|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I remember stuff like this when I was in junior high...but it was twice as bad because I was more "masculinely" agressive. I would actully pick fights with people and yell and scream at them, and the popular girls would spread nasty rumors about me, which made it worse. I finally got accepted after 3 years on Prozac and winning the Student Council VP elections. It was a tough climb to the top. Let me tell you!!
Thank God someone finally said woemn were as aggressive as men!!
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with this article. Girls, especially around the ages of 6th-8th grade can be very agressively "mean". Also women practice more passive agression than overt agression. Sneakily getting back at a rivals, or to even disputes even with parents, rather than in overt destructive ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overt, or covert - I think it is still destructive. By any definition, passive aggression certainly isn't constructive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A neighbor lady watches my daughter after school for about an hour. Her son and his friend used to pick on my daughter mercilessly, physically and verbally, to make her cry. It was getting to the point where I was considering making other arrangements, but she eventually figured out how to hold them off on her own. I wasn't sure how she managed to work it out, but I recently learned that she was threatening them to kiss them if they didn't leave her alone. They are all still young enough that the threat of "girl cooties" terrifies. They all seem to play together without incident now, but I did take her aside and told her to stop the kissing games though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 25, @02:28PM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
That's right wiccid, teach her to use her sexuality to get her way. Maybe in the future she can use it to make a living too. If you were a responsible parent, you'd have punished her for playing such games.
The difference going on between the genders here is that when boys play status games they get corrected. Girls don't. So they recieve the message their behavior is acceptable.
My girls don't play these kinds of games, because they got punished when they did. They've learned that hitting, name calling, and bullying is unacceptable, no matter which form it takes.
And you know what? They are well adjusted, mature, assertive women now, ones that take no crap from anyone, nor do they dish it out. Both are in stable and respectful marriages. And I am proud to say, they are devoutly anti-feminist, and often help out dad politically.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did you not read that I took her aside and told her to stop those games? And she has. But, the boys leave her alone now just the same.
I didn't teach her to use sexuality to get her way. Who taught the boys to hit her and call her names and make her cry to get theirs? Is it human nature? Or the nature of boys? I don't have that problem with my stepsons, just the two boys from next door. And why did the babysitter not put a stop to it herself?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
____"That's right wiccid, teach her to use her sexuality to get her way."
Lots of things in society reinforce this notion. I remember being shocked when I first started noticing how other people were conditioning my daughter this way as young as 2 years old! Her male adult relatives frequently made comments like this:
You are so pretty, I'm going to give you candy, (present, surprise etc) 'cause you look so pretty today.
"Give grandpa a kiss and I'll give you some candy (or a surprise.. etc).
Go put on your pretty pink dress and granpa wants to take you to the park (store, friends house) to show them what a pretty little girl you are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My daughter had a playmate once tell her she can't be a girl, because she plays with dinosaurs. She skipped dolls more or less entirely. These days it's razor scooters and computer/video games, and chess. She's not much of a girly girl. She gets along in that way very well with her stepbrothers.
The kissing thing was new, and contrary to a previous poster's comment we did put a stop to it. I wrote about it because it was an incident that occurred that exhibited different aggressive behavior between the boys/girls - the boys hit, she retaliated by threatening to kiss them. It wasn't something we condoned, but something I witnessed that struck me about how different the two genders can be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought your anecdote was funny and showed your daughter has lateral thinking ability beyond her years! Take the enemy's amunition against you and use it against them! Pretty smart.
I don't think I would have scolded her on this account. Tough call. As usual being a parent is frought with gray areas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't scold her, per se; but I did tell her not to do it anymore. I don't want her using that sort of weapon on the wrong or dangerous sort. I was amazed that she came up with it though, and that it worked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday February 23, @09:47PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I ask if boys ever put together three-way calls like that. ''Nah,'' Jackie says. ''I don't think they're smart enough.''
Or maybe because they aren't quite so pathetic?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is one of my pet peevs when women focus on male abuse but fail to recognize the psychological harm the do with words and passive aggressive behavior. I wish more public attention would be given to the harm that women do through the use of relational aggression. Maybe their would be less DV if women would recognize their role in this cycle and get help for their problem. (kind of tongue-in-cheek but not really.)
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I did a couple three-way calls when I was in junior high, but it was to arrange Dungeons & Dragons get-togethers, not tear each other new assholes because of something idiotic like who wears what clothing or who is a "slut" or who is... etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't find this study very surprising nor would I think anyone who has had contact with girls. This behavior has never been hidden because it is excepted and not looked at as a threat. What I do find interesting is that it seems to mirror the types of abuse that is described by men who have been taken to court for false abuse charges. This is the classic description of emotional abuse and is called just that when men do somthing similiar, of course when girls or women do it, it is clasified as "meaness". I also wonder why this study is not extended to relationships girls and women have with boys and men? When males have a hard time describing the abuse they recieve from females it seems that they are justified because this kind of abuse is so complex (especialy if it has been practiced and refined for years). In our society we have truly only recognized active agression and passive agression has always been minimalized. I guess in conclusion I can only say that this study should be seen as a key to understanding the problems men experience in abusive relationships with women and why when they end up in court the men, because they are the victims of passive agression, look like the villians. It is possible that because this behavior in girls is so excepted that when they become women and still react in the same fashion, as men we can only see helpless little girls (of course unless we are on the recieving end of their abuse).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>This behavior has never been hidden because it is excepted and not looked at as a threat. What I do find interesting is that it seems to mirror the types of abuse that is described by men who have been taken to court for false abuse charges.
Outstanding point.
One thing that stood out when I read this article is how the scientific social psychology community defines aggression. They typically site physical aggression and therefore site men for the negative consquences of aggression.
The female form, while more often passive, can be just as destructive a force. I applaud the New York Times magazine for bringing the issue into public consciousness.
This is the classic description of emotional abuse and is called just that when men do somthing similiar, of course when girls or women do it, it is clasified as "meaness". I also wonder why this study is not extended to relationships girls and women have with boys and men? When males have a hard time describing the abuse they recieve from females it seems that they are justified because this kind of abuse is so complex (especialy if it has been practiced and refined for years). In our society we have truly only recognized active agression and passive agression has always been minimalized. I guess in conclusion I can only say that this study should be seen as a key to understanding the problems men experience in abusive relationships with women and why when they end up in court the men, because they are the victims of passive agression, look like the villians. It is possible that because this behavior in girls is so excepted that when they become women and still react in the same fashion, as men we can only see helpless little girls (of course unless we are on the recieving end of their abuse).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
______"One thing that stood out when I read this article is how the scientific social psychology community defines aggression. They typically site physical aggression and therefore site men for the negative consquences of aggression."
But can't we determine that BOTH types of aggression are destructive? A thought occured to me that the writer of the article is working with school children to try to get them to realize how destructive their tactics are to others. To me this is a good thing.
But look at the flip side. The War of Boys folks advocate the boys will be boys approach to letting children play out their "natural" aggression or nature. Yet this author seems to be sayin the natural state of girls is a sort of girls will be girls ... using passive agression and catiness to settle their differences and establish a pecking order. If this is "natural" and the physical confrontational style is "natural" for boys, shouldn't we just let them be and not try to chang them?
I don't think so. I don't think there is anything wrong with setting expectations for people which are higher than their "nature". Telling girls their behavior is destructive and telling boys the same thing. Not one or the other. Setting higher goals for kids. Why should we just accept the baser nature of all humans as a given?
It is called progress. Civilization depends on it ... or else we'll all devolve into Afghanistan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But can't we determine that BOTH types of aggression are destructive?
Wasn't that Gary's point?
If this is "natural" and the physical confrontational style is "natural" for boys, shouldn't we just let them be and not try to change them?
Probably. As the article noted, such programs seem to have no impact on the girls, other than teaching them the mechanics of becoming an Alpha-girl.
I think teaching this curriculum to boys might be helpful. It would help them to understand that they are, for the most part, just pawns and prizes in girls' ongoing status wars. That is information I sure could have used back then.
Why should we just accept the baser nature of all humans as a given?
We have to recognize and acknowledge this particular nasty bit of human nature before we can deal with it. Men especially. Girls learn to defend themselves against this kind of behavior. (I know a fair number of women who don't have other women as close friends precisely to avoid the passive-aggression.) Men don't. If they're lucky, they learn it through dating and eventually figure out that they're being blamed, shamed and conned. If they're not lucky, well, today's law makes damn sure they pay for their naivete.
If they're really lucky, like me, they find a woman with enough self-respect to forego this kind of crap. But it shouldn't depend on luck.
Talking about the ways girls typically agress against others is the first step to recognizing it and ultimately, not allowing or accepting such destructive behavior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good post Lorianne - We need to hold both boys and girls responsible for their violence, especially when it is directed at people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If women are as mean as men, then it must follow that the downplay of women's violence, such as Andrea Yates and numerous other women who've murdered children cannot be justified. The first thing that often happens when a woman child murderer is found is, because of the assumption of women's gentle nature, that there is a search for something to explain this behaviour, rather than simply accepting she might be bad if there is no real proof of mental illness. Further once we have the idea that women are aggressive and mean and are devious in their expression of this, then the idea that they should be inherently believed in cases of rape, domestic violence and sexual harassment, becomes dubious to say the least. Also the notion of a mean, devious woman supports the idea of parent alienation syndrome that a number of fathers say is responsible for their children no longer wanting to see them.
I also note that for female aggressiveness, there seems to be teams springing up to help them with it. I could be mistaken but I am not aware of much in the way of programs to help aggressive boys, and none in a sort of group discussion sort of way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I got bored reading what I already knew, so I have to admit, I didn't read the whole article. What struck me from the start, however, is that when the author and others describe the vicious behaviors and methods of these young girls, they are describing many of the vicious behaviors and methods of mainstream feminists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly Thomas! But it is "Stealth" aggression that is hard to find on a radar screen. It often leaves people feeling shamed, angry and confused. It's hard to describe it to the judge and even if you did, it breaks no laws. I am so glad that this is getting some press. I hope the DV people take note of this. I feel strongly that this sort of violence plays an important role in the dance of DV. So far we only see and condemn the battering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just realized I should have titled this thread either "Feminism Predux" or "Feminism: The Prequel."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 24, @01:34PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
females are just as aggressive as young males, but that they are
aggressive in a different way called "relational aggression."
It has been my impression for some time that women are more likely to back "no fault" divorce laws. If I'm right, this article may explain why. My hypothesis is that
women passed no fault divorce laws so they can behave like jackasses in relationships with impunity.
Having said that, I'm eager to learn with certainty who supported the "no fault" liability laws in - divorce,
- auto accidents and
- contraceptive fraud which rewards women who trick men into parenthood.
I wouldn't be surpirsed to learn that it was feminists in all three cases. They hate being held accountable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 24, @07:44PM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
- Favorite quote:
some girls lack any sense of an impersonal order that exists independently of their wishes and anxieties, and of the vicissitudes of relationships.
- Adult gold-diggers have the same blind spot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As gold-digees have the same blind spot :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
