Jesse Bering
Image:
About a month ago I was invited to give a brief talk to my nephew Gianni’s first grade class—nothing too deep, mind you, rather simply about what it’s like living in a foreign place such as Belfast. The highlight of my presentation was the uproarious laughter that erupted when I mentioned that people on this side of the Atlantic refer to diapers as “nappies” and cookies as “biscuits.” But one must play to the audience.
Now, my sister resides in a small town in central Ohio, so perhaps there’s something about the mid-West which breeds especially endearing and affectionate six-year-olds, but I should be forgiven for momentarily siding with Rousseau that afternoon on his overly simplistic view that society corrupts and turns such naïve, innocent cherubs into monstrous adults. To give an example, one little girl waved at me in so kind a manner that it seemed, in that instant, I was in the presence of a better species of humankind, one that naturally regards other people as benevolent curiosities and the contrivances of social etiquette haven’t tarnished and brutally tamed genuine emotions.
What punctured this rose-tinted illusion of mine was the knowledge that these diminutive figures giggling and sitting Indian-style on the carpet before me might also be viewed as incubating adolescents. Perhaps it’s just me, but I’d swear the world knows not an eviler soul than an angry, angst-ridden, hormonally intoxicated teen. And if this little pigtailed girl is anything like the rest of her gender, in just a few years’ time she will unfortunately morph into an eye-rolling, gossiping, ostracizing, sarcastic, dismissive, cliquish ninth-grader, embroiled in the classic cafeteria style bitchery of adolescent female social politics.
If that strikes you as misogynistic, rest assured it’s merely an empirical statement. (Rest assured, also, that I’m afraid I have much in common with this tactical style, and I have great respect for more refined Machiavellians, so I’m not casting stones here.) In fact, over the past few decades, scholars from a variety of disciplines—including developmental psychology, evolutionary biology and cultural anthropology—have noted a striking difference in the standard patterns of aggression between reproductive-aged males and females. While teenage boys and young male adults are more prone to engage in direct aggression, which includes physical acts of violence such as hitting, punching and kicking, females, in comparison, exhibit pronounced social aggression, which includes such obnoxious things as mentioned in the various acts of bitchery listed above.
A prototypical example of an act of teenage social aggression is given by University of Flinders psychologists Rosalyn Shute, Laurence Owens and Phillip Slee in a 2002 article published in the International Journal of Adolescence and Youth:
Jo is a fifteen-year-old girl. She is average at her high school work and she is involved in school tennis in summer and netball in winter. In the past, she was well accepted, having a close group of friends and getting along well with most of her peers. After a day off with illness, she returns to school to find that things have changed. She walks over to her usual group but when she tries to talk to any of them, their responses are abrupt and unfriendly. She tries to catch the eye of her friend, Brooke, but Brooke avoids her gaze. In first lesson, she sits in her usual seat only to find that Brooke is sitting with someone else. At recess time, she joins the group late but just in time to overhear one of the girls bitching about her…
In peer discussion groups with teenage girls in South Australia, Shute and her colleagues found that Jo’s situation is incredibly common. And what’s especially sad is that adult authority figures such as teachers and parents often miss such devastating acts of reputational violence because they’re so subtle and often occur “in context”—that is, they’re less conspicuous than the physical altercations of boys.
See what we're tweeting about
154 Comments
Add CommentGosh, Jesse, did Jezebel talk about you at the lunch table? I'm totally telling her what you said! BTW, your skirt is ugly. Kisses, TypicalAngryGirl
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJezebel is actually an extremely mature (age and comment-wise) discussion forum, with women (not "girls") mid-20s to mid-30s being average age of the commenters. In addition, Jezebel discussions display no backstabbing, catty, gossipy crap. Women agree to disagree on certain heated topics and in others people find it a refreshingly non-judgemental place to learn and engage in open dialogue. I'm sorry to see the author trash something that he apparently has never actually looked into. And I'm sorry that this article brings nothing new to the table, but only throws out an unsupported statement about women being catty. As a woman of nearly 30, I can safely say that I never experienced anything like the malicious behaviour alleged, nor have my friends.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyou must have really studied those comments well. research- youre doing it wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisso not fetch, jesse. someone clearly fast-forwarded through the suffragettes anthem in mary poppins. what, strong females make you nervous?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi hope your mama's around to smack you silly for this. xoxo, EVERY GIRL IN MANHATTAN
oh p.s... if you were here in person, we'd be saying this to your face. not behind your back. just so we're clear.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Bering, I find your article to be ill-thought and quick to judgement on a subject you seem to know little about. You make assumptions and drawn conclusions based on a study that proves not much at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find an enormous amount of fault with the idea that women are mean to each other because we are 'competing for mates.'
Also, to point out Jezebel as a haven for 'mean girls' and social agression is to misunderstand the site. As a matter of fact, it is intened as a forum for discussion without malice or slander. It is one of the better moderated comment-enabled sites on the web. There is a very strict code of conduct and commenters can and are banned.
Spirted disagreements are certainly part of what happens on Jezebel, but no one should assume that is because commenters are in search of status or high-value mates.
Also, any commenters here from Jezebel, use your words in a way that would make Hortense proud. Mr. Bering certainly didn't take much time to visit us, so let's bring a little Jezebel commenting to him.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm really not sure why you used Jezebel.com as an example. One of the reason I actually look at the site is because it is the least offensive of the many site geared towards women. Please check your facts!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I appreciate Scientific American, I had come to expect more *Science* from it. Is the link to Jezebel simple page view bait?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJezebel.com is a poor example of your point. It's a well-moderated site whose demographic is broader and older than the age group you're discussing. Civil chat, levity and community are the ideals, and personal attacks, malicious comments, & "girl-on-girl violence" among the commenters are strongly discouraged; trolls and body-snarkers are warned/banned. People who don't like it soon migrate elsewhere. I wish all social websites had active moderators and standards of civility like Jezebel's.
The "peculiar" behavior of half the population (rendering it non-peculiar and eminently worth studying) is a great topic, but don't make Jezebel your carelessly used example. Thank you.
Interesting post... although not due to the overall article. It's rather messily written, with a great deal of time spent on how cute little girls are (And, uh, something about nappies versus biscuits? Alrighty, then.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think what's interesting is that it's very light on the science, and very heavy on the anecdote. There's no denying that many females, especially young ones, fight by using "informational warfare"... but can we get some numbers, even simple ones? And how did men choose to reaction, could we have a bit more contrast?
But this isn't a scientific article - it's a rant disguised as such. I suspect you started with "Man, why are women such Bitches, yo?" And then worked from there, casually pulling together things that support this thesis. This is most powerfully demonstrated by your usage of Jezebel.com as the standard bearer of online wenchery.
Jezebel? Really? I mean, there are an awful lot of stupid things being said by women about other women on the intertubes, can't escape it. But Jezebel is a lively, completely un-bitchy environment for interesting discussions on female-related topics. It's not even close. So you, sir, either 1. have deeply set pre-conceived notions of how the way women interact is full of bitchiness, and went through the comments on that site with those blinders on, or 2. Didn't actually READ any comments on Jezebel, and lazily chose one of the biggest female-oriented blogs out there and threw it into your piece because of your supreme confidence in it's interactions matching the nasty criteria of ostracizing, dismissive sarcasm and gossiping.
Either way, it doesn't reflect well on your motivation for this article or your attitude going in, or on your skills as a journalist.
(Oh, and yes! None of my friends operate like this. This is more of a niche than you want to believe it is, I think. And how someone reacts on a scientific test and how they actually function with their friends should not be conflated.)
I'm rarely a fan of evolutionary psychology -- it seems often to be little more than sexism polished up to a quasi-scientific sheen -- and this instance has done little to change my mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI mean, really, the only concrete observation anywhere in this article is that, in most studies, girls who are displaying aggression tend to do so indirectly, and boys directly. I think there is, in this article, an implicit endorsement of direct aggression (it is considered "honest" or "straight-forward" and presumably they all laugh it off afterwards. "Boys will be boys!"), at least over indirect aggression, with the cavalier way in which direct aggression is barely addressed. Best not to talk about the brutality of adolescent male beatings, and the way it used in particular against socially ostracized boys.
I guess, fundamentally, what's the point of this article, if not misogyny? Why the effort to come up with a flimsy reason to write about studies of women being indirectly aggressive, which are hardly news? Has a woman been catty to you lately, Jesse?
And, finally, by the time a girl reaches age 11, the idea that she hasn't been inculcated with social conditioning such that might dissuade her from using direct aggression is, well intellectually lazy at best.
Scientists and science writers should be conscious not only of the answers they find, but of why they are asking questions in the first place. What does this article tell us about the human condition, or about human social function, really? How has it answered questions or contributed to scientific enlightenment? It just seems like a flimsy reason to write about how "lol womenz is catty."
And, for the record, this is a male commenter.
As a regular reader of both Scientific American and Jezebel, I have to admit the swipe at the bottom of this post toward the women at Jez was as stunning as a slap in the face. It completely overshadowed the rest of the article for me. If you were attempting to say that Jezebel has a great deal of stories and social commentary about female-on-female social bullying (which it does), you worded it poorly; if this was, as perceived, a swipe at the community, it means you either have done little to no reading of the articles or contributions by the commenter community, or you have an axe to grind. In the interest of objectivity, I would suggest you spend some time on your writing, bounce idea off your peers (and especially women, if you're going to write about women), do more in-depth research, and don't hide behind the name of a scientific journal when launching an attack on a website of well-read, thoughtful individuals who will call you on your thin soup of sociology and passive aggression.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey women, your comments just further corroborate with the article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting that you think so, wgsrgf59... how so?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisModerated indeed. Sometimes tasteless nevertheless http://jezebel.com/5271371/the-pink-panther
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh and it's also worth noting that the inclusion of Jezebel made no sense to me, as a male reader of both SciAm and Jezebel, I find Jezebel to be an exceedingly warm and civil commenting environment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe you should look over at Defamer.com instead -- a website that seems to be largely populated by men, and is a non-stop cavalcade of insults intended to be as cruel as possible.
Indeed, I think it might be interesting to examine the way in which smaller, or socially-ostracized, or otherwise weak (in physical or social standing) boys choose to explore aggression. Does a small, thin, nerdy boy choose direct aggression? From personal experience, I doubt it. One only need to look to most comment boards and their male-dominated, basement-dwelling population to see this sort of indirect, anonymous aggression in action.
I'd say, in fact, from experience, it seems that social conditioning is chiefly responsible for teaching children how to explore and demonstrate aggression. Boys are taught to fight in many households to this day. Girls are taught to use gossip. Often both happen from parents themselves.
Again, if you do a big, over-arching study of women vs men, these details get lost, so scientists must always remember to choose the questions carefully, so that the results end up actually meaning something
wqsrgf59, please qualify your response. In what way is questioning bad writing and research being bitchy?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell certainly, but tastelessness is an art form that spans all ages, genders, and races. Fart jokes FTW.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr should 'girls' only ever be respectful and appropriate?
First, I didn't realize that that "bitch," "bitching," or "bitchiness" were scientific terms--probably because they are not. The research methods that this article outlines mean nothing, because they do not account for the effects of gender stereotyping. In MY anecdotal experience, I have seen girls more accutely punished for angry, aggressive outbursts than boys. Boys are assumed to be "that way," and aggressive behavior is considered normal (boys will be boys)--as this article assumes it is (like fist clenching)--and are then not as severely repremanded by adults. The reverse for "social aggression" seems to also be true. Gossiping is stereotyped as as "girly." Also--and I usually don't blame entertainment media for anything--I believe that a lot of this may come from girls modeling after television women. A lot of the television directed at teenage girls (and women in general) portray the kind of juvenile, "catty" behavior this article discusses between women and girls almost exclusively--and these ficticious women and girls are portrayed as "mature." These tests also don't "control" for the girls' family situations either. Are their mothers involved in their lives positively or negatively? How much interaction do they have with their fathers? What kind of role models do they have. I think a closer inspection of this "problem" (though personally I have seen it from both sexes and don't think this research was at all warranted) will reveal that girls' social aggression has more to do with "nurture" than "nature."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEverybody should try to be respectful and appropriate. Gender independent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJezebel is the least aggressive commenting spot on the internet. In fact, it's the only place I'll engage with other readers because they argue with facts and logic, not the cattiness or cruelty that BOTH sexes enjoy so heartily when they can hide behind their web identity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecond, those leaving comments on Jezebel tend to be well over drinking age, so they would be called "women" and not "girls."
So you've basically used Jezebel as a prime example of girl-on-girl crime when, in fact, it consists largely of 20- and 30-something women who argue respectfully while eschewing personal attacks and body-snarking.
Thanks for playing.
Brilliant viral marketing! Reference a well-known blog that has virtually NOTHING to do with your topic, but is guaranteed to generate interest, outrage, and page-views.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheap, but effective.
I applaud you, but with a scowl.
I'm waiting, waiting patiently , for someone to say that this disproves global climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCome on, give me my laugh for the day.
Look, sir, as Sarah Blaffer Hrdy points out in her prize-winning book, _Mother Nature_, competing for mates happens on both sides of the gender divide in many different species. AND it ONLY happens that females compete for the wealthiest, coolest males (i.e. become "gold-diggers") is when the two sexes have differential access to food and other resources (like when a female bird needs to sit on eggs instead of looking for food and she becomes dependent on the male species.) When the female is forced to depend on the male for everything, of COURSE she will compete for the fittest male. And for the greatest part of human history, societies have been set up so that females of every age are dependent on males.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInstead of attributing female-on-female aggression to "natural" instincts, a real scientist would first account for and then describe the structures remaining in our society that perpetuate female AND male competition.
Sheer speculation, sir, and very little science.
"Also, any commenters here from Jezebel, use your words in a way that would make Hortense proud. Mr. Bering certainly didn't take much time to visit us, so let's bring a little Jezebel commenting to him. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis proves Jesse's point, actually.
I've read your articles before, and I'm aware that they are intended to be anecdotal, science-in-the-real-world pieces; I know you're aiming for a light, non-research-heavy tone. That doesn't obviate the need for a bit of actual research though - and your comment about Jezebel.com suggests that perhaps you went a little too light on that front.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see you've heard from a slew of Jezebel readers, and I add my voice to those that protest your misinformed take on the site. I won't belabor the point that it is actually a thoughtful, well-run community of women for women. I think the tightness of the community and the positive spirit which it engenders is evident from the outpouring of defense from Jezebel fans.
You detracted from what was otherwise an interesting and, I think, fairly true article about the behavior of teenagers with your throwaway - but inflammatory - Jezebel comment at the end. As a gay man, you are probably well aware of the stereotypes of adult gay male bitchiness, and maybe it bothers you, maybe it doesn't. Now you know that those similar stereotypes bother a whole lot of women whom they don't encompass, and do denigrate.
I'd encourage the author to spend some time with the women and men who post at Jezebel.com. He would, I'm sure, be pleasantly surprised at the level of discourse there, since it's fairly obvious he hasn't really investigated the site at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgreed that this article seems more sensationalistic than scientific - but thank you so much for continuing the myth that women of all ages are catty bitches. This 37 year old "girl" finds it rather insulting.
No, it doesn't. Making Hortense proud means not resorting to ad hominem attacks, making useless comments or being boring. Hortense is, in fact, one of the least catty people I've ever encountered on the introwebs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd if you want to see people being horrible to each other on the web, can I point you to two male dominated sites? fark.com and somethingawful.com both illustrate daily how men can be just as catty and nasty as women are accused of being.
Ok, one, we are women on Jezebel, not girls. There is a large age range on the site. Two, your last sentence is unclear. Are you saying the commentors on Jezebel are an example of how women/girls can be cruel to each other or are you using it as an example of a site showing news articles illustrating your point?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow? It wasn't an order, merely a polite request. Meant to be a rallying cry for my fellow readers/commenters.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suppose it could be seen as 'social warfare'. But that seems a stretch. I didn't whisper to my girlfriends that we should ditch Mr. Bering at lunch or spread gossip about his choice of prom date.
Ah, see, I find these comments fascinating, because I think they rather illustrate a possible issue here! Obviously, to you, RadioNYC, the way some people are expressing themselves is seen as "Bitchy".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, that makes no sense, because the underlying point of Mr. Bering's article is that women are two-faced users of gossip as pain. This is people - not even all women - telling the author very clearly and in an upfront manner we disagree with him.
But if that's bitchy to you, and Jesse Bering agrees - well, it's no wonder he thought Jezebel.com was full of catty chicks. There doesn't seem to be many options in how to communicate and NOT be catty.
Ah, see, I find these comments fascinating, because I think they rather illustrate a possible issue here! Obviously, to you, RadioNYC, the way some people are expressing themselves is seen as "Bitchy".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, that makes no sense, because the underlying point of Mr. Bering's article is that women are two-faced users of gossip as pain. This is people - not even all women - telling the author very clearly and in an upfront manner we disagree with him.
But if that's bitchy to you, and Jesse Bering agrees - well, it's no wonder he thought Jezebel.com was full of catty chicks. There doesn't seem to be many options in how to communicate and NOT be catty.
Ah, see, I find these comments fascinating, because I think they rather illustrate a possible issue here! Obviously, to you, RadioNYC, the way some people are expressing themselves is seen as "Bitchy".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, that makes no sense, because the underlying point of Mr. Bering's article is that women are two-faced users of gossip as pain. This is people - not even all women - telling the author very clearly and in an upfront manner we disagree with him.
But if that's bitchy to you, and Jesse Bering agrees - well, it's no wonder he thought Jezebel.com was full of catty chicks. There doesn't seem to be many options in how to communicate and NOT be catty.
Ah, see, I find these comments fascinating, because I think they rather illustrate a possible issue here! Obviously, to you, RadioNYC, the way some people are expressing themselves is seen as "Bitchy".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, that makes no sense, because the underlying point of Mr. Bering's article is that women are two-faced users of gossip as pain. This is people - not even all women - telling the author very clearly and in an upfront manner we disagree with him.
But if that's bitchy to you, and Jesse Bering agrees - well, it's no wonder he thought Jezebel.com was full of catty chicks. There doesn't seem to be many options in how to communicate and NOT be catty.
Ah, see, I find these comments fascinating, because I think they rather illustrate a possible issue here! Obviously, to you, RadioNYC, the way some people are expressing themselves is seen as "Bitchy".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, that makes no sense, because the underlying point of Mr. Bering's article is that women are two-faced users of gossip as pain. This is people - not even all women - telling the author very clearly and in an upfront manner we disagree with him.
But if that's bitchy to you, and Jesse Bering agrees - well, it's no wonder he thought Jezebel.com was full of catty chicks. There doesn't seem to be many options in how to communicate and NOT be catty.
Ah, see, I find these comments fascinating, because I think they rather illustrate a possible issue here! Obviously, to you, RadioNYC, the way some people are expressing themselves is seen as "Bitchy".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, that makes no sense, because the underlying point of Mr. Bering's article is that women are two-faced users of gossip as pain. This is people - not even all women - telling the author very clearly and in an upfront manner we disagree with him.
But if that's bitchy to you, and Jesse Bering agrees - well, it's no wonder he thought Jezebel.com was full of catty chicks. There doesn't seem to be many options in how to communicate and NOT be catty.
Oh no! Now That was just a huge posting mistake/trying to log in with script blocker. Egads. Sorry, all, did not mean to do make my point Several Zillion times. /
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree. Now, I'm biased, as it was my comment RadioNYC thought was representative of this 'mean girl' behavior.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf I can't be direct and dislike something and I can't be secretive and disagree with something, how ever can one communicate if one disagrees or dislikes? Must one always think everything to pieces to make sure that one isn't coming off as bitchy?
Sounds like Bering just has an axe to grind with Jezebel. I was curious and searched Jezebel for his name, and I did find a pretty nastily written piece by one of the editors there about an earlier article of his from this column. "Dodai" is definitely obnoxious and "socially aggressive" when she writes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Of course, all of these people would need to be obsessed with dick, like Bering, the author of this article, who, by the by, admits that he is gay."
It's definitely a bitchy tone there. And the whole "admits" that he is gay thing is pretty f*cked up. Do the women at Jezebel "admit" that they're straight?
Oh, here's that Jezebel post I was just referring to http://jezebel.com/5231075/science-scribe-writes-masturbatory-missive-about-human-penises
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat particular post was definitely cruel, with some unwarranted barbs direct toward Bering. I can now see why he would feel angry enough to reference Jezebel in that context; however, (this comment is no longer in reply to c.harvey) it is clear that this exemplification of Jezebel was motivated by emotion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe irony in Bering's catty, passive-aggressive barb to Jezebel is so obvious that I'm honestly surprised he didn't notice it himself.
I do think that the author's personal comments to him in the Jezebel article are indefensible, but Jezebel is a blog written by many people and commented by many more, and one bad entry should not damn the whole thing. I would also like to point out some commenters who felt compelled to defend Bering's personal integrity, even though they may not have liked his article -
"Okay, I thought the article was weird and creepy, but why phrase it as "admits that he is gay"? At least to me, that sounds like it's a dirty little secret. I admit that I'm a lady! I admit that I like the dudes! Ya know?"
"I don't know, I just think this piece was a bit of ego-stroking."
And the majority of the other comments seemed to be discussing penises/Bering's findings in general instead of attacking Bering or gossiping about him.
This article, on the other hand, is the same article that I have read hundreds of times before: "women are catty in high school, and I can prove it with vague science and also offer my own unproven theories as to why it is that way."
I am not in a position to dispute the cruelty of some high school girls, having experienced it quite unpleasantly (from a minority of girls, I must point out - it's usually a few small groups of girls who lash out against the majority of the others to retain their social status), but articles like this all seem to expand their thesis beyond what is necessary. They make grand leaps to illogical conclusions and end up calling grown women "girls" and insinuating that they continue to engage in such behavior regularly after graduation, which I am really not convinced is the case.
In addition to falling into this common folly, Bering's article here adds absolutely nothing new to the discussion, or any discussion, and I'm really not sure why it was published. It's not a terrible article. It's just repetitive, obvious, and poorly-researched - a typical, boring blog post in an endless digital sea of mediocre bloggers.
Did you seriously just rag on the girls of Jezebel? I'm a pretty consistent reader of the comments to a good number of the posts (because they're usually funny as all get out) and it's one of the more supportive, open-minded, thoughtful commenting communities out there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou want to see really bitchy comments? Check out www.abovethelaw.com and peruse a few of the comments to their articles. I've never read meaner, more unempathetic, degrading comments on the internet and it's a bunch of lawyers commenting, 90% of whom I would bet my life are male. Get a clue, Jesse.
Anytime such assumptions are made, the author should provide the information necessary for readers to make their own claim-or at least, examine the foundation for yours. Is there any way to access the original study? Who were the participants? How were they selected for the study? What other items did the questionnaire include? Were men included in the study (at least for comparison purposes)?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems to me you've "jumped the gun" with your conclusions. It'd be helpful to direct your readers to the study you're referring to.
I really don't think this piece adds anything to the discourse. It is just a retread of the old "wimmenfolk are passive aggressive!" argument, which is as old as the hills, and it does nothing to consider non-hormonal or non-gender-specific causes of this behavior. Studies have shown that men, not women, gossip more, and this is reinforced by my own experience in a 85% male environment for my first two years of college. Furthermore, as other posters have indicated, physical aggression, and indeed, other forms of physicality, are strongly discouraged among women. I, though a woman, do actually curl my fists when angry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPassive aggression is an effective tool when someone is unable to be openly aggressive, because they lack power. Manipulation is the tool of the weak, not the powerful. This piece also seems to suggest there is some universality to this, although it doesn not cite any studies dealing with aggression patterns in different cultures.
The sniping at Jezebel is just ridiculous. If any of the commenters here are inclined to think ill of it, please go read the site. And labeling adult women as "girls" is insulting and infantilizing. Passive aggressive, if you will. (Notice I use the word passive aggressive instead of, say, bitchy or catty.)
I'm really surprised to see something this shallow and unsupported in Scientific American. Badly done.
@c.harvey: Oh, I remember that post now; I guess the swipe at Jezebel falls under the "axe to grind" category . If you read the comments on the thread you posted, several people ask what is up with Dodai bringing up his gayness at all and say it isn't cool, so it's not Jezebel operates as a Borg collective. Like has been said over and over again, community of thoughtful people, not schoolyard ruled by Mean Girls. Sometimes the snark can be pretty high, but that doesn't mean people aren't there to call the snarky writers/commenters another out on it, in a respectful and well-thought-out way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article sickened me quite a bit. Quite honestly, I was a fan of yours, Mr. Bering.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps females are a little more intelligent in displaying their aggression in a form in which the consequences are much less severe?
Jezebel is an adolescent gossip site for emotionally immature women who have knee-jerk reactions to any man who dares scrutinize them. Your reaction to Mr. Bering's article reveals a complete level of discomfort with men being anything other than reverent or fearful toward women and viewing them as either victims or intellectual superiors. The motive for this tactic is obvious- if the drivel you seem to revel in were dragged into the cold light of day your fantasy of living a politically-minded life would seem as ludicrous to you as it does to everyone else.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat said, Jesse could have done a better job by linking to specific example of Jezebel's adolescent narcissism rather than linking to the site's homepage. It wouldn't have invited all the self-righteous cattiness we see in comments here.
For a more calm and complete assessment of Jezebel:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/17/feminism-america-sex-promiscuity-drinking
So if you're a big fan of proving your point with links, why not link to the comments in this thread, or quote from them, and explain how exactly they reveal that the women (and men) who came over from Jezebel disagree with Mr. Bering because he is irreverent or not appropriately female of women.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause I read the entire thread here, and the criticisms I have seen have been for his lack of rigor and his failure to cite to his sources so that his reader could review them and draw their own conclusions.
But please, continue to believe that labeling other people with nasty adjectives is a rational argument. As long as you do so, you refute yourself. I only write in the hopes that some day, you will perhaps learn the difference between rhetoric and logic, and that by properly applying logic, you'll learn something. Here's hoping.
Why do you refer to the girls as bitches, but not the guys as assholes, or the like...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI get the impression most commenters here are offended by the fact that Jesse is an out-group member picking on their in-group. Well, I remember being a teenage girl. I remember the bitching and backstabbing, the deeply instinctive manipulation by social bullies. I remember how that bitchiness faded as we grew to adulthood - but could still re-emerge among any group of women in the right environment. And working predominantly with men, I have not experienced 1/10 of the social aggression from them that I still do with women. So from my own experience, I'd say Jesse is absolutely right. He's just not allowed to say it because of who he is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTalk about passive-aggressive. So girls aren't especially vicious with one another (the article is about teenage girls)? From what I remember from my high school experience, girls were especially mean-spirited when putting down other girls they did not think too kindly of.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDisappointingly, the article does not answer the question it starts with, it merely tries to prove that girls are cruel to each other. Even if the evolutionary arguments were valid, that still does not explain why they choose cruelty over physical agression or anything else.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, it's kind of tricky...I don't believe that...wait..It is ture! When I as in middle school, girls love gossip.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, it's kind of tricky...I don't believe that...wait..It is ture! When I as in middle school, girls love gossip.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, it's kind of tricky...I don't believe that...wait..It is ture! When I as in middle school, girls love gossip.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe it's due to the fact that society shapes and limits female interactions rather than a "natural" bitchiness among woman. This sort of characterization should've gone out the window with hysteria being a woman's disease. This article is way too anecdotal for the Scientific American I'm familiar with...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHAHAHAHA! As a female nerd who observed and took the brunt of the catty behavior in my youth - I have to say I love the denial of some of the women posters. You my not have experience it first hand, but c'mon! If you've NEVER seen it, then you're probably one of the women dealing it. Many women, as girls and as adults, size up their female peers. I don't trust most women because I've been stabbed in the back too many times and lied to or overheard how my bangs are styled so horribly - how dare I! Some things truly are black and white with the sexes - GENERALLY speaking. My ratio of male to female friends is 90/10. I like it that way. At least if I'm doing something wrong I'll be called out on it rather than have chicks talk behind my back for months on end.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmen to that. I frankly don't understand the last several comments--the argument with the author is not over whether or not women behave this way (although his study, at least the one he describes, involves how people *say* they would behave in a situations vs. how they *actually* behave, so he has failed to provide evidence for that proposition either--not saying it isn't true, but I sure would like to see the studies), the argument is over whether such behavior among women is caused by hormones/puberty and came about because of connections to our evolutionary drive to find a mate (?), and is constant across all cultures (as he argues, without citing any studies) or whether it has other possible causes, such as culture and the fact that physical violence is strongly discouraged among women.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOther problems with this piece? His language is scientifically imprecise and apparently aimed at causing tempers to rise, i.e., bitchy, catty, and calling adult women "girls." His throwaway line about hormones is not supported by links to any studies having to do with passive aggressiveness. Instead, he links to a study involving a hormone tied up with stress during puberty, which only involves female mice, it does not compare them with male mice, and it does not discuss whether this stress/anxiety hormone has any connection to passive aggressive behavior. His study about male physical aggression is similarly limited, it is a study of male mice only, with no female comparison group. With regard to hormones, we haven't even completely elucidated the link between testosterone and physical aggression, whether it is correlative or causative, and yet, without citing any studies that are even as good as the testosterone studies, he vaguely blames "hormonal[] intoxicat[ion]" for the behavior of adolescent girls. Sorry, but which hormones cause passive aggressiveness? I have quite a few, estrogen, progesterone, testosterone, and that's just off the top of my head. And allopregnanolone, mentioned in the lone study he links to regarding hormones.
So it is the lack of scientific rigor, or even cites to supporting studies, that is irksome, not the mere suggestion that women may disproportionately engage in passive-aggressive behavior. I and many others have come up with non-hormonal and non-evolutionary explanations for that behavior.
"But the culturally recurrent findings ... suggest a strong psychological bent in the fairer sex that leads naturally to these types of catty displays."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDefine naturally. If you mean that our current patriarchal social structure makes females think they are in competition amongst each other, then you're absolutely right. I realize that you make some claims as to the evolutionary quality of that competition, but unless you can control for that intense social conditioning (ever hear a teenage boy say, 'ooo, cat fight!'?) I don't think you can make that claim. Also, I think your comment that post-menopausal women are less bitchy toward other women might actually stem from the same source, that perhaps they've grown up enough to be aware of the social construct and reject it.
I don't think you're intentionally being sexist -- although FYI: when you actually state, 'some may think I'm being misogynistic but...' there's a good chance you are. But you've never experienced the social conditioning a woman does, when she's told that being a girl is somehow less, that boys are in a different group all together, and so you compete with other girls because being the best of the girls is all you can ever hope to be. In order to really evaluate the subject, I think you'll have to step back and look at what you call empirical statements taking into account the social conditioning behind the subjects' behavior. To not do so is to make your conclusions both invalid and irrelevant.
And Jezebel? Is the cattiness between Keith Olberman and Sean Hannity any different than the disagreements on Jezebel?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSounds like the respondants are all adolescent females. I thought Dr. Bering's article was humerous, not something to be attacked.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJoebone
it is true.i still remember girls in my middle school spread all kinds of gossip
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The irony in Bering's catty, passive-aggressive barb to Jezebel is so obvious that I'm honestly surprised he didn't notice it himself."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRepeated, for emphasis.
Well done! I think it's true. I still remember the boring but harsh gossip spread in the middle school.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut in high school, there were no girls engaging in the battle... I don't know why. And I'm glad that I'm not that kind of girl. I hate those fool behaviors.
There is a natural foundation for social aggression within females, YES. Evolutionary psychology is a worthy study, it is simply another field of study.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, the manner in which the article was written champions gender stereotyping. It comes across as unbelievably misogynistic because as opposed to science, it presents societal connotations. I understand Mr. Bering has quite a humor to him, and I read his articles weekly and thoroughly enjoy them. However, in this case, his "wit" was used inappropriately, and became incredibly offensive. Instead of informing the reader of different anthropological, biological and psychological research, it became a commentary on the "bitch image" of women -- an image which plagues women in every endeavor, occupational and educational included.
Stop the sexism, and just give us the facts. No matter what faction of the human population you write about -- any race, ethnicity, sexuality, religion, or gender -- you MUST maintain a high level respect. We have seen time and time again the consequences of adopting stereotypical terms when describing a certain group of people, and again it seems that no one will learn.
I am deeply disappointed in Mr. Bering, as well as Scientific American. Nothing about this article was empirical -- this was about as empirical as social Darwinism.
A lot of words in this story. Yet I don't think I learned anything by reading it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry to say it, but the guy is an idiot and it is a pity that research money and time is wasted on such garbage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, women might be more catty, but that has nothing to do with "competing". This is a stupid argument and implies that boys are first prize and that girls have to win them over.
Actually, the opposite is true. Boys have to compete more for girls, in my opinion.
But this is besides the point.
What these "scientists" tend to overlook is that behaviour is learned, and whatever is discouraged, will be avoided. Girls are thought that aggression is ugly (for them) and so, the next best weapon is gossipping.
It is NOT chosen because girls are born catty, but because they can't openly punch people in the face.
If you look at a workplace, (male) employees won't physically hit the boss, because they depend on him and they would lose their jobs. They tend to be more subtle in taking revenge. Yes, they do gossip and harm the reputation of a boss instead of hitting him.
If we look at history, same thing happened with slaves. They could not fight the owners openly, they had to resort to indirect means to get revenge.
I ABSOLUTELY HATE the stereotypes about "men" and "women". Even the men from Mars women from Venus irritates me, becasuse I am sure we have been conditioned to be the way we are, and if we would let children evolve the way they wanted to, we would have MANY-MANY softy men and MANY tough women!
Just take a look at the homosexual men. Their gender is male, but they are more feminine than I am LOL
Thanks for bringing up the subject and giving me the opportunity to write this off my chest
unaldulerated BS!!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find the underlying concepts to be pretty indisputable; females use relational aggression more than males, this relational aggression peaks during adolescence, and that the theory that this is "competitiveness for mate appeal" deserves study due to the coincidence of beginning fertility and peak relational aggression.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, the way Jesse worded this article is somewhat incendiary. What I think some of you may have missed is that this was intentional. This is an effective way to increase the profile of this blog post.
Why else would he use words like "bitchy" and "cattiness" so often in a science post?
here here!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisit's not about strong females?! it's about bitchy ones?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisgirls can be bitchy as hell. it's so true and you know it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a 17-year-old girl, I see that Bering truly has a point in his analysis. I've always wondered why girls are so gossipy and that boys almost always resort to physical force. I glided through high school and middle school only indirectly experiencing it through hearing about fights and somehow knowing some gossip from my friends, but I've never contributed to this drama and always tried to suppress/ignore it. Although my friends do not behave this way, they have a tendency to do so and finds ways to oust it by hitting an abiotic object or spreading the news from the newspaper.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisard - why do I not believe you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMartha Evans
Oh, as a female who experienced what I consider a typical upbringing and public school experience, I can say without reservation that the author was being far too kind. The personal destruction and ostracism that young women reek is far more harmful than the honest fisticuffs that used to occur among boys. And of course today drugs are used to squelch only the male behaviour, not the female. And one only has to read the hysterical denials posted here to understand why. A problem cannot be addressed unless it is admitted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKarmabites .. hwere do you see sexism? From my experience, the author was holding back, probably from fear of being called 'sexist'. If ritalin is given to boys to suppress their natural behaviour, then perhaps it should be given to girls, who are far more destructive (but do not break the rules). I know my own life would in public school would have been less of a living hell. I hope this article will open the floodgates on further research in this area - but with no holds bar and the raw truth not cloaked in humor as it was in this article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJezebel is NOT a forum where "women" can exchange ideas freely. Once you are banned from commenting simply because the majority disagrees with what you say, you come to understand this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is a horro show, for myself as a female, to read this site and know what women around me are operating on, what thoughts they really have.
This article is not a rant, or attacking anyone, though sometimes things are better left unsaid. It is merely a study, on how men and women have vastly contrasting methods of aggression. It's true, males are more outgoing, and it is widely acknowledged that females are far more subtle in their attacks. I should know. I was in the largest clique in my school. So GET OVER IT!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGuys, you're just not getting it. Misogyny (however poorly defined) is a crime against Darwin! Or something like that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr maybe it's more like this: Evolutionary psychology, as borne out through empirical data, controlled studies and the latest market research regarding the readership of Elle, Vogue, diet books, and what Nielsen can tell us about soap operas and teen drama TV, are all a crime against womynhood.
Oh, and thanks to Amandine and Martha47 for being honest. But maybe they don't have a vested interest in not being honest.
The others were just being catty, jealous bitches who didn't want their covers blown.
I think alot more factors are worrisome between the two races. Age and status are more predictive. The producing event needs more evaluation; illness and distance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI really find this amusing, the article and the comments. I find it so ironic that all the commenters bashing this article are female. Yes, bashing. You're just proving his point, my female companions. :) I don't understand why you are in denial about being bitchy when most of the time it is true. And the all the ones that claim he has no supportive arguments clearly did not read his whole article. He took a survey for people of BOTH genders to take and assessed it. He is not particularly targeting females only, he admitted that males have a more physical aggression. Numbers aren't everything, although it would certainly make a stronger argument. And for those who think this article is aimed at middle-aged women need to carefully read about what his article was about...teenagers, so if anything, teenagers should be offended, not 30-year old women. And if you are so 'mature' as you claim to be, you will let this article go and get OVER it. Also, using you and your friends as examples of not-being-bitches, does not help the argument. First of all, they are your friends, you usually only see them in good light. Second of all, who are you to speak for your friends, you don't know what they think and don't say to you. Third, that doesn't speak for the rest of the females who AREN'T in your little group. That being said, good job on this article, though it could have been better with more numbers and stats and putting information in a nicer light.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have nothing to say about Jezebel as I am not familiar with it. Did not think it was appropriate for targetting a site, however. Many sites can be rather nasty on a female AND male take. But most of these commenters seem to be most offended by this attack on this particular site when the majority of the article was talking about female teenagers in general.
I think this is relevant to the studies of biology. Again, my opinion but is it not part of developmental biology? Do we not use that field to hopefully cease SOCIAL issues....like...RIGHT NOW. And whatever happened to freedom of speech people? If Bering has a problem with women, let him say what he wants and you can say whatever you want too. But this argument is going nowhere, so I suggest you guys talk it out rationally like the adults you claim to be.
And just so you guys know, I'm a female teenager , and if I can take this information and NOT blow up about it, I think you 'mature' ones should be better at it. Maturity is not about how long you lived. Its how much you have learned while you live.
"And if this little pigtailed girl is anything like the rest of her gender, in just a few years time she will unfortunately morph into an eye-rolling, gossiping, ostracizing, sarcastic, dismissive, cliquish ninth-grader, embroiled in the classic cafeteria style bitchery of adolescent female social politics. If that strikes you as misogynistic,rest assured (this is) merely an EMPIRICAL STATEMENT"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is not an empirical statement it is a misogynistic and extremely offensive generalisation.
I am a woman and I feel belittled by this article. I am not remotely bitchy and never have been; am I less of a woman? Alternatively; am I better than 'them'.
I think you will find that some of the sites are a forum for an activity which would be called 'discussion' or 'debate' if it wasnt for the fact the users were women talking about things that intersted them.
Furthermore this is really a sociological article and the test referred to was carried out on students and locals at a uni in the USA - the place that makes the TV programmes where many people (including young women and naive scientific researchers) get their ideas about women are like from. Clearly this is hardly a basis for saying whether any sex differentiations found are innate rather than enviromental in origin.
Genetic differences in aggression is potentially an interesting and viable subject for SCIAM but this treatment is offensive and sexist. The author writes in a patriarchal pandering style 'like it or not' or (para) 'need I say that women have good qualities'; no Mr you need not, this is not relevant in a science piece.
The rebuttal is bitchy and immature and even further from science. The women he refers to as a 'humourless mob' are justifiably offended by his tone and attitude and the way he groups them together (what does the word mob mean to you?). He further belittles these people by acting in bad faith as though someone is expecting him to be PC about genuine genetic differences. I use this site because I am scientist and I have no quarrel with researchers in biological differences between the sexes. The rebuttal references researchers in this area who have something interesting to say. The author, however, is a columnist not an expert and he has written an ignorant, subjective, woman-hating and genuinely sexist article which has no place on this site.
Next week; 'Black people; sure one minute they have cuter big brown eyes but the next, like it or not, they are more likely to kill. A survey in the Congo on innate violent tendencies...
"And if this little pigtailed girl is anything like the rest of her gender, in just a few years’ time she will unfortunately morph into an eye-rolling, gossiping, ostracizing, sarcastic, dismissive, cliquish ninth-grader, embroiled in the classic cafeteria style bitchery of adolescent female social politics. If that strikes you as misogynistic,rest assured (this is) merely an EMPIRICAL STATEMENT"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is not an empirical statement it is a misogynistic and extremely offensive generalisation.
I am a woman and I feel belittled by this article. I am not remotely bitchy and never have been; am I less of a woman? Alternatively; am I better than 'them'.
I think you will find that some of the sites are a forum for an activity which would be called 'discussion' or 'debate' if it wasnt for the fact the users were women talking about things that intersted them.
Furthermore this is really a sociological article and the test referred to was carried out on students and locals at a uni in the USA - the place that makes the TV programmes where many people (including young women and naive scientific researchers) get their ideas about women are like from. Clearly this is hardly a basis for saying whether any sex differentiations found are innate rather than enviromental in origin.
Genetic differences in aggression is potentially an interesting and viable subject for SCIAM but this treatment is offensive and sexist. The author writes in a patriarchal pandering style 'like it or not' or (para) 'need I say that women have good qualities'; no Mr you need not, this is not relevant in a science piece.
The rebuttal is bitchy and immature and even further from science. The women he refers to as a 'humourless mob' are justifiably offended by his tone and attitude and the way he groups them together (what does the word mob mean to you?). He further belittles these people by acting in bad faith as though someone is expecting him to be PC about genuine genetic differences. I use this site because I am scientist and I have no quarrel with researchers in biological differences between the sexes. The rebuttal referenced researchers in this area who have something interesting to say. The author, however, is a columnist not an expert and he has written an ignorant, prejudiced, subjective and genuinely sexist and offensive article which has no place on this site.
Next week; 'Black people; sure one minute they have cuter big brown eyes but the next, like it or not, they kill more people with guns. According to a survey in downtown Detroit
"And if this little pigtailed girl is anything like the rest of her gender, in just a few years’ time she will unfortunately morph into an eye-rolling, gossiping, ostracizing, sarcastic, dismissive, cliquish ninth-grader, embroiled in the classic cafeteria style bitchery of adolescent female social politics. If that strikes you as misogynistic,rest assured (this is) merely an EMPIRICAL STATEMENT"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is not an empirical statement it is a misogynistic and extremely offensive generalisation.
I am a woman and I feel belittled by this article. I am not remotely bitchy and never have been; am I less of a woman? Alternatively; am I better than 'them'.
I think you will find that some of the sites are a forum for an activity which would be called 'discussion' or 'debate' if it wasnt for the fact the users were women talking about things that intersted them.
Furthermore this is really a sociological article and the test referred to was carried out on students and locals at a uni in the USA - the place that makes the TV programmes where many people (including young women and naive scientific researchers) get their ideas about women are like from. Clearly this is hardly a basis for saying whether any sex differentiations found are innate rather than enviromental in origin.
Genetic differences in aggression is potentially an interesting and viable subject for SCIAM but this treatment is offensive and sexist. The author writes in a patriarchal pandering style 'like it or not' or (para) 'need I say that women have good qualities'; no Mr you need not, this is not relevant in a science piece.
The rebuttal is bitchy and immature and even further from science. The women he refers to as a 'humourless mob' are justifiably offended by his tone and attitude and the way he groups them together (what does the word mob mean to you?). He further belittles these people by acting in bad faith as though someone is expecting him to be PC about genuine genetic differences. I use this site because I am scientist and I have no quarrel with researchers in biological differences between the sexes. The rebuttal referenced researchers in this area who have something interesting to say. The author, however, is a columnist not an expert and he has written an ignorant, prejudiced, subjective and genuinely sexist and offensive article which has no place on this site.
Next week; 'Black people; sure one minute they have cuter big brown eyes but the next, like it or not, they kill more people with guns. According to a survey in downtown Detroit..
I think the author's comments are based onincomplete data and understanding. I've witnessed the most virile gossip, not in high schools, but in retirement homes. It seems post-menopausal women are not exempt from the battle for male attention. However, I don't agree that women are genetically driven to "bitchiness." I find that indirect retaliation is practiced when direct is considered too risky, either from fear of social or physical consequences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHmm, this seems to be a very thinly reasoned article. Do girls only display this behavior to other girls? Is this an affirmative trait, or a secondary one? Why doesn't the author consider the behavior contextually?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm just having a great deal of trouble drawing the same broad conclusions from the information you cite. Information that is entirely comprised of anecdotal or near-anecdotal pseudo-science. This reads like a hypothesis, if anything, and you'll pardon my saying, conceiving this hypothesis like you have does not reflect well on you.
For example, is the desire to spread gossip about the trash-talking student used in the "study" evidence of bitchiness, or evidence of a perspective that favors the punishment fitting the crime... i.e., you gossip about me, I gossip about you. Perhaps it just indicates an aversion to physical violence. Perhaps there were too few choices on the questionnaire. The choices as you have represented them are HEAVILY weighted to confirm existing gender stereotypes. I could go on, but I won't. You call that science?
Furthermore, I find it deeply troubling that SciAm and the author feel comfortable using deeply loaded terms like bitchy, catty and so on, without any apparent sensitivity to the connotations attached. And if you can't understand the significance of those words, you are not a credible source of information about women at any stage of development.
That, combined with the jeering comment about Jezebel, a site which I do not visit regularly, but that I know of, makes it hard to take the author seriously. My suggestion would be to contact some of the Jezebel posters here and engage them in a conversation about it. Maybe after a broader exposure to your subjects, you'll actually have something useful to say.
It seems to me that if this article was about why men are so aggressive, there would be no complaints. Just because someone says something about women that is not all that flattering, does not mean they are a misoginest or that what they are saying is untrue. The general underlying theme of this article makes perfect sense and there is a very strong evolutionary argument to be made for why women can be so aggressive and "catty" in certain circumstances. I'm so sorry to inform the feminists, but we are not all born a blank slate and we all carry with us some evolutionary baggage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAsserting that what is said is true does not make it so. I find the evidence to be completely unconvincing. The hypothesis may be true, but I find zero credible support for it here, and plenty other reasonable counter-arguments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, the subjects of this article have a long history as victims of discrimination and abuse, and the flavor of some of that abuse bears a STRONG resemblance to the views expressed in this article. That's either an amazing coincidence, or strong circumstantial evidence that this is just more of the same type of prejudice as ever, dressed up with a thin, sloppy sheen of pseudo-science for modern consumption.
I don't take prejudiced people seriously. Neither should you.
It seems that too many people are getting caught up in some of the terms that have been used, and thus their offense to the use of these terms has illicited anger towards the article. It is not being suggested that these women are being "bitchy" for the sole purpose of finding the best mate and that they are doing this consciously. It is a way of establishing yourself within your social hierarchy that causes this sort of behaviour.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis explanation can ofter be viewed too narrowly though. The protection of what you see as your property, attracting the best mate, securing the best job, and a whole host of other situations can be viewed as an attempt to elevate your social ranking. This is not uncommon in our closest relatives, and it certainly is not uncommon in men.
Like I said before, if this article was about mens aggression then there would be little objection. Just like how there is little objection to an article about ways in which women may be more talented than men, but when the opposite is suggested there is an uproar.....just ask the former president of Harvard.
ARE WOMEN THIN SKINNED OR WHAT
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee, Joebone, this is the trouble. There are truly plenty of comments here that are mature, well-reasoned, and not at all catty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYet it seems we can safely assume from your post that by "adolescent" and "female" you meant the posts seem immature...silly...unreasonable...bitchy, even?
What would be an acceptable way for a woman to refute the author's point of view, without being brushed off as a child, intellectually unworthy of having her opinion be considered valid, if not correct?
This is what women are up against. When they simply disagree, or if they ever take offense, or if they speak up against something that feels wrong, or if they stick up for themselves, then they are frequently dismissed as being silly...catty...girly...bitchy. In the case of many of the comments in this thread, it actually appears that simply objecting to being grouped together as bitches is sufficient evidence to prove that women are bitchy. Great!
As a woman, if one wants to express an opinion--especially about an interpersonal interaction or a personal opinion--and that opinion isn't 95% positive and loving, one often takes all sorts of flack.
It gets old. Really old. It's so tiresome always to feel you need to couch even minor criticisms in qualified sentences in order to be taken seriously and not be disliked ("I hate to say, but..."I'm really sorry, but..." "it's just a little thing, but..." "I kind of think..."). And if you believe I'm exaggerating, check out some scientific linguistics studies about women's/men's word usage and sentence structure when voicing disagreement and protest.
I found parts of the article funny, and some parts scientifically interesting. But on the whole, I didn't care for it personally, because to be honest, it hurt to read it. I'm a woman working in a male-dominated industry. I'm already too well aware that women are considered bitchy. I just don't want to have to hear about it anymore. I certainly don't want to find it in the title of a Scientific American article.
Would Scientific American publish an article by a straight woman called "The Faggot Evolved" or "The Asshole Explained: Why men are so cruel and commit vioence at rates hundreds of times that of their female counterparts?" How about an article by a white scientist called "Evolution of the Nigger," and if it did, for what critical firestorm ought it to be prepared, and how little would protestations of "but it was tongue-in-cheek" be acceptable? It's not that we shouldn't be able to discuss behavioral traits, or perceptions of traits, among various demographics, which traits may be viewed variously as positive, negative, or not even actual. It's that we should try to be respectful when discussing.
Filling a Scientific American article with the words "bitch," "bitchy," and "bitchery" pretty much guarantees backing many readers into a corner from which they will find it impossible to respond approvingly to any scientific content in the article. I find it awfully unfortunate that no less-loaded synonyms could be found with which to spice up this piece.
No, it does not prove his point. You simply assume that the poster is being catty. On the contrary, she is exhorting her fellow Jezebel readers to respond with intelligent, non-catty arguments, of they type to which she is accustomed to reading and writing in the Jezebel community. She is saying "no" to crude retaliation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHa, Jesse you've apparently stirred up the hive. Though I agree with some of the points from the "Jezebel" fan-club, I don't think they realize how their swarming and mostly negatively spun "retaliation" is demeaning to their efforts, and is more or less only embracing some of the points made in the article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJesse did mention, "Let me attempt to preempt the obvious criticism that this is not, of course, to say that all teenage girls are cattyneed I really point out the obvious that many are of course wonderful, thoughtful and mature people? Nor is it to say that teenage boys are never socially aggressive or that girls dont occasionally display physical violence."
I actually think that the "mean girls" are the minority in groups though. That's usually how it seems to go in my experiences. But that is silly to only refer to girls in this way, because guys are the same. Guys do some of the stupidest things, in the name of "mate competition". Just go to a frat party. Though, personally, I think I'd rather be punched in the face and then be done with it, rather than being socially attacked. =P
The study had absolutely nothing to offer on the "innateness" of the behaviors in question - it merely demonstrated their existence (or, more properly speaking, hinted at their existence, since cognitive science has shown pretty clearly that what people say they'll do and what they do are often separate, &c.) Neither does your ability to come up with a just-so story. If women and men's behaviors were reversed, one could come up with an equally plausible Flintstones story - this methodology has no predictive power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry about coming in late and commenting a solitary comment like this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJesse writes: "Anecdotally, I cant think of a single postmenopausal woman who seems hell-bent on undermining another womans dating life".
I've been dating postmenopausal women for a while now. It's an enlightening experience. Enthusiastic sex, a lot of real sharing when it comes to interests, activities, shopping even, and some shared memories (not the exciting ones :-( ) of the good old days around 68.
However, the bitchiness and jealousy are still alive and kicking. Rivals are scumbags and need to be dragged down like that statue of Saddam in Baghdad - and the crowd and their cheers are just as artificial. I am presumably the sexual prize being fought over, but my role is expected to be that of an onlooker to take the winner after the carnage.
And of course, jealousy has nothing whatever to do with it. The others are malicious manipulative sluts who are a danger to society. Or potential comrades-in-arms if the prize is unimpressed and wanders off.
And an unappreciative prize like that is worse even than a rival. I've heard that womankind will only be safe when I'm locked away in a monastery wearing sackcloth and ashes and doing lifelong penance.
That's my anecdotal twopennorth, for the tuppence it's worth.
I don't actually see how this explain the difference between human and other primates, the advantage should cross species right?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems people are missing a big point in the article. The discussion is focused on some evolutionary aspects of gender agression differences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsidered from an evolutionary standpoint, the comments about "finding mates" are perfectly appropriate. The female in just about all species is the one who selects the mates. It is the male who prances about looking foolish trying to attract a female. Suggestion that females have evolved to undermine eachother in selecting mates is not such a stretch of the imagination. Remember, when you consider evolution you have to broaden your time horizon. You need to consider hundereds of thousands of years, not just your memory and your friends or your parents and grandparents.
Males have evolved to be agressive for similar reasons. We fight over women, wonder why? It probably has similar origins in trying to hold onto the female who actually selected us and make sure we are deemed worthy by not backing down from a rival challenge. I may not like it, but instincts are what they are. We try to control them because we are taught as children that we should behave differently. However, when we are alone, the genetic instincts come out in different ways now. It is not the same as trying to survive in the wild. However, trying to navigate puberty (evolutionary signal to procreate, we wait long past for social not biological reasons) in the shopping mall can be pretty tough for a young child (male or female). instincts will prevail.
Most people are taking this like a personal insult. It is the science of why we behave like we do. We act on instinct born of our genetics. We evolved to do many things, like it or not, this is how we are.
Perhaps as pressures change and this thing called "cattiness" becomes less desireable there will be an evolutionary trend towards less catty females if fewer of the more catty types can't find mates and reproduce (yes, as cold as that statement was, that's how evolution works). The same goes for males. If fewere females want the bar room brawlers, then those too will be left childless and their genetics will also slowly be removed from the gene pool. Don't look for this change in your grandchildren. This could take tens of thousands of years to see a real change.
Who knows, it could go the other way and we could have a society of brawlers and catty gossipers.
Ha. These comments are proving the article's point instead of refuting it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyeah chicks are like that, as a very attractive female with a male brain, (no really) this is all true, its happened to me at jobs, church everywhere and i hate it, and most women because of it
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi find it ironic how so many of the comments on this article express agression and anger in the same way referenced in the article, as well as the fact that many of these ignorant readers find time to say that this isn't scientifically relevant to life in general; if you were me the point would be clear, some women are completely isolated from normal female interaction and relationships simply because other women feel threatened by their beauty, slander may be illegal but it doesn't stop you from loosing your job over someones fabricated account of your life, it destroys your social life, your home life, because of the impact it has on your career, and there is virtually no support system for these women, in my experience its beyond relevant, i'ld like to hear out loud, why every female at subway puts a pile of jalapenos in half of my footlong when i am nice to them, and ask for no jalapenos and i'm a relatively average customer, think about ever interaction you have with females under 50, now become their target, i've been called a moron by crowds of women who don't even know my name just because i'm there, oh and the obvious answer, i'm abnormally pretty, thanks bitches
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is one of the many attributes of the human nature which affects both men/women, teens. That's why Islam advices people (everyone including teens) to inculcate good behaviour and steer away from 'bitchy' and other such similar behaviour.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow! If I have an opinion does that make me a scientist too? How very exciting!! Now I can be a reporter, a politician and even a SCIENTIST!!! Wheee!!!!!!!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe you American women have it better there but here in Sydney Australia, the study is spot on about how girls in high school and in the work force operates. I went to an all girls high school (600 of them to be exact). Something similar happened to me in high school - I wasn't sick though - I just wore a different colored shirt and was bullied because of it. Even after leaving high school for many years, these women are unable to grasp the idea of being mature and dont know how to function in an adult friendship. Three years ago, I discovered one of my bestfriends (that I knew since high school), was secretly dating my (then) partner. That hurt me to the core. Everyone knew she didn't like him but got a kick out of it because it was taboo. Then there was the female co-worker that I had known for 8 years (since high school) who destroyed our friendship because of her remarks and gossiping. I've stopped making contact with anyone from high school because those women are toxic. You'd think as adults they would grow out of it. But it seems their primal urge to destroy the "competition" for mating is pretty spot on. Good news is I now have great female friends who are mature even though they're around my age, and I noticed that older women do tend to make better friends than younger ones. They feel secure enough not to view other women as "competition" - I'm engaged and have no interest in taking other women's partners. I know I'm generalising and I can't speak on behalf of everyone. But my own experiences have made me wary of women my age who have something to prove to the opposite sex. At times, its almost frightening to be part of those circles, as the way they socially interact is almost Machiavellian in execution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are describing incipient nesting behavior. Human herd instinct requires social dominance among those who require group support as a necessary part of the self identity process. Such individuals remain peer driven and become believers. Believers are those who need certainty and conviction, the support of those with similar lack of self reliance, in agreed social values, religion, cults, cultural identity, and other forms of virtual reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a woman, I wonder about this. I have unfortunately found some of this behavior to be true. A recent report in the NYT about women that bully confirms some of ths also (wish I had the link handy ...)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have often felt hampered, cornered and flat-out dismissed by this behavior.
Evo .... I agree
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe topic of this entry is timely, and is evident in my own experience in watching my teenage daughter deal with the angst associated with this crowd behavior. However, I didn't see the connection in the esearch exemplars cited. The research cited here is based on studies of a different age group. The reference to Jezibel.com is also involving a different age group. The best place to see this behavior in the 11-18 year old females (in a western culture, the time corresponding to secondary school years) is on the pages of MySpace and Facebook, where it plays out every day. The emotional costs of this social behavior (maybe genetically-based, but culturally reinforced) on the psyches of teenage girls get exacerbated when alcohol and eating disorders are involved.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe topic of this entry is timely, and is evident in my own experience in watching my teenage daughter deal with the angst associated with this crowd behavior. However, I didn't see the connection in the esearch exemplars cited. The research cited here is based on studies of a different age group. The reference to Jezibel.com is also involving a different age group. The best place to see this behavior in the 11-18 year old females (in a western culture, the time corresponding to secondary school years) is on the pages of MySpace and Facebook, where it plays out every day. The emotional costs of this social behavior (maybe genetically-based, but culturally reinforced) on the psyches of teenage girls get exacerbated when alcohol and eating disorders are involved.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, you got a lot of comments. But as to the piece, I have to agree that's it's mostly fluff. "Trash talk science", if you like. There was a good subject in there, somewhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am shocked to see such an article in scientific american with an offensive title and content that is not based on any scientific facts. This "female social aggression" is not something practiced by most females. Furthermore if the author examines several cultures around the world, he will find that it is non-existing in most cultures. So why use the term evolved for something that hardly exists. Very disspapointed in scientific american.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am shocked to see such an article in scientific american with an offensive title and content that is not based on any scientific facts. This "female social aggression" is not something practiced by most females. Furthermore if the author examines several cultures around the world, he will find that it is non-existing in most cultures. So why use the term evolved for something that hardly exists. Very disspapointed in scientific american.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHas Jesse Bering thought perhaps that it might be evolved behaviour because females, for various reasons, are not usually so ready to physically fight? As a tom-boy, brought up on a farm, and therefore much stronger than many other kids my age, I always fought first, and thought about other ways of getting back at others later.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisApologies in advance for repeating anything already posted. I confess I've only made it through the first twenty comments or so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wanted to know more about Hess and Hagen's 2006 study Mr. Bering cites, so I followed his link. In section 2.0 of the article, I encountered the following:
We also wished to assess whether social norms and approval could explain any observed sex differences in aggression psychology. Based on evolutionary models of indirect
aggression, we predicted that women would experience a stronger desire than men to indirectly aggress against competitors, even after controlling for social norms and approval. Indirect aggression involves a number of different tactics that could conceivably be used in different circumstances, and that might even exhibit differing patterns of use by the sexes. We therefore studied only one tactic: attacking an opponent with information. We term this tactic an informational attack (Hess, 2006).
With special regard for the last two sentences, I'm curious about the variety of other tactics employed by females engaging in aggressive behavior not featured in this study. I'm also curious how Hess and Hagen controlled for "social norms and approval." I must admit that my areas of expertise mainly concern qualitative data. However, even I can see that it is absolutely crucial how Hess and Hagen "controlled" for such massive, all-pervasive, and sometimes elusive factors as social norms and approval.
Lastly, I have to admit that Mr. Bering's commentary does not sit well with me for what appears to be a bit of confirmation bias blended with a healthy dose of gender stereotyping. The following is an example of what I mean:
Men are violent, stupid animals as confirmed by a 2006 study of behavior. The study found that men are twice as likely as women to resort to physical violence, whereas women who perceive a threat resort to non-physical acts of aggression in which they employ their brains rather than their fists in retaliation. This confirms what everyone already knew about men, that some of them can be trained, but in the end, they're patently stupid, inferior creatures who are only tolerated for their ability to donate sperm.
I trust even Mr. Bering sees the flaw in this line of logic...
A recent, very large analysis of earlier research found that there is little, if any, difference in social aggression between boys and girls. See http://scienceline.org/2008/12/08/ask-joelving-mean-girls-boys-gossip-social-aggression/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA recent, very large analysis of earlier research found that there is little, if any, difference in social aggression between boys and girls. See http://scienceline.org/2008/12/08/ask-joelving-mean-girls-boys-gossip-social-aggression/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA recent, very large analysis of earlier research found that there is little, if any, difference in social aggression between boys and girls. See http://scienceline.org/2008/12/08/ask-joelving-mean-girls-boys-gossip-social-aggression/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisContrived observables are the bane of the so-called soft sciences, which is not to say that such things are without utility but rather that the 'conclusions' derived from their employ should be viewed with necessary scepticism. Stuff like B.Q. (bitchiness quotient) is a prime example of this. Simplistic common sense might suggest that ways to deal with the great hairy lump carrying a dinosaur bone in his hand were, early on, profitably discussed with other women of the tribe, due to the lack of significant fear of being 'brained' if a disagreement about tactics presented itself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do you only speak about pennies, men and odder related male/gayish issues and for the 1st time you bring up women to these chronic, is just bring one of this kind? Are they so scary? You, has a scientist, should not be afraid of the unknown...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHope you can enlighten me!
Joana, portuguese reader that follows these chronics and the SA attentively
And by the way... maybe you wish you could be a bitch, hum?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell put, Rightly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcellent post, I couldn't agree more!!! Stereotypes exist because they have proven to be true. Women are bitches, and men do like to brawl.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan get simpler than that. (Look at how many women got pissy at this article and promptly began to tear you down, since of course, you are a man and can't possibly say anything true about women's catty natures.)
Oh yea, I'm a women, age 23. ;)
The Hess & Hagen study is hopefully based on something more than the scenario they set up. The in-direct aggression that would be inspired by the conversation seems like the logical course considering the attack was in the same format. Therefore, Im not sure that it indicates anything more in women than a superior ability to wage war and to gage an opponents treachery. And the scenario doesnt appear to have anything directly to do with young women competing for a mate as you have stated was the purpose of their study. Was the TA the opposite sex and more importantly desirable? It isnt clear and since women generally will not compete unless there is something worth gaining (unlike men, who as far as I can tell will compete for nearly anything even something as mundane as whose beer belly is bigger) it seems that what the women were competing for was not a man but to maintain their status in the class - which seems, once again, logical and socially appropriate. While I think it is clear that women have a far superior grasp on social MANeuvering I think that your reporting of the study doesnt really prove that point. Isnt it possible that as men and women have evolved, womens more socially aggressive behavior rather than having a negative component as the word bitchiness would suggest is actually a superior line of evolution and rather threatening to men (whether they are straight or gay) and as such is really the reason you chose to write this article given that you seem a bit put out that some feminist editor would actually write an negative article about you (a man).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, author, you will be brought and fried over a hot bed of coal for letting on to such intimate secrets ! Be ready for a rapid withdrawal to a safe haven for a while. Beware of attacks to the eyes and jewels ! Catty cats can be vicious, fast and mercyless.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, author, you will be brought and fried over a hot bed of coal for letting on to such intimate secrets ! Be ready for a rapid withdrawal to a safe haven for a while. Beware of attacks to the eyes and jewels ! Catty cats can be vicious, fast and mercyless.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh! Author, you will be carried and fried over a hot bed of incandescent coals for letting on to such intimate female motives and practices.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRemember the Arab proverb which states you should have a fast horse if you want to tell the thruth.
Find a safe haven soonest before the Sisterhood chases you down and prepares the brasero. Bitch, bitch, bitch...
Dauphin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNotice that many of the comments aren't necessarily denying that women engage in more passive aggressive or socially aggressive behavior. Let's take it as a given (although he hasn't proven it) that women are more likely to be socially aggressive.
The thrust of his piece is that such behavior is driven by an evolutionary drive to compete for mates and hormones. He also claims that such behavior is constant across cultures, without support.
That is the part of his piece that most of us are taking issue with. I do not care if more women than men gossip (acutally, the reverse is true), or engage in other passive-aggressive behavior. I do care if I am told it is due to biology and evolution, without proof. Culture is a powerful force, and for those of us familiar with the field, far more likely to control our behavior in these circumstances.
It would appear that the therom is proved based on the comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I linked to an article on scientificamerican I was expecting something scientific. Boy, was I wrong. Who is this guy?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswomen are mysterious, even to themselves. we know though scientific study that women are less forgiving of breaches of social trust then men. we also know that the second worst thing that can happen to a woman is to break a nail. what the first is, no one knows. we also know that you can't tell a woman anything. and that is so evident from the comments on this board. we also know that the "heterosexual" woman is turned on sexually by men and women a like whereas the male heterosexual human is only turned on my females. as a result i think that it is possible that "obtaining a mate" is not the only reason women compete with one another. women as a whole do not feel good about themselves because they are so emotional. as a result, i think, just like male bullies who like to beat up on people, women are "catty" in order to raise their status and feel good about themselves. how else can you explain (proven by scientific study) women will fall for any sales pitch where as men are more selective.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_status
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am the mother of two boys and I can quite categorically tell you that I have never faced the kind of malicious gossip and bitchiness from girls whilst growing up (and I lived in many places and changed many schools) but my young sons face it every day from their male peers....gossip, exclusiveness, meanness, manipulation, the entire package.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am a mother of two boys and I can say without any hesitation that I have never faced such hostile behaviour from women while growing up (and I lived in many places and went to different schools). On the other hand, my two young sons face this `bitchiness', exclusivity, meanness and manipulative behaviour on a regular basis from their male peers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have experienced it just the way you wrote it, my man. And as far as that little experiment, I would have been one of those who responded "yes, the weather has been nice", as I am a firm believer in '...keep your enemies closer.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe comments posted thus far are all evidence of the assertions made in the article. Any woman posting that she is 30 and has never experienced any bitch behavior is lying at minimum to herself. Others posting are defenders of the faith of femaledom. The vast majority - I would go as far to say 80% - of women are bitches. any woman who disagrees must be a bitch as that would be why she cannot see it. Yes, I am a female misogynist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProjected into the context of wolves (from what I've read) and dogs (from direct experience), this is no surprise. Alpha female wolves apparently work hard to prevent anyone else from breeding so the packs resources will be devoted to the support of her offspring. Our alpha-personality female terrier is expert at working a room, figuring out who has what and how she can get it. The key variable seems to be how alpha/submissive is the individual.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The University of Flinders"? Oh, is that the same as the University of Harvard, or the University of Princeton?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFlinders University, for God's sake! You Americans are so parochial.
As a third year honors psychology student who has completed several courses in neuropsychology, evolutionary psychology and social psychology, Mr. Bering's comments about the often extremely hurtful lengths young men and women go to compete for mates (though as in many human phenomena, they may be unaware of why they are engaging in this behavior) are correct as much as I wish they were not so. Since humans have lived in tribes of approximately 30 people, killing or making other's competitors appear weak has been the strategy of our ancestors that lived on to successfully reproduce. In an increasingly social society, wiser strategies have been to achieve social status through leadership abil, however it is hard to erase the past from our collective biological memory. In addition consider the intense hormonal changes occuring during teenage-hood and how hormones, the body's chemical messengers, and neurotransmitters relate to cause profound affects on behavior. Read David Buss and look at evidence here:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYoung male syndrome - the fact that men engage in risky violence more than women (great risk of injury and death)
â—‹ 20-24 highest rate of killing or being killed (Stats Can)
§ These are the times where he has the most at stake and the greatest ability
§ Reputation he establishes at youth can stick with him for life
• Kruger and Ness (2004) - in developed countries the greatest demographic risk for mortality is being male
For women, see
-http://www.canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/What_About_Girls_Aggression_Ohio_State_1997.aspx
-Berkowitz on female to female verbal aggression
-Also interestingly to note, though the cause seems to be unknown is why rates of female physical aggression as measured in arrests have dramatically increasing rapidly, by 127% compared to 65% for males since 1999
-Anne Campb
The poster 'ard' comments: As a woman of nearly 30, I can safely say that I never experienced anything like the malicious behaviour alleged, nor have my friends." Not to be rude, but your comment is irrelevant..just because you or your friends have not experienced female to female bullying behavior, does not mean it doesn't exist, it seems you and your friends seem to be some of the fortunate few...Science looks at large numbers of participants following well-defined and repeatable methods to make informed predictions about as many people as possible--and evidence points that female aggression, especially of the verbal kind (such as saying a girl who is interested in your boyfriend is easy or is unattractive) is a common str
As a third year honors psychology student who has completed several courses in neuropsychology, evolutionary psychology and social psychology, Mr. Bering's comments about the often extremely hurtful lengths young men and women go to compete for mates (though as in many human phenomena, they may be unaware of why they are engaging in this behavior) are correct as much as I wish they were not so. Since humans have lived in tribes of approximately 30 people, killing or making other's competitors appear weak has been the strategy of our ancestors that lived on to successfully reproduce. In an increasingly social society, wiser strategies have been to achieve social status through increasing leadership ability or fame, however it is hard to erase the past from our collective biological memory. In addition consider the intense hormonal changes occuring during teenage-hood and how hormones, the body's chemical messengers, and neurotransmitters relate to cause profound affects on behavior. Read David Buss and look at evidence here:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYoung male syndrome - the fact that men engage in risky violence more than women (great risk of injury and death). Age 20-24 highest rate of killing or being killed (Stats Can), these are the times where he has the most at stake and the greatest ability, the reputation he establishes at youth can stick with him for life (that of being an alpha male). Kruger and Ness (2004) - in developed countries the greatest demographic risk for mortality is being male
For women, see
-http://www.canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/What_About_Girls_Aggression_Ohio_State_1997.aspx
-Berkowitz on female to female verbal aggression
-Also interestingly to note, though the cause seems to be unknown is why rates of female physical aggression as measured in arrests have dramatically increasing rapidly, by 127% compared to 65% for males since 1999 - http://www.lfcc.on.ca/agenda.html
-Anne Campbell , "A few good men: Evolutionary psychology and female adolescent aggression", The Journal of Ethology and Sociobiology Volume 16, Issue 2, March 1995
To continue...The poster 'ard' comments: As a woman of nearly 30, I can safely say that I never experienced anything like the malicious behaviour alleged, nor have my friends." Not to be rude, but your comment is irrelevant..just because you or your friends have not experienced female to female bullying behavior, does not mean it doesn't exist, it seems you and your friends seem to be some of the fortunate few...Science looks at large numbers of participants following well-defined and repeatable methods to make informed predictions about as many people as possible--and evidence points that female aggression, especially of the verbal kind (such as saying a girl who is interested in your boyfriend is easy or is unattractive) is a common strategy indeed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh and to conclude..tobysmom has got it going on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that bit about jezebel.com was a tease. You bitches need to lighten up. haha!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for social aggression, I think that some people realize how much more effective it is than violence because - in the example of the gossipy friend and the TA - violence would have strengthened the friend's slanderous remarks and not doing anything would have left her dubious credibility in tact (again, strengthening her slanderous remarks).
However, tying that research question to the evolutionary argument that women are following a historical pattern of frantically competing for sperm... I would at least consider the possibility if maybe there was anything in the question about whether or not the TA was hot, if the TA was into you, if the friend knew you liked the TA... something that even winks at the general whisper of the implication of attraction. Without that aspect, there is really no reason to go in the direction of behavioural evolution. Weak sauce!!!
Man All these Bitches denying their ?nature it funny as hell (and Telling)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't interesting not one woman has ever heard of other women or ANY of their friends acting with this type of behavior... Yea Right!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting women just don't want to admit to such behavior... You girls ever find yourself in a Salon???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have taught at an all boy school and at an all girl school. I do not think this is anecdotal evidence because every colleague I have spoken with agrees: high school boys and girls are different! I won't claim that I know the difference, it could be all socialization for all I know.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBare facts: you can lay into a teenage boy, have a rant, he can storm out of the room, serve a detention, and then you can talk about sports the next day. No problems. It is not so with girls. Things are much more relational. Girls talk about what you wear and what you look like as a response to how they perceive they are treated. I have never seen a boy do this; most boys don't have an audience
I've never seen fist-fights in girls' schools either. It could be socialization, but my guess is that the empirical studies on testosterone shine a guiding light.
The testosterone/physical aggression and XX chromosome/information aggression are real correlations, and I am surprised to read doubters. The evolutionary psychology theory behind it - that it had to do with mate selection - does not have to be seen as an affront to the female sex.
To accept that men are not just socialized to, but *adapted* to physically fight (supported by every war ever fought and most tribal battles) and in the same breath say that women (who traditionally are not warriors) have no such adaptations seems foolish to me. Clearly the men who live have a reproductive advantage. Is it better to think that women are simply passive members of the reproductive game? Does it not seem plausible that women have their own strategies?
I think any one being defensive over this article is simply seeing this as an attack on women. I believe that isn't so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt stands to reason that women, especially young women feel such social compulsions. To notice that reproductive behavior is dehumanizing and cruel is not a huge stretch. It doesn't take a genius to see that further intellectualizing social processes can only stand to better individual relationships on a deeper and more meaningful level.
(Also, it is annoying to read reactionary rants that are far too long.)
Jezebel is a horrible site, that puts the term "Female topics" to shame.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am ashamed that women go there and consider any of those "articles noteworthy. This is what is wrong with modern women.
Well jezebel is just a commercial link bait site, you can google up their link baiting strategy if you want to see behind the curtain. It is pretty shameless how those outrage sites work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut on the other hand they do display a form of female aggression, if you look at the comments, and how the approval process works, it is based on being "liked", in other words it is a girl clique dynamic. Needless to say this results in a lot of ass kissing behavior and approved opinion. Those who disagree are just left in the cold and ignored, effectively denied entry. That is female aggression behavior for ya.
Dear Mr. Bering, I must say, even being a girl, I absolutely wholeheartedly agree with this article. In fact I've actually being wondering the same thing. I'm relieved that someone is brave enough to say it. I just secretly wish we were more like men, they're so organized and logical, and I really mean that. It's no wonder that they are the leaders of the world. They spend less time gossiping about each other and more time being productive. I'll even go to the extent to say that animals behave a thousand times more kindly to each other than girls do. I feel ashamed that the condition of girls is growing more evil and wicked than anything else. I feel so ashamed. I think we need to stop being so proud and swollen-headed and start accepting the truth about ourselves that we aren't the nicest kind of people and try to find ways to become more humble and gracious.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishaha, any woman ever growing up around other women would know that many women are catty bitches, and you don't need a test tube or mathematics to figure that fact. Just take a gander, if you will, at the comments, HISS!!! hahaha. Stumbled upon this page when googling "passive aggressive friend," thanks for article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's interesting how quickly this article was attacked by female readers. I've worked hard my whole life to avoid cattiness, but it's still present and I'm 24 years old. This is an issue and women should really scrutinize the "trash talkers" more then the victims of this rancid vocabulary. I made an innocent joke on facebook that was regarded as "cunty" by a female I viewed as a friend/acquaintance (In my opinion, making an iphone joke doesn't make anyone a "C" word). Upset by this outlandish comment my boyfriend flat out attacked her which I would never have done. However, she didn't retaliate with insults to him, she retaliated with insults to me by saying he's "dating down". Furthermore, if she had an issue with my statement why wouldn't she address me directly instead of socially belittling my integrity? What is this social disease that allows women to tear each other down? Why are so many women addicted to social violence?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGirls are just awful, whether it's in school, work, or sports. I played volleyball for a year and a half & it was nothing but drama, drama, drama. Even when they're not saying stuff to your face, they can treat you like you're worthless and that just ruins your self esteem. I know so many girls who quit the team because of those few who weren't talented at anything except killing confidence. I was lucky enough to learn from the experience & realize that your success is not determined by how many points you score in a game, if you're the most popular on the team, or if you're the MVP, but by what you learn and what lessons you take away from the experience. Speaking from experience, mean girls don't amount to anything & things get better. I ended up writing a book called The Bench Sitter based on that year and a half and I'm happier than ever. (: Don't let mean girls get to you, ever!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Bench Sitter Can Be Found At:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Bench-Sitter-ebook/dp/B005ISAS06/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1314145953&sr=1-1
I can attest that this type of behavior is alive and well. Where I work, it is part of the everyday make up of our schedule. You cannot put more than 10 women in a live-in setting and not get cattiness, jealousy, gossip, rumors, cliches, etc. Sometimes, they can act with certain qualities of sisterhood but more times than not, I have to address the "she said/she said" issues that rise up in the day-to-day. So for those of you who have been offended by this article, there is a much bigger world out there for you to see. Just because it doesn't pertain to you, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Go interview some Jr. High school girls and see for yourself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this