Things that make you go hmm !

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by YO-ELEVEN-11

LOL...NICE THOUGHT

Yeah, it works.



v/r

Q

[path_of_one]

Hmmm... I haven't read Angier's book. My initial thoughts are that social/political maneuvering and physical, hormone-based aggression are not the same thing at their root. That is, I'm speaking about aggression in a very biological sense- certain hormones getting dumped into the system, making the person involved feel aggressive, which can be channeled in any number of ways. I see the social aggression which you discuss as more a system of power that women in many societies have perfected due to their oppression in the more "public" and "open" displays of discontent and politicking. I'd also wager that the sorts of character assassination and such being primarily practiced by women is not universally the case, but rather a result of certain cultural standards. In some societies, men do a lot of this as well because public and open displays of conflict are not proper. I think it has more to do with ways to manipulate others when one is confined by social rules more than the gut-reaction, animalistic stuff I think of when I think of aggression (think two male baboons fighting- hair on end, canines displayed, etc.).

Much of this is based on some recent research I read that was summarized in "The Other Fifty Percent." I don't do much gender research myself, so I'm certainly no expert.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Hmmm... I haven't read Angier's book. My initial thoughts are that social/political maneuvering and physical, hormone-based aggression are not the same thing at their root. That is, I'm speaking about aggression in a very biological sense- certain hormones getting dumped into the system, making the person involved feel aggressive, which can be channeled in any number of ways. I see the social aggression which you discuss as more a system of power that women in many societies have perfected due to their oppression in the more "public" and "open" displays of discontent and politicking. I'd also wager that the sorts of character assassination and such being primarily practiced by women is not universally the case, but rather a result of certain cultural standards. In some societies, men do a lot of this as well because public and open displays of conflict are not proper. I think it has more to do with ways to manipulate others when one is confined by social rules more than the gut-reaction, animalistic stuff I think of when I think of aggression (think two male baboons fighting- hair on end, canines displayed, etc.).

Much of this is based on some recent research I read that was summarized in "The Other Fifty Percent." I don't do much gender research myself, so I'm certainly no expert.

Interesting point. Does the female bare her fangs as well, during any point of any conflict? Or is it all male? (so much for the male being a prototype female as some attempt to show).

I guess the point is females should give the males their due...But that is not "politically correct" nowadays...

v/r

Q

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Most men surely learn that this is an illusion?

lmao..

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

Originally Posted by Scarlet Pimpernel

Have you ever read the book Woman: An Intimate Geography by Natalie Angier? I'd be very interested in your take on it. She writes a couple of chapters about aggression in women, and its relation to testosterone. She posits that women are actually more aggressive than men - but women are socially aggressive rather than physically aggressive. According to Angier, women use cattiness, gossip, character assasination, and snubs, and in a much more complex way, and for much longer, than men use physical violence. A man doesn't like you, he punches you in the nose and is done with it. A woman doesn't like you, she makes sure that nobody else will ever want to associate with you ever again. And from my own experience, I'd have to agree with her.

WOW....Iv got to get that book.

On my present job, I work with a large group of women and they can be really catty at times, but what amazes me is that one day they will fuss at each other and the next day be friendly with each other just like nothing happened.

Also, as many women as there are on this job, none of them will group up and make sexual comments like guys do when they out number women...i.e. like construction workers...

And another thing, For instance, (and correct me if im wrong) but no other creature on earth can bleed for a week and not die except a woman...

Any thoughts?

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

path, at the risk of being tedious, I'm going to reiterate that I reccommend reading Angier's book - only because I do NOT think I am qualified to have an intelligent discussion on this subject, especially not with someone so educated in the field as yourself. And as I have to leave for work in about 15 minutes, this post won't be as detailed and well-thought-out as I'd like it to be, I'm afraid. But I've got the book in my hand, perusing the chapters I mentioned, and if I'm understanding her correctly, Angier says that hormones may not have as direct a correlation on aggression in females OR males as we popularly thing. She discusses many clinical studies on testosterone and agression in males and in females, and the often conflicting conclusions of these studies. She also points out that eunuchs were great at guarding harems because they could be so pissy and aggressive. She also brings up aggressive behaviour in female spotted hyenas - that females are quite clearly the dominant, overly-agressive members of the species, and yet their testosterone level is far, far below that of the males.

What I was talking about in my previous post, Angier classifies as "indirect aggression," not social manipulation.

In cultures where girls are allowed to be girls, to speak up and out, they are in fact more verbally, directly aggressive and less indirectly aggressive than in cultures where girls and women are expected to be demure. In Poland, for example, a good smart mouth is considered a female asset, and girls there rag each other and pull no punches and report feeling relatively little threat of intragroup skullduggery. Among female Zapotec Indians in Mexico, who are exceedingly subordinate to men, indirect aggression prevails. Among the Vanatinai of Papua New Guinea, one of the most egalitarian and least stratified societies known to anthropologists, women speak and move as freely as they please, and they sometimes use their fists and feet to demonstrate their wrath, and there is no evidence of a feminine edge in covert operations.

-Natalie Angier, Woman: an Intimate Geography, pp.267-268.
Not sure how well that quote supports my point, but I think it's interesting anyway.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Ah, but no woman can deal with a man that ignores her...no woman...nes't pas?

hmm...I'll have to think about that one, Q

Originally Posted by YO-ELEVEN-11

Also, as many women as there are on this job, none of them will group up and make sexual comments like guys do when they out number women...i.e. like construction workers...

heh...wanna bet? Maybe they just don't do it where you can hear.

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

Originally Posted by YO-ELEVEN-11
Also, as many women as there are on this job, none of them will group up and make sexual comments like guys do when they out number women...i.e. like construction workers...

heh...wanna bet? Maybe they just don't do it where you can hear.

Sounds like someone is naughty.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by scarlet

What I was talking about in my previous post, Angier classifies as "indirect aggression," not social manipulation.

Quote:
In cultures where girls are allowed to be girls, to speak up and out, they are in fact more verbally, directly aggressive and less indirectly aggressive than in cultures where girls and women are expected to be demure. In Poland, for example, a good smart mouth is considered a female asset, and girls there rag each other and pull no punches and report feeling relatively little threat of intragroup skullduggery. Among female Zapotec Indians in Mexico, who are exceedingly subordinate to men, indirect aggression prevails. Among the Vanatinai of Papua New Guinea, one of the most egalitarian and least stratified societies known to anthropologists, women speak and move as freely as they please, and they sometimes use their fists and feet to demonstrate their wrath, and there is no evidence of a feminine edge in covert operations.

-Natalie Angier, Woman: an Intimate Geography, pp.267-268.
Not sure how well that quote supports my point, but I think it's interesting anyway.

Hi Scarlet, My reading of that quote, and I am also far from an expert on this, would be that it supports what Path said about the social structure determining the form of aggression by women. More egalitarian societies have women openly asserting themselves, even physically, while in societies where women are subordinate the aggression is much more subtle and so-called 'manipulative.' IOW, I think you and Path are saying the same thing.

2 c,
lunamoth

[Quahom1]

LOL, I used to clean Highschool bathrooms after hours for a living.

You should see the bathroom stall walls in the "ladies/Girls" room, as compared to the "Mens/Boys" room...

You should overhear the "gossip" of some women in restaurants. Yes public restaurants...

Interesting stuff.

v/r

Q

[path_of_one]

Hi, Scarlet- I'll have to put it on the long list of things to read! Sounds interesting...

I would have to read it to see if the author is defining aggression in the same way as other people I've read. One of the tough things in social science is the basic topic being discussed is often not defined- a real problem when you try to match up and decipher competing theories about the issue in question.

I would agree with Angier that the system of gender stratification in society would certainly be the primary force shaping the degree of directness in female "aggression" or "assertiveness." The same is true for men. Any time people are prevented by social mores from expressing their discontent and asserting their needs and desires, it will come out in indirect ways that manipulate social situations into meeting their needs and giving them power.

And as for sexuality- you'd be amazed at what I've heard among small groups of women. They just won't say anything in front of men.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Hi, Scarlet- I'll have to put it on the long list of things to read! Sounds interesting...

I would have to read it to see if the author is defining aggression in the same way as other people I've read. One of the tough things in social science is the basic topic being discussed is often not defined- a real problem when you try to match up and decipher competing theories about the issue in question.

I would agree with Angier that the system of gender stratification in society would certainly be the primary force shaping the degree of directness in female "aggression" or "assertiveness." The same is true for men. Any time people are prevented by social mores from expressing their discontent and asserting their needs and desires, it will come out in indirect ways that manipulate social situations into meeting their needs and giving them power.

And as for sexuality- you'd be amazed at what I've heard among small groups of women. They just won't say anything in front of men.

Lol, in small towns, no one argues with the senior "Matron", not if they want anything changed or done.

I also see, that you pseudo agree with my bathroom stall observation...

v/r

Q

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I also see, that you pseudo agree with my bathroom stall observation...

v/r

Q

LOL- yes. I'm pretty modest about these things in public and have often found myself blushing horribly when women get together and talk. I don't know if they're as bad as men, but many certainly don't keep this conversation to themselves!

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

Any more thoughts on this issue?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by YO-ELEVEN-11

Any more thoughts on this issue?

Yeah, I do. Who is the agressive one in a love relationship when it comes to sex? Or more accurately, who has to innitiate the invite? (normally)

Is is men? or women?

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Yeah, I do. Who is the agressive one in a love relationship when it comes to sex? Or more accurately, who has to innitiate the invite? (normally)

Is is men? or women?

I would say the man usually, but women these days have become very very aggressive in thier approach to sex and are making men feel used the day after.