Things that make you go hmm !

[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.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[path_of_one]

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?

Depends on the culture. And the individual woman/man combo. And their age (related to hormones). There are cultures in which it is perfectly acceptable and normal for women to do a lot of the initiating, and others (our own in the US, in recent history) in which women are supposed to be "pure" and not really want sex at all. On top of cultural variation there is a great deal of individual variation, and this is overlaid with our population's tendency to mess around with their natural hormone cycles by taking birth control and hormone replacement therapy. Also, men and women have different age-related cycles of sex drive. Men tend to peak very young (early twenties) and decline gradually over time afterwards. Women tend not to peak until their early to late thirties, when the "clock" is ticking loudest.
By the way, is there a reason why the forum is stripping my posts of paragraph breaks now? It's making everything into one long paragraph. Anyone?

 

[Quahom1]

Depends on the culture. And the individual woman/man combo. And their age (related to hormones). There are cultures in which it is perfectly acceptable and normal for women to do a lot of the initiating, and others (our own in the US, in recent history) in which women are supposed to be "pure" and not really want sex at all. On top of cultural variation there is a great deal of individual variation, and this is overlaid with our population's tendency to mess around with their natural hormone cycles by taking birth control and hormone replacement therapy. Also, men and women have different age-related cycles of sex drive. Men tend to peak very young (early twenties) and decline gradually over time afterwards. Women tend not to peak until their early to late thirties, when the "clock" is ticking loudest.
By the way, is there a reason why the forum is stripping my posts of paragraph breaks now? It's making everything into one long paragraph. Anyone?

Ok, I guess I worded it wrong. What I meant was...a guy is watching the football game, it's really tight, and there's 5 minutes to go. Then his wife deliberately walks between him and the tv screen, with a saunter that is subtle but unmistakeable. And she finishes by brushing a finger across his chest as she heads for the bedroom...

Now if the yuts has half a brain, he'll put the tv on "record" and get up and follow her "cue".

v/r

Q

 

[path_of_one]

Again, though- depends on culture. We have a culture that is (thankfully to me) dependent on women agreeing to sex (though not generally accepting of assertiveness), so women in our culture learn all sorts of subtle ways to initiate without outright initiating.This is driving me nuts- the forum is not only stripping paragraph breaks, but is also stripping quotes and making them into the strange gobbly-gook computer language of my post above. I need to PM Brian, I guess.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Why then is it that women do not take over the world "aggressively" and physically. Given the large amount of WOMEN on the planet. Think about it, an ARMY of Nothing but WOMEN could be an effective killing machine given the right circumstances.

It's very simple. Men own all the nuclear weapons, and some of them are aimed at the chocolate fields. If women rebel, no more chocolate!


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[seattlegal]

It's very simple. Men own all the nuclear weapons, and some of them are aimed at the chocolate fields. If women rebel, no more chocolate!


eudaimonia,

Mark

No more chocolate? How will the men deal with the increase of PMS? It's a case of Mutually Assured Insanity!

 

[seattlegal]

No more chocolate? How will the men deal with the increase of PMS? It's a case of Mutually Assured Insanity!

Have you heard stories about the ferocity of she-bears with cubs? Woodsmen say they would much rather accidentally come acrossed a male bear than a female with cubs...Are you so sure you want to threaten women's supply of chocolate, and risk the wrath of the she-bear?

 

[aburaees]

Given that men for the last century have gone to war and died in large numbers, women have begun to out number men in most societies.

I would disagree with this, there is no evidence that women have begun to outnumber men in most societies

Men dying in wars is pretty much evened out by things like female-infanticide, higher birth-rates for boys, etc. In Haryana in India there are 8 women for every 10 men.

The reason women won't go to war in large numbers is Biological, men are more naturally inclined to go to war. The first wars/battles/fights between men were over women... think sperm/mate competition.
Women never needed to fight over men as conception was pretty much guaranteed just by having sex.
Men however fought over women because paternity was never guaranteed, fighting just multiplied the chances.

.

 

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

It's very simple. Men own all the nuclear weapons, and some of them are aimed at the chocolate fields. If women rebel, no more chocolate!


eudaimonia,

Mark

LOL!!!!

Now that's funny...

 

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

I would disagree with this, there is no evidence that women have begun to outnumber men in most societies

Men dying in wars is pretty much evened out by things like female-infanticide, higher birth-rates for boys, etc. In Haryana in India there are 8 women for every 10 men.

The reason women won't go to war in large numbers is Biological, men are more naturally inclined to go to war. The first wars/battles/fights between men were over women... think sperm/mate competition.
Women never needed to fight over men as conception was pretty much guaranteed just by having sex.
Men however fought over women because paternity was never guaranteed, fighting just multiplied the chances.

.

WOW, nice explanation.

Do you think women as a whole are more aggressive these days?

 

[aburaees]

WOW, nice explanation.

Do you think women as a whole are more aggressive these days?

Not really, lol. The Amazons were pretty aggressive back in the days, I think the potential has always been there.

Then again, I suppose female aggression was pretty much controlled by organised religion over the last 4,000 years. Nowadays women are reverting back to their former ways as the threat of a macho God is becoming increasingly diminished... female celebrities (Ishtar/Innana/Kali) in ancient pantheons had men trembling, and now they're back.

No offense intended to women by the way, you go get them girls!

.