Jesse Bering
Image:
-
What a Plant Knows
How does a Venus flytrap know when to snap shut? Can it actually feel an insect’s tiny, spindly legs? And how do cherry blossoms know when to bloom? Can they...
Read More »
Let me nip this little brouhaha caused by my last post in the bud. So perhaps—just perhaps—I made a slight gaffe in directing readers to the Jezebel.com Web site in order to illustrate social aggression in reproductive aged females. It was a bit of a tongue-in-cheek rub at that Web site, I must admit, precipitated by a rather nasty editorial there on an earlier article of mine. But I didn’t anticipate a humorless mob of “Jezebelers” commenting angrily in defense of their own tight-knit online community. Well, maybe I expected the reaction a little bit; I’m not entirely naïve to viral marketing campaigns.
I’d like to point out, though, that for a blog site that wishes to portray itself as the mature, sophisticated, sensitive, sexually egalitarian and supportive environment for women that many of the commentators are convinced it is, Jezebel was an interesting choice of namesake. The Cambridge Dictionary defines “jezebel” as an “immoral woman who deceives people in order to get what she wants.” And lest we not forget its historical countenance, the Easton’s Bible reminds us that, “Jezebel has stamped her name on history as the representative of all that is designing, crafty, malicious, revengeful and cruel.”
And until now, my only experience with Jezebel reflected exactly such maliciousness and cruelty—courtesy of the particularly vituperative and serpent-tongued editor who wrote the aforementioned piece about me. Having now read through some of the commentary threads on Jezebel.com, however, there is indeed a certain wit and clever sensibility permeating there that has gained my newfound respect. I apologize for painting the women (and men) of Jezebel with too broad a brush. I admire the site’s incisively liberal bent; as a science writer with my own biases in this direction and one with little patience for bigotry, I suspect we’re on the same page.
Bering in Mind is a column based on research findings that I think are fascinating—my articles should not be confused with the kind of dispassionate news articles found on the rest of ScientificAmerican.com. I’m a voice of science with a bite. I’m also a professional scientist, not a journalist, and I often write these columns during my lunch breaks.
I do, however, take care to report research results as accurately as would be done in a news story—in other words, I will not apologize for what I wrote about men and women and the differences in our underlying psychologies. In order to really believe that the only differences between the sexes emerge from what human beings learn from culture and society, you’d have to be either inordinately naïve or grotesquely misinformed about evolution, biology and psychology. I adore feminist legends such as Simone de Beauvoir as much as anyone (she’s a particular existentialist close to my heart, in fact), but ignoring what we’ve learned about biologically based differences between the sexes, and how they influence social behavior is, well, colossally dumb these days.
In addition to the work of Hess and Hagen that I discussed in my last post, you might, for example, find University of Durham psychologist Anne Campbell’s ongoing research on sex differences and aggression especially interesting. She’s been carefully teasing apart the many complex strands of cultural transmission and hormonal mediators in her evolutionary theorizing about female violence. Campbell has argued that much of the sex differences in aggression can probably be understood in terms of “parental investment theory.” Parental investment theory was developed in the early 1970s by biologist Robert Trivers. One of its basic implications is that, since human mothers make a disproportionately greater contribution (and physical investment) to the offspring’s survival than human fathers, women have evolved to be generally more reticent than men in their mating strategies. Typical male physical violence, Campbell argues, is largely a form of showy sexual competition between men for reproductive access to the most desirable women. The types of social aggression among women I described in my previous article also appears to be a form of intrasexual competition for the most desirable men, but it avoids the comparatively higher cost of physical harm to women’s bodies. .
See what we're tweeting about
60 Comments
Add CommentI have always RESPECTED you, Mr. Bering, until I read that article, in which I lost a fraction of my respect. Your science was lost to your commentary, which went a bit too far.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a natural foundation for social aggression within females, YES. Evolutionary psychology is a worthy study, it is simply another field of study.
However, 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 often enjoy your humor and your "bite", and I read your articles weekly and thoroughly enjoy them. However, in this case, your "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.
Give us the facts, and be careful as to how you express your opinions. I do not MIND the humor, but I do mind sexism, and you were flirting with it. 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.
The statements in that article were NOT empirical when paired with the insensitive terminology -- this was about as empirical as social Darwinism.
However, it should be noted that this edit possessed much more substance and was thoroughly appreciated. =/ The research *does* exist, and I don't think anyone is able to deny that. I only have an issue with the way it was initially presented.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd you might find this a bit funny -- I actually discussed this article briefly at prom yesterday.
Hahaha... Jesse, you are a glutton for punishment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhether I agree with your conclusions or not, I like that your articles stir people up.
Jesse, you don't need to apologize. These people are using abuse and outrage to generate fear amongst anyone who might dare analyze or challenge them. The drape themselves in flags of victimhood, lifestyle politics and pseudointellectualism the way George W. Bush wrapped himself in the flag of patriotism and common-man's wisodom. It's fake, manipulative and destructive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat bothers me most is that at least bigots like the Klan are aware of the criticisms people have of their hatred and nastiness, these supposed feminists have somehow managed to use intimidation to keep self-awareness at arms length for at least two decades.
Here's some more views on the narcissism and boorishness being passed off as a political movement in today's world:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/17/feminism-america-sex-promiscuity-drinking
I just read your original post, and let me say you are completely right. It's not sexist, it's just the way things are. If you disagree it just means you've been out of highschool to long.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou don't need to be biologist, anthropologist or even psychologist to see which gender is more aggressive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust take a look at the crime statistics; murders, kidnappings, homicides, or any other crime related to aggression and tell me who is more aggressive. Don't forget the wars and genocides!
Do you think all those crimes are due to some sexual competition for reproductive access?
I have a better theory than Robert Trivers has. The world would be a better place without the aggression of males; no wars, no crime, and not even traffic accidents.
Just think about it!
Maybe this is naive of me, but I think evidence wins out every time. I hope people who are upset because they don't like the data will come around in time. Nicely-written post, by the way. I'm going to go subscribe to your blog now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBTW I am a female and have never been catty by nature. I wonder if this is why I was such an outcast in my 'tween & teen years. It makes me feel a bit better to think about the biological forces that drive people's behavior; makes it less personal.
I'm a high school teacher. Got 23 years in. Love my job, love the kids--but girls are DEFINITELY bitchier than boys.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisheh, I'd like to see the jezebels respond to this!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou've got yourself between a rock and a hard spot. When discussing racism, using the "n-word" will always bite, and the "b-word" is no less volatile. You might be able to get away with using a derogatory term from within your own "in-crowd" which in your case might be "queer science". I think it would be "fun" if you expand on the bitchiness theme by scientifically exploring (statistically speaking of course) whether gay men favor being bitchy (female style social aggression) when compared to their straight peers (study groups matched for age, "race" (which, as you know, is a scientifically invalid concept), socio-economics, etc. And to be fair to the "fairer" sex (or do the feminists reject this as sexist?), do the same comparison with lesbians, are they more prone to male style physical aggression? The nature vs. nurture debate would certainly play itself out and in the end, if it is done 'tongue in cheek', in the name of "queer science", at least you wouldn't have to personally apologize (still haven't figured out what for... insensitive? how male of you, disrespectful? for honoring just how potent ALL forms of aggression can be?) As always, in the name of "pure science" you will need to invent a whole new nomenclature to avoid all possible charges of stereotyping, and DO BE CAREFUL of groups that label themselves Jezebels. Given that female dogs are called bitches, be very careful with its male equivalent, studs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe science here seems sound, I can't see why people would object to it (or how they even could - numbers don't lie, and if think they do, drop that cell phone and iPod of yours because they're based on those lying numbers).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see karmabites here calls you a stereotyper. I don't really understand that, stereotyping is a generalized impression of something. Men tend to be more physically aggressive (violent jocks anyone?) and women tend to be more socially aggressive (bitchy?). If you asked anyone if that was true IN GENERAL I would be surprised to find someone who disagrees with it. And to the sexism issue... if you want to see men and women grow to hate each other, assign them exactly the same roles in life and expect exactly the same out of them. Men and women are different, not better or worse than each other, but different. Boys are more likely to beat the crap out of each other, and girls are more likely to completely reject each other. One causes physical pain, one causes emotional pain. Different yet equal. The call of sexism seems out of place.
Then theres A_Trippe who seems to be very anti-male. I'm sorry if thats not true, but if you can come up with any scientific research that shows that it was the kind of male aggression mentioned here that sparked those wars. Besides, I'm reasonably certain that everyone's favorite scientist with attitude Jesse here was not attempting to explain things like wars. And if you dislike the aggression of males, I shudder to think about the suicide rate if women's form of aggression was the dominant force in society.
Luckily, there are some intelligent folk here who look at the actual content of what you're explaining instead of trying to find fault in how it was presented.
To Spanish women, "bitch" is more offensive than the "C" word. One can only be offended by the truth. Jesse has a humorous personality that is refreshing. Most of the Jezebel posters (posers?) prove that the only personality they have is BITCHY. Sticks and stones........
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTwo things. First, I'd like to thank you for introducing me to Jezebel.com. I initially clicked the link expecting to witness some good cat fights, but ended up going "hey, this site isn't half bad and actually has some pretty interesting scoop!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecond, I was never able to follow the logic of your original post. You didn't explain *what* the evolutionary model was, so I was all like "what does girls choosing more reputation attacks have to do with evolutionary fitness?" I see you give an explanation in this new post, but I still had to read the full paper to see the connection. The way they state it in the paper, a higher rate of social aggression among females is a necessary condition for the evolutionary model (the model being that women resort to non-physical combat because physical combat is detrimental to maternal care and hence fitness). However, they do not say it is a sufficient condition. The title of your previous post "the 'bitch' evolved" suggests that it is sufficient, because their experimental results prove the evolutionary model.
In short, the paper says "if not Q, then not P. We demonstrate Q." You say "they demonstrate Q, therefore P." It's great that you're excited about new research, but maybe if you think through things a little beyond lunch break, you would risk less of this faulty logic that doesn't do any good for people's understanding of science.
Ok but let's be precise in our discussion of Beauvoir at least-- The Second Sex is neither abiological neither postmodern. The claim that one is not born but becomes a woman is a social idea, and in order to support her argument Beauvoir employs a wide range of different source material to examine how "women" have been produced by a patriarchal society.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere it gets postmodern is where theorists like Judith Butler come along and apply Beauvoir's use of "becoming" to theories of performativity and iterativity. But again, Butler is more interested in discourse--how sex and gender get discussed, made, policed, etc.-- rather than what objectively "is." (That's the difference between scientists and theorists.) The point basically was to argue that biology was not destiny but that there were other social factors involved which sometimes adopted the language of biology to suit its purposes.
Postmodern theory is skeptical of the truth claims of science, but over the last 15 years or so there has been a serious turn toward biology in gender studies. Which indicates that we are emerging out of a strictly postmodern conception of gender and toward something which blends more harmoniously the social and the biological.
@jbufpants, I clicked on the link to jezebel.com too but unlike you I thought it was absolutely stupid, just a bunch of women talking about britney spears getting her period on a photoshoot and worshipping judge judy. And by the way, jesse admittted in his earlier piece that "Although most researchers acknowledge the somewhat speculative nature of evolutionary arguments in this area.." where's the faulty logic there? if you read into a title like 'the bitch evolved' anything more than a hook you're pretty dense. and i'd guess the original articles are cited in jesse's pieces because he's um, encouraging you to read them for more detail. oh the horror! actually having to read a scientific journal article to gain new knowledge. have fun on jezebel - you're right, sounds like your type of website!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisvery well said, maitresse. there are definitely respectable feminist theorists. but you won't find them at jezebel, just a bunch of gossipy boneheads there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI merely stated that the tone/assumptions used were stereotypical and strayed too much from the science -- the humorous anecdotes just seemed to provoke the typical "GIRLS ARE BITCHES AND SO SHALLOW" response instead of a more education analysis of where these assumptions might originate from. Using commentary throughout to prove his point ("look at middle schoolers, prime example~") was unnecessary and, again, stereotypical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce again, I am *not at all* disagreeing with the research contained therein, only the manner in which it was presented. Feel free to disagree or agree, I wholly understand both sides.
STICKS AND STONES CAN BREAK MY BONES BUT WORDS CAN NEVER HURT ME
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow quickly we forget this. You can allow words to hurt you and "political correctness" propagates this behavior.
The "incorrect" words are geographically, culturally and temporally specific.
A fine example is the " "
water closet - WC - loo - toilet - lady's room - bathroom - powder my nose(?) - rest room(?) - little boy's room - ...
negro, nigger, nigra, african american, black
and then there is genitalia (space does not permit)
Who cares what people THINK or SAY
ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.
how can u try and be so politically correct at the start and then just contradict yourself with the 'queer science' comment?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI love your style...pointing out blatant facts is hard to some, but it needs to be done. Being a girl I lived through all the adolescent nonsense and survived and now that I have my own boys and girls, all I can tell them, is it's a fact of life. Girls are especially mean. I actually read your article to my teen daughter who's going through that same backstabbing from a girl who's been her friend the whole year. It helped her to see that all girls are just that way. Keep writing! You've got me hooked!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust wanted to say your doing good work. To be honest I think it is pretty difficult to tease out the biological factors from societal factors so you cant really make any deductively sound evolutionary argument; not to mention there is no way to ever prove any evolutionary hypothesis. That having been said, I think your logic is as sound as any and I look forward to reading other posts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdude. Aside from the fact that your recent pieces, while interesting on some level and yet belonging somewhere other than the currently descending SA, I would not call that Jezabel a 'nasty editorial', and if you do, brother, you have a very wicked future ahead of you as a writer&-&
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"dude," are you kidding? that original jezebel piece was totally snarky and bitchy. have you even read it? the jezebel writer (sounds suspiciously like you, by the way) wrote that "bering is obsessed with dick" and "admits he's gay." very uncool. jesse was just taking a friendly poke here right back at them -- obviously jezebel can dish out bitchiness to people outside their ridiculous website but can't any criticism without the hair bristling on their backs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am also curious as to how the research you've cited demonstrates biological, as opposed to social, differences between men and women. You seem to suggest that anyone who does not jump to the 'biology' conclusion is 'dumb', but your descriptions of relevant findings do not seem to disprove the involvement of social processes. For example, showing that people engage in a behavior despite (self-reports!) that the behavior is socially inappropriate (as you characterize the Hess and Hagan article) is not grounds for rejecting a sociological explanation for these findings. I would appreciate a post that directly addresses your assertion that socio-cultural explanations are 'dumb', as you have yet presented no specific data to back up this assertion. If you have the magic bullet of evidence showing that gendered behavior is due to biological sex, though, please let us know. At present, though, this post is simply an insult to working social scientists who continue to investigate the social aspects of gender. To pretend that the issue of sex and gender differences has been settled by science and is now merely common sense is to willfully ignore research published outside of a few cognition journals by people who wouldn't recognize a social constructionist theory if it bit them in the face.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBTW, your limited knowledge of feminism is betrayed by your confusion regarding the choice of the name "Jezebel" for a feminist blog. Feminist theology has a very different take on the Biblical personage of Jezebel than you will find in the Cambridge dictionary. Perhaps if you had understood that such a name choice is most likely to indicate a rejection of the derogatory labels and stereotypes that women historically bear (bitch, slut, "Jezebel"), you would have recognized what kind of mess you were getting into.
I am astonished to see that given the two available stereotypes - one being warmongering quick-tempered violent savages and the other displaying social "cattiness" or even "bitchiness" - there is an outcry of being ascribed as the latter. Surely it is the lesser of two evils.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think it is a testament to the degree our culture is patriarchal when the former stereotype has become normative and is strangely devoid criticism while to suggest that someone is "bitchy" is taken as a grave insult.
In an imaginary stereotypical world, I for one would prefer the company of catty people than violent barbarians. But the overt nature of the barbaric aggression is certainly more enjoyable and visceral to watch on screen (or is that only for males?).
Any woman that has been a teenager in a public school system has experienced SERIOUS female aggression similar to what the author describes. If you haven't then I can only assume you were one of the gals doling out that "bitchy" behavior. As women we should identify this behavior and teach our daughters that that sort of activity is negative and unacceptable, not ignore it via language and logic circles. Young girls social warfare causes serious emotional damage at an extremely vulnerable time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think you have as valid as any explanation for these types of behaviors. Granted, I feel from a purely theoretical standpoint, at this point in our evolution we have enough power over our instinctual influences that societal pressures intensify and change those initial responses. For example the structure of a high school setting allows girls ample ground to develop there own vicious social hierarchy with few negative consequences to keep it under control. Especially with the complete ignorance of staff and parents. In this case making those responses more complex. If anything those that insist women aren't influenced biologically to act this way are simply removing there only viable excuse to BE a huge bitch! (i guess with the exception of that special time of month ;) )
I read a lot of blogs and online forums, and Jezebel has one of the friendliest, most articulate commenting communities out there. I've been reading Jezebel for months and I can only think of a single time that one commenter criticized another... and it turned into an interesting and respectful debate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally, all the commenters are quite kind to each other, and frequently funny (where did you get "humorless" from??). I'd encourage everyone to browse through some Jezebel comment threads to see for themselves. The internet has thousands of nasty, catty comment forums, but Jezebel is definitely not one of them.
"And lest we not forget its historical countenance"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps you meant 'provenance.'
It really is an interesting point to think about, the physical aggression of males, versus the psychological aggression of females. As I was reading the article, I couldn't help thinking on another article I read recently, discussing how those who are in a higher ranking status of society, tend to be more aggressive (regardless of gender, I believe) than those who are subordinate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article discussed some research done in areas of India where castes, though illegal, are still prevalent. Those who are of a higher caste were more aggressive in terms of not cooperating and being more liable to punish in the "game" that was being played. It was theorized that this occurred, because those of a higher caste, had more to gain by ensuring those who were subordinate, were kept beneath them by force.
I can't help but wonder how status, as well as genetics work together to create what is observed in female aggressiveness. Certainly some are a lot more aggressive than others, and less fair minded. How much of that is because they are interested in maintaining their spot, and keeping others below them, in the pecking order.
I also wonder, how much less cruel psychological torment is, compared to physical. Is it really? Perhaps...
I'm a fairly liberal female student studying environmental biology/geography and have always been interested in the evolutionary roots of human behavior...this was very well written, and I'm not in the least bit offended. I have never been catty by nature, and I simply believe that, in terms of behavior & its evolutionary roots (ESPECIALLY when considering womanly combativeness) that evidence is evidence. I rarely experienced ANY drama of any sort of drama since middle school because I chose to actively dismiss gossipy girls in place of ones with a similar attitude as myself. I was NEVER teased by girls; really any sort of judgment I perceived came from my male peers. I feel my lack of female drama was so because of my decision to not just avert it, but because I verbally expressed discomfort or unwillingness to listen to the gossip, and through those actions I maintained a close core of incredible friendships. If you're a woman and offended by this and ONLY this article after having been a loyal reader of Jesse's, then maybe you should re-evaluate who the sexist is in this dialogue. Jesse has written several articles revolving around male human behavior without receiving any notice of sexism in his writing. It isn't misogynistic of him to point out woman's tendency toward anger, rage & fury in comparison to man's. It's SCIENCE. The offense in the writing is bred from social discomfort with the subject.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSociety deems evolutionarily determined & relentlessly motivated women as intimidating, bitchy if egotistical, conceited or incredibly self-respectful. Women IN GENERAL are connoted as being gentle, compassionate, loving & kind while conceit, determination, vigor & authority are all adjectives conducive to men. Men who are compassionate, in tuned with their emotions & understanding of those around him, INCLUDING females, are seen as sissy, or unmanly.
The whole discussion revolving around aggression in women is so interesting and so controversial [to women] because, in terms of unmanly men v. aggressive women, it's the WOMEN who generally have to put more effort into succeeding in a man's world, whereas the unmanly-man is still a man, capable of anything in a male-driven society.
daniiikaaa, nice response!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI never thought of female drama this way, and it is fascinating. It opens up all kinds of questions:
What happens with persons who have differing sexual preference or gender identity?
Is this hormone driven, and if so, is there any effect from hormonal contraceptives or hormone therapies?
Are girls with consistent relationship success and/or high self-esteem less likely to take part in the cattiness?
As daniiikaaa pointed out, does caste play a part?
Are they sure about the age range? (I work in a female-dominated office and this kind of behavior happens ALL THE TIME - we just call it "office politics." All the women under 40 seem to do it, and even some of the older women chip in on the gossiping and badmouthing of their peers.)
Does this mean lying is a behavior shaped by evolution? (I can't do gossip because I hate lying. It's less the ethical implications and more the fact that it's a pain to try to make up a story, remember it all, and stick to it.)
I'd also be interested to know how this theory plays out in different cultures. I am reminded of a documentary about a certain African tribe. They said that when women in this tribe get married they move to a new village. Instead of wishing the new bride a fond farewell, the villagers (women?) hurl verbal abuse at the bride as she leaves. The logic behind it is that the new bride won't miss her old village as much and will be less likely to get homesick. But I would not be surprised if it is an embodiment of the evolutionary female aggression discussed in this article.
daniiikaaa, nice response!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI never thought of female drama this way, and it is fascinating. It opens up all kinds of questions:
What happens with persons who have differing sexual preference or gender identity?
Is this hormone driven, and if so, is there any effect from hormonal contraceptives or hormone therapies?
Are girls with consistent relationship success and/or high self-esteem less likely to take part in the cattiness?
As daniiikaaa pointed out, does caste play a part?
Are they sure about the age range? (I work in a female-dominated office and this kind of behavior happens ALL THE TIME - we just call it "office politics." All the women under 40 seem to do it, and even some of the older women chip in on the gossiping and badmouthing of their peers.)
Does this mean lying is a behavior shaped by evolution? (I can't do gossip because I hate lying. It's less the ethical implications and more the fact that it's a pain to try to make up a story, remember it all, and stick to it.)
I'd also be interested to know how this theory plays out in different cultures. I am reminded of a documentary about a certain African tribe. They said that when women in this tribe get married they move to a new village. Instead of wishing the new bride a fond farewell, the villagers (women?) hurl verbal abuse at the bride as she leaves. The logic behind it is that the new bride won't miss her old village as much and will be less likely to get homesick. But I would not be surprised if it is an embodiment of the evolutionary female aggression discussed in this article.
I have noticed women with personality disorders make more use of social warfare than those that do not suffer from insecurities. You can also look at the differences between Borderline males and females. Borderline males are more likely to be caught up in domestic violence whereas Borderline females will use gosip and smear campaigns.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou make some good points karmabites, however it seems to me that many of your criticisms of Bering's original article can also be leveled at "Dodai", who wrote the editorial piece for Jezebel.com.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe whole tone of this editorial/article at least matches that of Bering's to which it ostensibly responds, albeit that it appears significantly sexist in an anti-male sense rather than Bering's alleged anti-feminist sexism. (Is sexism ok then, when it is used against males?)
We also have, for example, the quite exceptionally snide, "It sounds crazy, but the theory has been "proved." How did the scientists do that? It (sic) the most scientific way possible" (the article goes on to quote the research methods) - yet there is no suggestion of another approach to experimentally researching the problem; indeed, it appears that the researchers took a pragmatic approach, which coincidentally probably also cost very little in comparison to having to "make their own equipment" for the experiment. That it seems amusing - in fact, quite hilarious - to use sex toys as research instruments is beside the point.
The article even resorts to a (seemingly unfounded) personal attack, "Of course, all of these people would need to be obsessed with dick, like Bering...." And finally exhorts us to read more under the headlines of various useful keywords but also includes amongst these, the pejorative and uncalled-for "Dickhead" and "Dubious studies".
Although I personally thought the Jezebel.com article amusing (as I did Bering's) it's nevertheless flawed and potentially offensive in very much the same way as you comment about his. This is a shame because the tit-for-tat approach adopted doesn't advance any serious discussion on what could be an interesting research topic.
I entirely agree that the editorial piece at Jezebel also acquires the same level of offensiveness, if not far, far more. I hadn't looked into the Jezebel nor the Dodai editorial prior to your comment, which is why I hadn't mentioned anything about it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd yes, sexism is absolutely a two-way street -- congrats to Dodai for being an excellent example.
It's also worth mentioning that I don't believe Bering is anti-feminist or anything of that nature -- he just got a bit carried away with his hook, and his writing took on a mildly offensive tone.
I also find it incredibly disgusting that people would somehow associate his sexual preference to this article, as if sexual preference distorts your ability to be compassionate towards the gender opposite of your choosing. I wouldn't have a sexual relationship with senior citizens, does that mean I'm against social security? o_o
I'm sorry, but where did you prove that such catty behaviors are inborn rather than intensively socialized? While I do not disagree with your surmise that women act catty largely because of competition for men, I do disagree with your argument that women do so because of something innate. You talk about "controlling for social norms" in studies. How is that even possible? Unless you raise a child in a white-walled box their entire life with zero human contact, it isn't. As a woman, I can think of many instances over the course of my life that could have influenced catty behavior (over physical aggression or even non-aggression.) From being told at a young age all the things a "lady" doesn't do (including hitting, yelling, or being even remotely physically aggressive), to watching grown women in my own community act this way, to idolizing heroines on soap operas and teen dramas who acted this way, to the wide variety of bad women, evil step-mothers, harlots and adulterers who show up in almost every classic narrative you encounter (including fairy tales and nursery rhymes), to being constantly pitted in competition against other girls my age in terms of beauty and other womanly charms...all the while being told that this competition is all for the grand prize every woman dreams of: a husband!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease. I'm not appealing to science to prove my point. However, I think scientists arguing that they can take the social aspects out of human behavior--social aspects that very clearly exist and which absolutely influence our behavior--are suffering from some pretty serious ideological blind spots, and it will reflect at some point or another in their science.
And about Jezebel: the name is about reclaiming a moniker (much like the term "bitch") that society has long used as derogative for women who have raised society's ire by refusing to conform to social standards, which more often than not, have revolved around sexual regulation and being submissive to men. Taking on the moniker Jezebel, making it a social positive rather than a negative, is about rejecting the idea that society has the right (or the reason) to regulate a woman: her body, her sexuality, or her ideas. Although I'm not really surprised that the intent behind the name would be lost on a man who mutters "bitch" under his breath about a woman he doesn't like. After all, wasn't that what you were really doing with that last column?
i can't help but be glad that someone else put words to what i go through everyday
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDiBeauvoir is talking about "becoming a woman" limited by conventions particular to a patriarchial society. One can only hope Mr. Bering does not think these conventions are rooted in biology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe simple observation that men are more aggressive around each other than in the presence of women call into question whether aggression is as related to mating as it is to status within the group and territory. Jane Goodall's work is significant here.
The other "becoming a woman" bias is to view bitchery in terms of the extended juvenile period imposed by modern society. For 99% of human existence, females in their mid to late teens where nursing their first born or working on having a second child. So mate selection is pretty much settled, but their role in adult society is still being sorted out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce again, although the article purports that studies show that these differences in patterns of aggressive behavior hold constant across different cultures, it provides nary a link.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeing a scientist means that when you discuss or consider a subject, you must consider both the evidence that supports and the evidence that undermines your position. But this article, from a scientist who claims he as writing as a scientist, albeit not in a formal style, is entirely lacking in that balance. Not only that, but it indulges in just-so stories about mate competition that have no support. While it is an interesting idea, it is nothing more than that without evidence. (What would the evidence be? Studies showing how paired women act compared to unpaired women, how asexuals act?)
Once again, there is no meaningful comparison between male and female subjects. The only study on male-female differences was in the first piece, and it only dealt with how people said they would react, which is known to be unreliable. Further, if it was an either/or question, it does not establish that men are less socially aggressive, merely that they are more physically aggressive. Or more willing to admit to it.
You want to see studies showing that a lot of stereotypically feminine behavior is socially constructed? Check out Elizabeth Loftus' work on the subject (I read a textbook of hers, so an article is not readily behavior.) She posits (and has support for) the proposition that much behavior that we consider "feminine" is actually subordinate behavior that we associate with women because women behave as subordinates in most social situations. She points out that subordinate behavior includes being ingratiating, smiling, and trying to assess the feelings of others--behaviors that just about everyone has engaged in with regard to their superiors at work. Even if women engage in this behavior more than men (and we do) this does not make it biologically constructed, instead, it is a reflection of our social status. (As someone who has been in more and less sexist and more and less hierarchical environments, this fits with my experiences.)
Passive-aggressive behavior, as I argued (as did many others) in response to the last piece, is also the behavior of social subordinates. Only the strong are openly aggressive. (Example a prof. once made--ever notice how guys almost never become enraged enough to pick a fight with a guy much bigger and stronger than they are?)
PS--If we don't laugh, it might be because you aren't being funny.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually I thought the quantity of upset females leaving comments only further emphasized your point. I myself am a woman and I have known since I was very young that we are underhanded, sneaky and yes total bitches to one another. There are very few females who actually trust one another and most bonds are about competition. Mostly I've had male friends but have tried to branch out to making friends with women. It's been so difficult for me, they play mind games, compete, and are so passive aggressive not just with other women but men as well. I think it would benefit women if we thought a little bit more about our behaviour and how to change it rather than crying feminism. Everyone has work to do and we are not exempt. I am happy enough to be called misogynistic at this point even though I am a woman.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Sci- Am,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFemale to Female cruelty has over time disastrous consequences for the victims.
Best wishes to all,
M allworth.
Dear Mr Bering,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFemale to female cruelty can [I feel] cause more, and possibly deeper suffering over time, than many people realise.
Best wishes,
M Allworth.
I wonder if this isn't also cultural? In the strict Catholic society that I was reared in (in a "Developing World" culture), bitchiness was definitely taboo. When I reared my own children in the US, I was horrified at my daughter's - and her peers' - casual cruelty. Years later, my lovely daughter views it as an "inevitable" evolutionary stage; ("All pre-teen and early-teen girls are bitches.") ...But I do not, and in no uncertain terms disallowed abuse in my home and presence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder if this isn't also cultural? In the strict Catholic society that I was reared in (in a "Developing World" culture), bitchiness was definitely taboo. When I reared my own children in the US, I was horrified at my daughter's - and her peers' - casual cruelty. Years later, my lovely daughter views it as an "inevitable" evolutionary stage; ("All pre-teen and early-teen girls are bitches.") ...But I do not, and in no uncertain terms disallowed abuse in my home and presence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo me it 'feels' like you just demonstrated the following portion of one of your posts. "... If responsibility is ambiguous, however, apologies can be costly to the defendant because of the admission of responsibility.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting take, Jess--your take on the recent NYT opinion piece advocating that only females be allowed to carry guns?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInquiring minds would love to know!
And about Rapist: the name is about reclaiming a moniker (much like the term "bitch") that society has long used as derogatory for men who have raised society's ire by refusing to conform to social standards, which more often than not, have revolved around sexual regulation and being submissive to women. Taking on the moniker Rapist, making it a social positive rather than a negative, is about rejecting the idea that society has the right (or the reason) to regulate a man: his body, his sexuality, or his ideas. Although I'm not really surprised that the intent behind the name would be lost on a woman who mutters "jerk" under her breath about a man she doesn't like. After all, wasn't that what you were really doing with that last comment?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd about Rapist: the name is about reclaiming a moniker (much like the term "bitch") that society has long used as derogatory for men who have raised society's ire by refusing to conform to social standards, which more often than not, have revolved around sexual regulation and being submissive to women. Taking on the moniker Rapist, making it a social positive rather than a negative, is about rejecting the idea that society has the right (or the reason) to regulate a man: his body, his sexuality, or his ideas. Although I'm not really surprised that the intent behind the name would be lost on a woman who mutters "jerk" under her breath about a man she doesn't like. After all, wasn't that what you were really doing with that last comment?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCount me as another female who agrees. Female cattiness is the number one reason I pretty well have no female friends (I have a couple, but we're not incredibly close.), but instead surround myself with men who I love to spend time with, because they're NOT BITCHY.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the time I was in junior high, I found most girls were horrible. Not just vindictive, but "I want to tear you down for life" vindictive. I thought growing up would end some of that, but as an adult I still encounter women like this on a near-daily basis (and this is after moving to the other side of the world, so I know it's not geographical!); women who cut down others to get ahead, compete over everything and air not only their own "dirty laundry" but yours as well should you reveal it to them. I still think a lot of this has social roots (girls being taught that this is the way women act), but I think some of it is biological as well; if not biological, then introduced to our systems. Think of the number of teen girls who already tamper with their hormones by using some hormonal contraceptive. I'm not knocking it as a great gift to mankind, but I've known more than a few females who went apeshit on using a pill or patch and sometimes readily admitted that. I'd like to see a study on THAT--female moodiness and various contraceptives, effects on mood over time.
Also, I do not find it surprising to see at least one comment here that goes on a tirade about male physical violence, citing abuse, murder and foggy war "facts." Ignoring issues of reporting and countless women who've brutally murdered their children and others over the years, I want women to remember that emotional violence can be just as harmful as physical violence. I would even go so far as to argue that physical violence, depending on how extreme it is (of course) can sometimes be easier to avoid or flee from. You can run from the bully who pushes you down. You can't run as easily when the bully has made all the OTHER kids hate you.
At the end of the day, it's kind of a silly argument that's being had in the comments, because we're all going to be in the circles we prefer, whatever they may be. For myself, I happen to enjoy a stress-free, less gossipy lifestyle where I'm not always having to prove myself. Perhaps it has just been my luck so far, but to date, I have only really found this among men. It's anecdotal evidence, but it sticks with me. I am VERY careful of what I tell my fellow ovary-bearers, and since doing this I have lived a social life with fewer [melo]dramatic moments.
Beware the wrath of enraged Jezebels :P
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis dude is non-sexist? You've got to be kidding... His bias is a mile wide. And what was the point of the previous article, anyway? To show how evil those lying whores really are?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCluestick: It's an online blog for very, very young women. *cough*. VERY young... You might as well go to FARK.com and count all the old men making rape jokes.
Sorry, my five thouand cats jumped on the keyboard all at once, cutting off the previous comment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou might as well say that all the old men making rape jokes on FARK.com indicates that men are sexist pigs. Oh wait...
I see this as very simple as women and men veiw things different. Some people are aggressive no matter what gender.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere many things that play into being aggressive and I have never been a aggressive male and more than likely never will be but I'am very very happy living alone and just doing what I want when I want to do what ever. Every one both genders included all know and should know there are two schools of thought on almost every thing and depends on which way that person feels that day. I will talk to any one it makes me no matter at all who it is. Normal after 10 min you get where they are coming from and stay or move on.Every one is created equal so if women want to be aggressive then let them do it and they will learn from that also.
Simp[le answer to simple question. Every one is equal do you not get it!!!
Women are more malicious and underhanded than men - it's a fact, sadly. The only thing in doubt is why. If all human beings were the same size, you'd find women being just as physically aggressive as men (look at road rage, for example). But we have it drummed into our heads from a very young age that we will never be strong enough to assert ourselves openly, without risk of retaliation. Thus the only strategy left is smiling appeasement now and delayed, anonymous retaliation later.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm 100% certain that cattiness and social aggression would have been just as prevalent among male slaves in the past.
Am I alone in finding the tone of this followup column a tad... bitchy?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is it not perfectly obvious that one is BOTH born a woman AND becomes one?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSocietal expectations play a huge role in human behavior as well as genetic predispositions. Teasing these two apart is an enormous challenge for today's sociologists, psychologists, and evolutionary psychologists. Twin studies and large surveys with enough data to control for some specific factors such as socioeconomic status are starting to help us tease the influences of biology and society apart, but it is a tricky task. Why not admit that we are not EVEN CLOSE to really understanding the relationship between the two?
There is nothing respectable about jezebel at all, no need to apologize. It shows the clique dynamic at its worst, ever wonder why those comments in the jezebel pages are filled with cheerleading and approval/approved opinion? It is pretty much filtered for such.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact is that it is pretty much a shameless link bait site that only uses feminism as a cover. Its the type of site that claims men and women are no different, but fills its pages with fashion and celebrity gossip. Things like the idea that women are as interested in say things like computer games are a given, indisputable, and any contrary opinion just won't appear. Slate had an article on this, called "outrage world", jezebel type sites are just set up to cynically drum up as much page views as possible. This is hammered into the bloggers that feed the site with endless streams of articles, they have to meet quotas, to do this, they have to frame issues in the most provocative way possible, to outrage, so basically it is just a circus show, with no hope for honest discussion or debate. It is a machine to feed greed hiding behind the banner of feminism.
Nicely done Jesse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this