competitive behaviour, is nothing short of pathological, in my humble opinion.
In my experience, as a woman, these actions are not done consciously, or “on purpose to harm”.
I think the above is precisely what the article is saying, in different words. Namely, women have certain behavioral traits that activate unconsciously as a way to cope with perceived competition. Not "evil", just as the article says, by default, but it doesn't suggest it's the only way possible for women to behave, and there are individual differences and it's certainly not a trait on every single woman, jus't a general trend.

It's like saying that men, generally, when in the presence of an attractive woman, tend to correct their posture and deepen their voice. It could be construed as manipulative and childish, and sure.. but it's also a by default reaction and it doesn't encompass every man in every situation.

And it makes sense, women are less physical and as such their defense mechanisms are less frontal and explicit than men's are.

Looking at the pervasiveness of severely short haircuts in a lot of progressive or feminist women, I can’t help but think they have been victims of a subtle con by the women who write, publish, or run a lot of the media, who due to their more competitive nature are spreading certain fashion trends for self-serving ends.
This is an interesting thought, also from the point of view of emotional regulation of both men and women, the kind of regulation that one can only attain by interacting with the opposite sex, which is driven, generally by attraction and intimacy. Imagine a set of unregulated women, hellbent on being manlier than men, who also get no attention from men because they've become rather unattractive, it can only devolve into further dysregulation, and the same would happen to men, being shamed into thinking that their every manly trait is a crime.

And the saddest part, is that the best way for both men and women to regulate and process some of those things is through the interaction with their parents, but ultimately with a partner. But the world of today, particularly in the west, has become such a difficult place to meet a partner in that it's no wonder it finds itself in such a state socially.
 
Maybe whitecoast should have written "Trigger alert" at the beginning of his post :lol: .
Very funny, it takes a heck of a lot more than that to wind me up, calling it a “trigger”, well, false information and manipulated data tends to get my attention, so thanks, I guess.
Jokes aside, nobody is "accusing" anyone here, @Debra , and what is pointed out is that a small cohort of more character-disturbed women might be using this as a type of con.
The bolder part, in your statement, is partially what my post was addressing.
From my lived observations, experiences and interactions as a woman, with other women, these “hair cutting” women, are in a “masculine brain constellation” and rather than a “con”, they are, for lack of a better term, attempting to conform the more feminine women to look more masculine.
Turn them into more masculinization versions, shorter hair, in this example, to look more like each other.

Conformity and being more non-feminine is how a woman in that type of masculine aggressive constellation feels comfortable and “safe”.
Women are STILL trying to achieve their biological purpose, to look out for each other, but the masculinization of their brains, influencing their hormonal chemistry, has twisted it to this type of behaviour against each other.
That’s what’s being described as the “character disturbance”,in my opinion.

Cutting their hair short, and encouraging the long haired women to get shorter cuts, would make them all look more in “the image” of a strong, aggressive, short haired, go getter woman.
That “masculinization” has been a large part of the toxic feminist indoctrination, and I’ve observed the different age groups of women’s behaviour for over 60 years.

I do appreciate the explanations and concern that I’m receiving from men’s responses, so far, regarding how and what women are up to and experiencing, in that experiment.
I gotta say, geez, how do I put this, I find it endearing and hilarious being “mansplained” about what women are REALLy feeling, and the motivation for their actions!
I’ll put a nice graph at the bottom of the post, if you have any questions about that funny term I used.;-)
It's just a data point, as we strive to point out various pathological phenomena out there without drawing definite conclusions. Obviously the majority of women are supportive and all that as you mentioned.
Data...
The gathered data is only as good as the foundation it’s being constructed/built on, in my opinion.
The foundational belief of the differences between women and men isn’t solid or stable, or based on Biological reasoning, it’s all main stream ACCEPTED psychoanalysis, which is personality based, NOT biological.

Biological emotions, and instinctive responses, are a complete 180 degrees turn, from the inversion from where the medical establishment has us, again that’s from forbidden sources, but I did post the link.

I disagree with your statement of “obviously”, unfortunately.
From my observations, the majority of women, in all walks of life are isolated, non-trusting of most men or other women, now for that matter.
Women are jaded and overwhelmed, with damaged thinking and needy for community and honesty.

Yet, biologically, I’d bet any woman hearing an unseen baby or child crying, or for that matter, another woman crying in distress and would be biologically “triggered” to assist, or at least find the source of distress.
I know I would, without hesitation.
Most of us “women” are still biologically wired females, against all odds, we have healed and dealed, even after all these masculinizing shocks and traumas.
So, maybe that’s what you meant by the use of “obviously”?

EA73C248-8E4D-4426-9CF5-CC43C6D57B9B.jpeg
 
Hi Debra, one thing I see in you that I also see in myself is the urge to utterly destroy wrong opinions. Not just any opinions though. Opinions that are not just wrong, but actually offensive. Opinions that are so wrong they are disgusting. Opinions that are so wrong that people who uphold them are actually worse human beings - in fact they're callous, toxic, and pathological. Opinions which in a just world would be expunged like leprosy from society and their adherents humiliated and disgraced. Opinions so wrong that if I had infinite time and energy I would take every single wrong sentence shared by those toxic, wrong people and cut it verbally to ribbons. I could write essays for each wrong sentence they write, and plot it on diagrams down to 17 decimal places on how absolutely and unequivocally wrong they are. "Because I deserve better than to be subject that complete nonsense, and it is even in fact lowering and humiliating that *I* have to condescend to bring myself down to your pathetic, WRONG level and profane Truth with the notion this is some kind of debate. We are NOT equals. I and the world have been victimized by your disgusting, pathological, WRONG viewpoints long enough (once is in fact too often) and you ARE going to hear about it and get put in your place." That's what the feeling inside me sounds like sometimes, and I see that flavor in what you wrote, not that that means that your critiques are false.

false information and manipulated data tends to get my attention, so thanks, I guess.

There's plenty of false information and manipulated data shared on the forum specifically for the purposes of comparing data and debunking. You have much more enthusiasm for this specific topic. Regardless of whether the article is right or wrong, or whether anything you say is right or wrong, or whether anything I or others say is right or wrong, it is obvious that something about this subject is very personal for you. So, what is it? I ask because until I get a clearer notion of what that something is, and how you are relating at an emotional level with the subject, I don't know how much of your viewpoint I can trust or take your word at.
 
Just a couple of observations on this.
From my observations, the majority of women, in all walks of life are isolated, non-trusting of most men or other women, now for that matter.
Women are jaded and overwhelmed, with damaged thinking and needy for community and honesty.
And now.

From my observations, the majority of men, in all walks of life are isolated, non-trusting of most men or other women, now for that matter.
men are jaded and overwhelmed, with damaged thinking and needy for community and honesty.

Most of us “women” are still biologically wired females, against all odds, we have healed and dealed, even after all these masculinizing shocks and traumas.
And now.

Most of us “men” are still biologically wired males, against all odds, we have healed and dealed, even after all these feminizaning shocks and traumas.
 
The article doesn't moralise about it. It doesn't use words like bad, or evil. It's just pointing out an objective finding about horizontal competitiveness in women.
That phrase “horizontal competitiveness”.
Competitive behaviour is not a natural Biological female trait.
Women aren’t biologically wired for competitive behaviour between themselves and other women, they are biologically wired for cooperation and nurturing others, for mutual survival.

The article doesn't say anything about jealousy. It doesn't say anything about it being done in a conscious way. It does say that this type of behaviour is exhibited by women who class themselves as more highly competitive though. Which you say is "nothing short of pathological" to suggest. But you then go on to confirm the existence of this type of behaviour and to give reasons for it:
I did include way too much information, and apologies for that.
I got a little over enthusiastic after reading this paper and reading the supporting studies.
Same old $cience, basing the findings on prevailing social and cultural programming, as well as Darwinian evolution, etc,.
With the implication that women and men are basically interchangeable and “the same” just with different plumbing ends, it felt like déjà vu, on the “transgender” subject.
So if you say that it's pathological to suggest that women who are higher in competitiveness would unconsciously cut a client's hair shorter if that client was typically in the same 'pool' of sexual competition as them, then why are you giving reasons why it is probably true?
Too much of the paper focused on “sexual competition”, in my opinion.
That is a biologically wired male activity, and if it is manifested in women, they have active trauma constellations
in the male hormonal brain areas.
As an outside observer, it looks to me like the article pushed some buttons in you that caused you to dump a lot of stuff onto it that isn't really there and to miss the technical nature of the wording of it, and from there your thinking was clouded by emotional energy and the things you wrote in your post didn't logically follow.
If “fed up” and “maxed out” on regurgitated so called science manipulation to my limit is an “emotion”, I guess you’re right. These people get grants for turning out that crap!
I hope you're not offended by what I've said. I'm basically just curious how you're doing? If there's anything you want to get off your chest then you could post in the "How are you feeling?" thread or make your own. I hope you take that as being of genuine care and concern, and not patronising. But if you do take it as the latter, then I apologise because I don't mean it like that.
No offence taken, I really need to slow my thoughts and information sharing down, especially when it comes to these discussions.
As far as how I’m feeling, well, how about this response.
Everything I feel, I make sure and feel it very well, at the time it happens, so, I am feeling well!
That about sums up what I would write on that thread.
Thanks the concern and for asking.
 
Hi Debra, one thing I see in you that I also see in myself is the urge to utterly destroy wrong opinions. Not just any opinions though. Opinions that are not just wrong, but actually offensive. Opinions that are so wrong they are disgusting. Opinions that are so wrong that people who uphold them are actually worse human beings - in fact they're callous, toxic, and pathological. Opinions which in a just world would be expunged like leprosy from society and their adherents humiliated and disgraced. Opinions so wrong that if I had infinite time and energy I would take every single wrong sentence shared by those toxic, wrong people and cut it verbally to ribbons. I could write essays for each wrong sentence they write, and plot it on diagrams down to 17 decimal places on how absolutely and unequivocally wrong they are. "Because I deserve better than to be subject that complete nonsense, and it is even in fact lowering and humiliating that *I* have to condescend to bring myself down to your pathetic, WRONG level and profane Truth with the notion this is some kind of debate. We are NOT equals. I and the world have been victimized by your disgusting, pathological, WRONG viewpoints long enough (once is in fact too often) and you ARE going to hear about it and get put in your place." That's what the feeling inside me sounds like sometimes, and I see that flavor in what you wrote, not that that means that your critiques are false.
Dang, Dude, you really got some serious grudging going on, eh?
Would you like me to recommend a few good therapies you could work with, to clear some of those negative thought loops, judgements and megalomania tendencies?;-)
Seriously, thanks for the comedy break, and yes, I do laugh at myself once in a while when these “mainstream manipulations”surface.;-D

There's plenty of false information and manipulated data shared on the forum specifically for the purposes of comparing data and debunking. You have much more enthusiasm for this specific topic. Regardless of whether the article is right or wrong, or whether anything you say is right or wrong, or whether anything I or others say is right or wrong, it is obvious that something about this subject is very personal for you. So, what is it? I ask because until I get a clearer notion of what that something is, and how you are relating at an emotional level with the subject, I don't know how much of your viewpoint I can trust or take your word at.
I hope my responses in the posts above answer your questions.
I do have several posts and contributions on other threads detailing Hamer’s extensive research and findings, and my viewpoint.
Thanks again for the laugh.
 
@Debra Have you studied Foucault and the anti-psychiatry movement?
I’ve read his “Madness and Civilisation: A history of insanity in the age of reason“
The social and cultural control systems, via the medical industry, and the creation of the dependency and victimhood of the ordinary humans was his main focus, if I recall correctly.
All of the manipulations and disempowerment of humanity throughout these past several centuries must be taken into account, and they do fit together, into 4th Density Service to Self degradation agenda, in my opinion.
 
I would like to respond as far as the article is concerned. I think the first thing when reading it would be to know the parameters in which “scientists” define a “highly competitive woman” or at least define what a woman is, you know, one who thinks she is one but isn't biologically? Someone who felt like a competitive woman that day? Or the one who works as a waitress and does very well...etc.
So the study continues:
The reason behind this recommendation might be to subtly manipulate the appearance of their rivals. By advising more extensive haircuts, these women could potentially diminish the physical attractiveness of other women.

And I wonder with this conclusion of “might be ” there is no certainty of anything, it could be that this very competitive woman does not have good taste (we do not know her profession) or it could be, that if her competition is driving trucks she thinks that short hair looks better on someone else. In the world of aesthetics and beauty that could or is quite subjective.
It could also be that someone feels bullied and undervalued and tries to mirror someone else.

This has nothing to do with high competitiveness, right?
Here I think the article is more insidious because it does not mention the study's profile of the type of woman and goes into generalizing:

It suggests that at least some women engage in sabotage of other women as almost a default response – in the complete absence of any identifiable reason to do so.”
And that is not true for most of them, possibly that might be interesting if there was a real will to investigate, that identifiable reason for sabotage could be located so that the study would make some sense in the fact of perhaps identifying certain pathologies or psychopathologies in some women but obviously that is of no interest.
“It’s understandable, and expected, for women to engage in some sort of sabotage if another woman is a direct threat
– if she’s flirting with your partner, for example.
Is it really understandable, from my point of view it's not. I mean, do these scientists have any studies that say this is understandable, is it normalization for anyone to push their button and the reaction is for example self-destruction or aggression. What would these types of sabotage be?

But the suggestion that at least some women might engage in sabotage of other women as a default setting whenever the opportunity presents itself, is a new implication from the current study.
Not some women, I insist, “highly competitive women” and according to their own definition, and in this there is nothing conclusive only assumptions and scenarios elaborated as tiktok videos to make generalities about behavior, which in this case would be that of women.

I understand some of what @Debra says, like the one about women being fed up with this kind of media influence that seeks to separate and divide. I see women and men around me who seek to be honest, correct and open but unfortunately lack the knowledge to be able to manage their own relationships or psyches. I'm not saying it works for everyone, there is a lot of sociopathy at every level and this study is completely superficial and biased but I guess it is attractive because of its headline that talks about “highly competitive” women as potentially sabotaging other women and adding to this a whole load of sexual connotation, that sells.
 
That phrase “horizontal competitiveness”.
Competitive behaviour is not a natural Biological female trait.
Women aren’t biologically wired for competitive behaviour between themselves and other women, they are biologically wired for cooperation and nurturing others, for mutual survival.
This is true in general, but precisely for that same reason it has been observed that women tend to generate a certain rejection towards women who break that balance and seek to stand out above the rest; the other cases where conflicts often occur is when there is a confrontation over a potential partner.
The two previous cases are understandable to a certain point; so it would be excessive to label women as bad for the above.

Regarding the article, it could be an act of unconscious self-sabotage or perhaps they are looking to get more women to join their competitive "cause-vision" (short hair is associated with more masculine, i.e. competitive-bold features).
It remains to be seen whether the women who make this recommendation tend to wear short haircuts (I can still guess the answer).

I'm not sure that some of these types of women have as their primary or even secondary objective finding a partner, so despite the factor of making the recommendation that is possible, perhaps that recommendation, as I said, is more conscious and a product of their vision of things, which is why they encourage their companions to be similar in an act of subjective empathy ironically.

ps: Disclaimer!, the previous comment does not represent a criticism of short hair in women.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom