We’d like your help getting CurlTalk back on its feet!

By participating on CurlTalk — posting, commenting, liking — in the next few weeks, you will automatically be entered to win amazing prizes.

Our latest winner is Savagegirl!

CurlyCanadian, Bomega and EllaJ have also won wonderful prizes! Will you be next? Post, like, comment, GET ACTIVE and help us get CurlTalk ENERGIZED again!

Learn more!

Article- Teach girls to be more like boys

JosephineJosephine Posts: 14,177Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
The title doesn't sound great but I agree with the author. I'm offended that being direct is a boy trait, but in my experience it really is. I wonder if that's all socialization or a natural trait of girls/women(indirectness). I have defnitely come across catty men as well but it's a smaller percentage.

Opinion: Andover's lesson on gender gap - CNN.com
«1

Comments

  • theliothelio Posts: 5,374Registered Users
    just reading the title, i agree. Girls are taught to pretty much allow males to run over us. while mlaes are taught to be aggressive adn do what it takes to get what you and be all manly and whatnot. If girls are taught these girls at a young age males wounldnt be able to run over us. I would take this advice a step further and say teach your boys to be like girls. maybe then these stupid males will becoem respectful and us ladies wouldn't be worried of getting raped and stuff. I hate males.:angryfire:
  • JosephineJosephine Posts: 14,177Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQyC6cvPfYh6Nd-S_LPSLAjgOfTvhEunKOzDODIBMmuUeXiOeUO
  • RedCatWavesRedCatWaves Posts: 31,258Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    Some of the largest female-oppressive forces in our culture are religious in nature. We have the big three...christianity, judaism, and islam...telling women that they are less than men, that they cannot ever aspire to hold positions of power within the religion hierarchy, that they must be subservient and submissive to men, etc. And a LARGE portion of Americans claim to belong to these religions. I can't see women ever really getting further than they are right now unless/until we do something about religion.
  • JosephineJosephine Posts: 14,177Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    I see that as a separate issue. In general people want women to be more passive/submissive and view directness in females as an aggressive/abnormal quality while it goes unnoticed in men. I've known many religious women who are quite direct and assertive in nature and religious men who are not your typical alpha males.
  • spiderlashes5000spiderlashes5000 Posts: 17,502Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    These girls often resorted to gossip and other forms of indirect communication, or they internalize their feelings in unhealthy ways.
    Over time, pretending not to be angry with a friend when you are, or turning to a text messages instead of having an honest conversation, becomes a formative habit of communication. Meanwhile, the muscles that girls need to assert their strongest feelings and opinions atrophy.

    Was this an ethnographic study of NC??? LOL

  • Laura LeeLaura Lee Posts: 1,828Registered Users
    I think both sexes could stand to learn a thing or two from each other.
  • rouquinnerouquinne Posts: 13,565Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    thelio wrote: »
    I hate males.

    you know what....

    this isn't the way to go.

    we're all, at the very least, daughters of a man.

    my father was a good, kind, decent man and my mother is the one that treated him badly.

    i have a wonderful brother-in-law who has been married to my step-sister for over 40 years. he has raised an amazing son who has been in the same relationship for 10 years.

    my male cousins and uncles are all, uniformly, amazing men.

    sure, i've been hurt, by men - not just in my personal life, but in my professional life. but i've had women friends that turned out to be anything but and female bosses that were even worse than the worst guy.

    individual PEOPLE can be bad - but this gender-bashing isn't helping either side in the battle of the sexes.

    and i'm sick of seeing it here on NC.

    angry-smiley.gif?1292867547
    My blog:

    /home/leaving?target=http%3A%2F%2Flabellatestarossa.blogspot.ca%2F" class="Popup

    Little Mother of all the Roaches, President-for-Life of the MAC Harlots!
  • JosephineJosephine Posts: 14,177Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    I don't think she was totally serious lol.
  • RedCatWavesRedCatWaves Posts: 31,258Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    rouquinne wrote: »
    thelio wrote: »
    I hate males.

    you know what....

    this isn't the way to go.

    we're all, at the very least, daughters of a man.

    my father was a good, kind, decent man and my mother is the one that treated him badly.

    i have a wonderful brother-in-law who has been married to my step-sister for over 40 years. he has raised an amazing son who has been in the same relationship for 10 years.

    my male cousins and uncles are all, uniformly, amazing men.

    sure, i've been hurt, by men - not just in my personal life, but in my professional life. but i've had women friends that turned out to be anything but and female bosses that were even worse than the worst guy.

    individual PEOPLE can be bad - but this gender-bashing isn't helping either side in the battle of the sexes.

    and i'm sick of seeing it here on NC.

    angry-smiley.gif?1292867547


    See...I kinda disagree. I think, as a whole, men are oppressive to women. Our society is paternalistic and women are still second-class in uncountable ways. Individual men can be both good and bad (just as women can be). I happen to adore the men I own, and also many of the ones I call friends and family, but, other than those few select individuals, I don't have a whole lot of love for the societal group known as "men".

    I think that's always been the age-old problem. Men in total are against us, but our individual men aren't necessarily against us.
  • Fifi.GFifi.G Posts: 15,490Registered Users
    I'm curious as to what years women were more active in student leadership. While reading the article I thought back to any and every student body leadership while I was in school (in or around my grade) and it was always women.
    When I hear terms like "hipster" I think, who told cliques they could leave high school??

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • webjockeywebjockey Posts: 2,786Registered Users
    I have all sorts of issues with this article.

    1. It places a great deal of value on those who are in charge. I say not true. There is as much value as being a supporter/follower as there is a leader and there's no shame in someone who is great at supporting people who have natural leadership skills. A leader is nothing without those who are following them. IMO there's not enough emphasis on good followship skills, and how to properly recognize and reward those in that role.

    2. Girls and women need to know that they are not selling themselves short by not choosing to be a leader in this very narrow definition of leadership, which brings me to my next issue:

    3. We need to broaden our definition of leadership. To give an obscene example, Dick Cheney was not the president, but he sure as hell may have been with the amount of power and influence he had. Being a leader is not only about the title, but about your attitude and how you conduct yourself. Those are really the skills which need to be cultivated first and foremost.

    4. There is a good deal of ink spilled about the cost of "bossiness" etc. I think that is largely influenced on the financial burdens women face, especially single moms. It's hard to be risky with one's careers or leadership choices if there isn't a good support system. I wonder if women who live in countries where there is a better social safety net are more willing to take leadership risks. Which brings me to my final issue with the article:

    5. The article places the blame, and the solutions with individuals - specifically the girls. How about in addition to teaching girls how to be more assertive, they provide classes to instructors, school admins, boys etc on the value of different styles of leadership, the importance of a diverse leadership body etc.? Society needs to take responsibility and change in order to create the environment for female leaders to thrive.
    hello.world.
  • theliothelio Posts: 5,374Registered Users
    I wasnt 100% serious about hating males. Not all males anyway.

    MEN are important imo, not male. MEN teaches boys how to be MEN and teach girls how MEN should treat them when they become women. My grandpa, uncles, and my dad taught me what MEN were. But even they still have male traits. They understand nothing about women. They respect women, but still don't get the ish we go through everyday.

    Males just dont get it. and this is what makes me pissed off with them. my dad calls me bossy and says I am not ladylike all the time. why? because i dont sugar coat things and if i want things done i get things done.I can be aggressive when i have to be. i learned this from my mom, as looney toon as she is, she taught me to be "more like a boy".

    I have encountered lots of males who think I am a mean ******, just because i disagree or dont laugh at their corny jokes. If i was male I wouldn't be called anything, just a typical man. Because men can be honest and truthful and state their opinion without being called out. while us ladies cant do nothing about nothing.
  • JosephineJosephine Posts: 14,177Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    webjockey wrote: »
    I have all sorts of issues with this article.

    1. It places a great deal of value on those who are in charge. I say not true. There is as much value as being a supporter/follower as there is a leader and there's no shame in someone who is great at supporting people who have natural leadership skills. A leader is nothing without those who are following them. IMO there's not enough emphasis on good followship skills, and how to properly recognize and reward those in that role.

    This is true but at the end of the day leaders are the primary/end decision makers and minorities and women need more representation.
    webjockey wrote: »

    5. The article places the blame, and the solutions with individuals - specifically the girls.

    I didn't see this at all. Like you said, society does have to change, but it has to start with women/girls. If women don't accept women being assertive, it'll be harder for men to do so. I think it's important for girls to know what's important and what's not(approval for being 'ladylike').
  • spiderlashes5000spiderlashes5000 Posts: 17,502Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    I personally don't know anyone who is raising her child to be submissive or passive-aggressive.

    I think the problem is that girls don't see women in leadership roles or behaving in a powerful, independent manner. There aren't a lot of relevent role models for little girls.

    I think if women felt more content and empowered in life, we wouldn't lash out at each other over such petty things and waste so much energy feeling offended and insecure over this or that minor thing.

    Female ppl are wired a little different from male ppl, in general, and just aren't going to react as aggressively as men/boys in conflict situations...so when we do get mad it can come out in nonaggressive ways (passive-aggression, internalization, etc.)

  • annabananaliseannabananalise Posts: 1,913Registered Users
    Except, no. Not all men are aggressive (and I know plenty of passive-aggressive males) in conflicts. It's just when they are it's seen as a manly/male trait

    And plenty of women are aggressive in conflicts it's just when they are they're seen as b*tches or hysterical.

    The whole women and males are WIRED differently grinds my gears. Behavior is learned and encouraged. And it's less that people are raising girls to be passive-aggressive, it's just taught as a feminine trait. So when a little girl is aggressive and upfront in conflicts and other areas of her life she becomes a "tomboy"

    I think it's an accepted thing that women should be less than men even if it isn't explicitly stated.

    Fortunately my dad (who is NOT a male, but a man) nipped those ideas in the bud when the 4 of us were little. When we went golfing (for one example) and I asked why the women's tee was so far ahead (and the men's and pro's tee were only separated by a few steps), my dad was like "I don't know and I don't care. You don't need 500 feet for a fair game because you're a girl. Being a girl isn't a handicap."

    Sugar, spice, and everything nice versus bugs, snails, and puppy dog tails needs to meet the true death.

    (i can't stop murrr)
    Last relaxer: 8.4.10
    BC: 9.6.11
    tumblr_mkqgfjWwA41qcwgrvo1_500.gif
    when will your favs?

  • spiderlashes5000spiderlashes5000 Posts: 17,502Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    Except, no. Not all men are aggressive (and I know plenty of passive-aggressive males) in conflicts. It's just when they are it's seen as a manly/male trait

    And plenty of women are aggressive in conflicts it's just when they are they're seen as b*tches or hysterical.

    The whole women and males are WIRED differently grinds my gears. Behavior is learned and encouraged. And it's less that people are raising girls to be passive-aggressive, it's just taught as a feminine trait. So when a little girl is aggressive and upfront in conflicts and other areas of her life she becomes a "tomboy"

    I think it's an accepted thing that women should be less than men even if it isn't explicitly stated.

    Fortunately my dad (who is NOT a male, but a man) nipped those ideas in the bud when the 4 of us were little. When we went golfing (for one example) and I asked why the women's tee was so far ahead (and the men's and pro's tee were only separated by a few steps), my dad was like "I don't know and I don't care. You don't need 500 feet for a fair game because you're a girl. Being a girl isn't a handicap."

    Sugar, spice, and everything nice versus bugs, snails, and puppy dog tails needs to meet the true death.

    (i can't stop murrr)

    I didn't say all men are aggressive. I said IN GENERAL female ppl aren't as aggressive as male ppl. If you don't see evidence of that since the beginning time in almost every species of animal and in many facets of human life, then we are obviously living in two separate universes.

    Compensating for physical disparities in sports is a bit of a separate issue IMO. If the sport is being played by young kids, it's probably not necessary. But if it's being played by adults, it could be. Co-rec sports are uncommon after a certain age bc of this and the fact that men do become physically stronger than women.

    Personally, IDK anyone who still parents by the old adage "sugar and spice..." I haven't heard of kids being raised that way since the 50s. Again, must be that alternate universe. LOL

  • JosephineJosephine Posts: 14,177Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    Except, no. Not all men are aggressive (and I know plenty of passive-aggressive males) in conflicts. It's just when they are it's seen as a manly/male trait

    And plenty of women are aggressive in conflicts it's just when they are they're seen as b*tches or hysterical.

    The whole women and males are WIRED differently grinds my gears. Behavior is learned and encouraged. And it's less that people are raising girls to be passive-aggressive, it's just taught as a feminine trait. So when a little girl is aggressive and upfront in conflicts and other areas of her life she becomes a "tomboy"

    I think it's an accepted thing that women should be less than men even if it isn't explicitly stated.

    Fortunately my dad (who is NOT a male, but a man) nipped those ideas in the bud when the 4 of us were little. When we went golfing (for one example) and I asked why the women's tee was so far ahead (and the men's and pro's tee were only separated by a few steps), my dad was like "I don't know and I don't care. You don't need 500 feet for a fair game because you're a girl. Being a girl isn't a handicap."

    Sugar, spice, and everything nice versus bugs, snails, and puppy dog tails needs to meet the true death.

    (i can't stop murrr)

    I agree. In my family, women are not passive and we were not taught or encouraged to be that way. But I have noticed in life when I've been direct with many girls(in jr high and hs) and women, they retreat. It's not accepted in many social circles and probably in some work environments. I do believe there is some nature to this (male/female diff) but I think it's mostly society that has conditioned and enabled the difference which is in my opinion not advantageous at all for us.
  • spiderlashes5000spiderlashes5000 Posts: 17,502Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    Josephine wrote: »
    Except, no. Not all men are aggressive (and I know plenty of passive-aggressive males) in conflicts. It's just when they are it's seen as a manly/male trait

    And plenty of women are aggressive in conflicts it's just when they are they're seen as b*tches or hysterical.

    The whole women and males are WIRED differently grinds my gears. Behavior is learned and encouraged. And it's less that people are raising girls to be passive-aggressive, it's just taught as a feminine trait. So when a little girl is aggressive and upfront in conflicts and other areas of her life she becomes a "tomboy"

    I think it's an accepted thing that women should be less than men even if it isn't explicitly stated.

    Fortunately my dad (who is NOT a male, but a man) nipped those ideas in the bud when the 4 of us were little. When we went golfing (for one example) and I asked why the women's tee was so far ahead (and the men's and pro's tee were only separated by a few steps), my dad was like "I don't know and I don't care. You don't need 500 feet for a fair game because you're a girl. Being a girl isn't a handicap."

    Sugar, spice, and everything nice versus bugs, snails, and puppy dog tails needs to meet the true death.

    (i can't stop murrr)

    I agree. In my family, women are not passive and we were not taught or encouraged to be that way. But I have noticed in life when I've been direct with many girls(in jr high and hs) and women, they retreat. It's not accepted in many social circles and probably in some work environments. I do believe there is some nature to this (male/female diff) but I think it's mostly society that has conditioned and enabled the difference which is in my opinion not advantageous at all for us.

    Being direct isn't the same as being aggressive and not what I meant. Being direct is an example of being assertive. Assertivess is totally different than aggression and passivity. No one gender/sex owns assertiveness and IMO it comes from a place of confidence...not testosterone.

  • JosephineJosephine Posts: 14,177Registered Users Curl Connoisseur

    Being direct isn't the same as being aggressive and not what I meant. Being direct is an example of being assertive. Assertivess is totally different than aggression and passivity. No one gender/sex owns assertiveness and IMO it comes from a place of confidence...not testosterone.

    I know, and assertiveness is not accepted generally with females(here in the u.s. at least). It's seen as aggressiveness because of the double standard. It sucks when people call you a dude just because you dont fit in the sugar and spice sweet box.
  • annabananaliseannabananalise Posts: 1,913Registered Users
    But the sugar and spice idea is still THERE tho. You see it in marketing for kid's toys and other things.
    And women and males behave differently (in general) because, like I said, behavior is learned. Society teaches that passive aggressive behavior is feminine, aggressive behavior is masculine. Which is silly. And untrue.

    As far as nature goes I only have two examples on hand because, lbr, I hate animals and nature. But lionesses are def more aggressive. They’re the ones that hunt and ish. And female spiders mate and then kill the male. That’s pretty aggressive. Actually female spiders tend to be more deadly than their male counterparts.
    Last relaxer: 8.4.10
    BC: 9.6.11
    tumblr_mkqgfjWwA41qcwgrvo1_500.gif
    when will your favs?

  • murrrcatmurrrcat Posts: 9,596Registered Users
    I agree annabananafoster.

    my dad is the quiet passive person (until you push his buttons), and my mom is the direct, assertive, takes no prisoners person.

    I just turned out like my dad so, I have "nice girl" syndrome and made friends with equally unassertive girls in school, and my brother is.....aggressive more than just assertive, I'd call him a grade A ******* but having children has calmed him down.


    My mom would always be mean to me (not really mean but direct which me being a sensitve person thought was mean) because I didn't speak up and she couldn't understand why.

    :dontknow:
    tumblr_mji9u1Fwza1rh1wv4o1_500.jpg
  • JosephineJosephine Posts: 14,177Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    But the sugar and spice idea is still THERE tho. You see it in marketing for kid's toys and other things.
    And women and males behave differently (in general) because, like I said, behavior is learned. Society teaches that passive aggressive behavior is feminine, aggressive behavior is masculine. Which is silly. And untrue.

    As far as nature goes I only have two examples on hand because, lbr, I hate animals and nature. But lionesses are def more aggressive. They’re the ones that hunt and ish. And female spiders mate and then kill the male. That’s pretty aggressive. Actually female spiders tend to be more deadly than their male counterparts.

    When I said nature, I was referring to the nature vs nurture topic (not animals lol).
  • spiderlashes5000spiderlashes5000 Posts: 17,502Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    Josephine wrote: »

    Being direct isn't the same as being aggressive and not what I meant. Being direct is an example of being assertive. Assertivess is totally different than aggression and passivity. No one gender/sex owns assertiveness and IMO it comes from a place of confidence...not testosterone.

    I know, and assertiveness is not accepted generally with females(here in the u.s. at least). It's seen as aggressiveness because of the double standard. It sucks when people call you a dude just because you dont fit in the sugar and spice sweet box.

    I actually think a lot of male and female ppl appreciate and prefer a direct, assertive approach. But it can be disconcerting bc it is not as commonly seen in women, bc it can cost men something and bc other women are jealous of the confidence it suggests.

    Labels like "hysterical" and "the B word" do get thrown around but it's not from dispassionate, rational assertiveness.

    If a guy called me a "dude," I would just tell him not to worry, I could teach him how to be one also. Bc clearly, he's struggling w/ something. LOL

  • annabananaliseannabananalise Posts: 1,913Registered Users
    Josephine wrote: »
    When I said nature, I was referring to the nature vs nurture topic (not animals lol).

    Oop lol well. I was just being...direct? Lol idk

    Eta: wait! Sorry I was referring to spiderlashes when she was talking about species and things. Lol I should have quoted but I lazy.

    Also to counteract the dude thing, I call everyone sis. Because well the ssss sound is satisfying and it's fun watching males get pressed.
    Last relaxer: 8.4.10
    BC: 9.6.11
    tumblr_mkqgfjWwA41qcwgrvo1_500.gif
    when will your favs?

  • JosephineJosephine Posts: 14,177Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    Josephine wrote: »

    Being direct isn't the same as being aggressive and not what I meant. Being direct is an example of being assertive. Assertivess is totally different than aggression and passivity. No one gender/sex owns assertiveness and IMO it comes from a place of confidence...not testosterone.

    I know, and assertiveness is not accepted generally with females(here in the u.s. at least). It's seen as aggressiveness because of the double standard. It sucks when people call you a dude just because you dont fit in the sugar and spice sweet box.

    I actually think a lot of male and female ppl appreciate and prefer a direct, assertive approach. But it can be disconcerting bc it is not as commonly seen in women, bc it can cost men something and bc other women are jealous of the confidence it suggests.

    Labels like "hysterical" and "the B word" do get thrown around but it's not from dispassionate, rational assertiveness.

    If a guy called me a "dude," I would just tell him not to worry, I could teach him how to be one also. Bc clearly, he's struggling w/ something. LOL

    LOL yea, I tell them my penis is way bigger than theirs.

    I think a lot of people prefer assertiveness but for many it is intepreted differently and negatively coming from women. Part of the reason women also get paid less in certain fields is because most women lack the assertiveness/confidence to demand more. And unfortunately we may have to be extra assertive to make up for the other reasons.
  • JosephineJosephine Posts: 14,177Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    Josephine wrote: »
    When I said nature, I was referring to the nature vs nurture topic (not animals lol).

    Oop lol well. I was just being...direct? Lol idk

    Eta: wait! Sorry I was referring to spiderlashes when she was talking about species and things. Lol I should have quoted but I lazy.

    Also to counteract the dude thing, I call everyone sis. Because well the ssss sound is satisfying and it's fun watching males get pressed.

    I call everyone guy or dude. My bf would get pissed when I would call him dude, but I cant help it. I saw him as a friend too. I dont do it as much anymore but sometimes just to piss him off lol.
  • moodydovemoodydove Posts: 1,721Registered Users

    If a guy called me a "dude," I would just tell him not to worry, I could teach him how to be one also. Bc clearly, he's struggling w/ something. LOL

    Lol, this cracked me up.
    Big chop: 5/30/10
    CG, clarify with Aveda Brilliant Shampoo when needed
    Dense, medium-fine strands, lowish porosity. Avoiding glycerin outside the shower.
    Cowash:Suave Coconut Conditioner.
    Leave in: YtCucumbers and EVOO
    Styling Products: Flaxseed gel, Phillip B Soft Hold Gel, KMF Upper Management Gel
    DC: Doctored GVP or Suave conditioner
    Cleanser: Bentonite clay
  • spiderlashes5000spiderlashes5000 Posts: 17,502Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    But the sugar and spice idea is still THERE tho. You see it in marketing for kid's toys and other things.
    And women and males behave differently (in general) because, like I said, behavior is learned. Society teaches that passive aggressive behavior is feminine, aggressive behavior is masculine. Which is silly. And untrue.

    As far as nature goes I only have two examples on hand because, lbr, I hate animals and nature. But lionesses are def more aggressive. They’re the ones that hunt and ish. And female spiders mate and then kill the male. That’s pretty aggressive. Actually female spiders tend to be more deadly than their male counterparts.


    I think girls/women can be exceedingly mean. So I don't see any evidence of sugar n spice lessons being taught to them at home. Or if they are, they are failing. (What I do see is childcare and beautification themes conveyed in girls' toys.)

    Men have much higher levels of testosterone than women and it contributes to responses that we describe as "aggressive" -- punching, shooting, raping, pillaging, doggedly pursuing sex, etc.

    That's what I meant about men and women being wired differently. We just are. And I was bringing that up in response to the article's mention of how girls behave when they're fighting w/ each other or acting out in whatever way.

    But that was different than girls having the confidence to want to take on a leadership position. And yes, that can definitely be groomed and isn't biological.

  • JosephineJosephine Posts: 14,177Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    But the sugar and spice idea is still THERE tho. You see it in marketing for kid's toys and other things.
    And women and males behave differently (in general) because, like I said, behavior is learned. Society teaches that passive aggressive behavior is feminine, aggressive behavior is masculine. Which is silly. And untrue.

    As far as nature goes I only have two examples on hand because, lbr, I hate animals and nature. But lionesses are def more aggressive. They’re the ones that hunt and ish. And female spiders mate and then kill the male. That’s pretty aggressive. Actually female spiders tend to be more deadly than their male counterparts.


    I think girls/women can be exceedingly mean. So I don't see any evidence of sugar n spice lessons being taught to them at home. Or if they are, they are failing. (What I do see is childcare and beautification themes conveyed in girls' toys.)

    Men have much higher levels of testosterone than women and it contributes to responses that we describe as "aggressive" -- punching, shooting, raping, pillaging, doggedly pursuing sex, etc.

    That's what I meant about men and women being wired differently. We just are. And I was bringing that up in response to the article's mention of how girls behave when they're fighting w/ each other or acting out in whatever way.

    Aggressiveness has nothing to do with girls not being direct with each other. You can still be direct or say no in a non aggressive way. I've noticed females are more uncomfortable being direct and this can affect leadership skills.

    But yes, I've found more of the meaner people I have encountered have been females. But I think they think it's nice to not say anything mean but just be a dick instead which is way worse to me.
  • spiderlashes5000spiderlashes5000 Posts: 17,502Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    Josephine wrote: »
    But the sugar and spice idea is still THERE tho. You see it in marketing for kid's toys and other things.
    And women and males behave differently (in general) because, like I said, behavior is learned. Society teaches that passive aggressive behavior is feminine, aggressive behavior is masculine. Which is silly. And untrue.

    As far as nature goes I only have two examples on hand because, lbr, I hate animals and nature. But lionesses are def more aggressive. They’re the ones that hunt and ish. And female spiders mate and then kill the male. That’s pretty aggressive. Actually female spiders tend to be more deadly than their male counterparts.


    I think girls/women can be exceedingly mean. So I don't see any evidence of sugar n spice lessons being taught to them at home. Or if they are, they are failing. (What I do see is childcare and beautification themes conveyed in girls' toys.)

    Men have much higher levels of testosterone than women and it contributes to responses that we describe as "aggressive" -- punching, shooting, raping, pillaging, doggedly pursuing sex, etc.

    That's what I meant about men and women being wired differently. We just are. And I was bringing that up in response to the article's mention of how girls behave when they're fighting w/ each other or acting out in whatever way.

    Aggressiveness has nothing to do with girls not being direct with each other. You can still be direct or say no in a non aggressive way. I've noticed females are more uncomfortable being direct and this can affect leadership skills.

    But yes, I've found more of the meaner people I have encountered have been females. But I think they think it's nice to not say anything mean but just be a dick instead which is way worse to me.

    I think physical aggression is an outlet that men can use to blow off steam (obviously some ways are less healthy than others). Maybe that's why some women stay so bitter. Just throw a spear at a buffalo and keep it moving!

    But yes, I agree that girs can be raised to be direct and to have the confidence to shrug off whatever criticism that comes w/ that.

«1

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file