(no subject)
Jun. 5th, 2005 04:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lady_kishiriaSteve and I had an interesting talk on Friday that I forgot to bring up yesterday, about males, females, and violence. In his observation (and he may be onto something here) males are more aggressive and females are more violent. Explanation follows.
I'd been reading a blog off of someone ongarpu's friendslist. It's of a woman currently deployed to Iraq, and she was musing on the same topic. One of HER friends, a 5'11 female forest ranger, commented that male animals use aggression as a *display*, to attract females and drive off other males. However, male-to-male combat does not usually result in death. Female animals on the other hand, normally don't attack, but when they do, it's to kill. She cited bighorn sheep. Males have curved horns to protect their skulls when butting heads. Females have sharp, straight horns to out and out kill predators.
Male humans again tend to fight to impress other guys by being alpha male or women by being Big Tough Macho Man. Women don't go for that, which has created the mistaken impression (as I see it) that they are more peaceful. In my observation, women just need what they see as a better reason to use violence, and when they do, they do lethally.
I was watching a little two minute film on bayonet training, which is done against a dummy. The DI in the film was talking about how you had to "let your aggressions out". I can see where a man might be able to get more into this than a woman. Guys have all that nice, handy testosterone that can be aimed at such an object. I'm waiting to observe if women have more trouble with bayonet training, not because they are nice and gentle but because....it's a dummy. It's not a real threat, even if it represents one, so it might be harder to get "het up" enough to go after it. I'll report my findings when the time comes.
I'd been reading a blog off of someone on
garpu's friendslist. It's of a woman currently deployed to Iraq, and she was musing on the same topic. One of HER friends, a 5'11 female forest ranger, commented that male animals use aggression as a *display*, to attract females and drive off other males. However, male-to-male combat does not usually result in death. Female animals on the other hand, normally don't attack, but when they do, it's to kill. She cited bighorn sheep. Males have curved horns to protect their skulls when butting heads. Females have sharp, straight horns to out and out kill predators.Male humans again tend to fight to impress other guys by being alpha male or women by being Big Tough Macho Man. Women don't go for that, which has created the mistaken impression (as I see it) that they are more peaceful. In my observation, women just need what they see as a better reason to use violence, and when they do, they do lethally.
I was watching a little two minute film on bayonet training, which is done against a dummy. The DI in the film was talking about how you had to "let your aggressions out". I can see where a man might be able to get more into this than a woman. Guys have all that nice, handy testosterone that can be aimed at such an object. I'm waiting to observe if women have more trouble with bayonet training, not because they are nice and gentle but because....it's a dummy. It's not a real threat, even if it represents one, so it might be harder to get "het up" enough to go after it. I'll report my findings when the time comes.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-06 12:13 am (UTC)In paleolithic times, the men would go out hunting while the women tended the kids and did maintenance-style work.
When the men met strangers it was usually another hunting party from another clan. The male aggression was modified so that these encounters, which might be common, didn't keep ending up in bloodshed and death. At the same time, an agressive posture is a good way to prevent someone else from hunting in your territory, so the agression was not selected against either. Men ended up quick to aggression, but slow to escalate.
The women did not have any selection for agression in their daily business since meeting strangers was extremely rare. On the other hand, when it DID happen it was usually a raiding party which was likely to rape and/or kill them and may well kill all of the children. Women therefore, are slow to agression, but extremely fast to escalate.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-06 12:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-06 12:27 am (UTC)On my first date with c, he stopped a car from hitting me (by pounding on the hood with his fist) and I must say that earned brownie points.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-06 12:44 am (UTC)It can be also be seen in the lioness. The lion might be "the king of the jungle" and is built for fighting (not only with physical strength, but the mane acts like an armor), but only bares his fangs to defend territory. However, this makes also makes them ineffective predators. The lioness, OTOH, while smaller than the male lion, does the bulk of hunting and killing, especially if it's children are threatened.
I've always been intrigued about this concept. I've noticed a "Hard Woman" theme in some of my unpublished work.
...
Date: 2005-06-06 06:05 am (UTC)This would explain how males can be more aggressive, yet females can be far more violent.
Re: ...
Date: 2005-06-06 07:38 am (UTC)Re: ...
Date: 2005-06-06 03:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-06 06:45 pm (UTC)As for your comment on the byonette dummy, if the women were charged with inflicting cutting wounds, rather than piercing, I think they would be more happy to go along with the assignment. You stab someone, they bleed internally alot, then after a half hour they die. You cut them lots of times with little wounds, and each new wound inflames their nerves with sensations. Cut above the eyebrows, and blood seeps into the eyes, blinding them, perhaps even frightning them. Its always important to decide weither a target is to be eliminated, or saved for interogation.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-06 09:06 pm (UTC)Has nothing to do with happy/not happy. Bayonets are for use when you don't have any ammo or can't use it in close quarters. Not being able to bayonet an enemy but resorting to "cutting wounds" won't save your life in such a situation which is why we have to learn to do it.
What I was commenting on is that I think a man would be able to rouse up some aggression against an inanimate object more easily than a woman.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-06 10:36 pm (UTC)Not sure. Agression seems to be a part of human nature, not just one half the species. I've seen very agressive male and female drivers on the free ways during rush hour. But then from a cold start, I'm not sure if men are more agressive, and women more violent.