The Aggression of Women

[clarentine]

Further to the previous post - I note that the Tiptree award results came out today. Sarah Hall's The Carhullan Army won, and in her comments about the book Gwenda Bond said, "Hall does so many things well in this book – writing female aggression in a believable way, dealing with real bodies in a way that makes sense, and getting right to the heart of the contradictions that violence brings out in people, but particularly in women in ways we still don't see explored that often."

Aggression is not, to my mind, a truly gendered thing. However, I agree that there are aggressive behaviors which appear more often amongst one gender or another. What sort of aggressive behavior would you think that a woman--especially a woman in a man's world, in a swords-and-sorcery-style setting--might exhibit? (Yes, of course this relates to something I'm working on, fiction-wise. Irie thanks you for your interest...or not, depending on her mood.)

Aside from the Hall book, which I am going to look up, do you have other books that you'd recommend as delving into this concept of the aggression of women?

Comments

[hawkwing-lb.livejournal.com]

Size and strength, yes. And socialisation, I think, which influences how we use them. A lot of girls I went to school with were, I think, not encouraged to... own their physicality, is the best way I can think of to express it - the same way their brothers might have been.

[clarentine]

I have long held the belief that women in general adhere to far fewer rules when they express aggression than men do--that women, once pushed across that line, tend to act more decisively and with more force than men in a similar situation. I've also observed that women tend not to react aggressively for an ideal, but rather out of a more personal motivation.

Some of that is probably socialization, surely, but I wonder how much might be nature rather than nurture?

[hawkwing-lb.livejournal.com]

I can assume we are talking about purely physical aggression, as opposed to any other kinds which may exist?

Because if we are, that's the socialisation thing at work again, I think. In general, I think it takes more provocation for your average woman to respond with violence or the threat of violence, partly because we are more aware, or made more aware, of the consequences of violence - serial killer thrillers, cop shows, any form of entertainment that opens with Random Dead Woman (tm) - and partly because women in general, and particularly women whose upbringings have been strongly Traditional Middle Class Values* are socialised to see violence as an inappropriate response in (almost) all situations.

Therefore, in general when a women reacts with physical aggression - violence - the situation is probably more extreme. The only situations where I've heard of a woman actually initiating physical violence have been either a)as a result of heavy drinking and/or other mind-altering substances, or b)clearly situations of personal defence.

If you're engaging in aggression because your person or your possessions are at risk, it matters if you lose. More so, say, than a scuffle over whose soccer team is best, or because some other bloke 'stole' your girlfriend, or a gay bloke made a pass at you and you need to demonstrate your masculinity.

(Which seems to me to be what male-initiated violence is about, really: the performance of a socially constructed idea of male power/virility/non-passiveness. Since passivity is constructed as 'female' and by this artificial process is constructed both as opposite to male and inferior to it.)

So it stands to reason that when you engage in aggression you're not going to screw around.**

If we're talking about non-violent and non-malicious aggression (as opposed to backstabbing and passive-aggressive politicking, which I'm informed is common to many office and otherwise corporate environments, as well as families and other groups), then we have to start talking about assertiveness, I think? Which is about the willingness to take up space - physically, verbally, intellectual - and demand acknowledgement.

Which are also traits women as a group are not encouraged to develop, particularly in a mixed environment, although this was more true in the past than it is today. I think it's safe to say that women who achieve leadership positions generally have better leadership skills than men in comparable roles. Generally. (And I have observed that this is not always true when the leadership position is a role that no one actually wants).

...And wow, this is turning into a long comment.

I think what I'm trying to say - rather longwindedly - is that I suspect far more of it is socialisation than biology. Although there's no way to test this hypothesis, really. Short of taking a couple groups of two-year-old girls and boys, and raising the girls as boys and the boys as girls for the next decade or two. And I'm not sure that would be an entirely ethical thing to do (reintegrating them with mainstream society, in all its conservatism, might prove sticky, and the psychological fallout could prove damaging; can we say identity issues?) even if you could find parents willing to sign off on it.

*This is a local sample, of course, but presumably social conservatism is not an unknown phenomenon on your side of the Atlantic. The 'girls should be nice' meme is pernicious. And at least in my view, fairly damaging.

**I suspect, though I have no evidence for this position, that women who engage in violence when they still have the option of retreat are also more likely to have had some training, even if that's just a self-defence class.

[clarentine]

Physical aggression, yes.

Therefore, in general when a women reacts with physical aggression - violence - the situation is probably more extreme.

The examples I've been thinking of all fit the "more extreme" category, so I'll agree. A smaller, lighter male would probably also wait until he could not avoid conflict before instigating violence. A smaller, lighter person who wanted to assert themselves in such a setting might provoke a confrontation to demonstrate that they're more dangerous than their size indicates.

...I keep reaching, mentally, for the something significant I can feel off to one side of this discussion relevant to women as aggressors. I wish I could push it out into the light, at least far enough to put it into words.

[hawkwing-lb.livejournal.com]

Women as aggressors?

Women as aggressors... are very like men as aggressors, I think.

Which is to say, I think, they are seeking to demonstrate their non-passivity, and demanding acknowledgement in traditionally (and socially) male ways. Because they aren't male, to receive this acknowledgement has historically required that they be more aggressive, more socially 'male' than their biologically male counterparts.

And even then, they're more likely to be feared and respected than loved, particularly if they're in positions of leadership. (cf. Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi.)

That's been changing somewhat in the last couple of decades, I think. But, you know, how many action adventure films have female leads? Or female villains, for that matter? The woman-as-(physical)-aggressor is rare enough to be mostly invisible to society at large.

I'm strong enough and confidant enough of my own capabilities that I could initiate a violent confrontation and reasonably expect to come out of it intact, even victorious. But I'm not in a position when I need to demonstrate that: my capacity to dominate someone by force or the threat of force.

And if I was a position where I felt I needed to demonstrate that, there are serious negative social consequences for doing so. I mean, besides the legal consequences for committing assault/assault-with-a-deadly/GBH: it's not nice, therefore I'm demonstrating I'm not playing the socially constructed role of 'female' anymore, which takes me out of the categories on which normal social interaction is based.

And that threatens anyone invested in the status quo, because then they have to re-examine their assumptions.

I think I'm talking out loud, now.

[hawkwing-lb.livejournal.com]

Re: Thatcher and Gandhi, I'm referencing them as they were both women who premiered their countries quite effectively during wartime, not implying that they otherwise engaged in physical violence.

[clarentine]

::nod::

[clarentine]

Oh, good ones. ::takes notes--"not playing socially constructed role...out of category on which normal interaction based...threatens status quo and those whose status depends on it"::

That's part of what I'm trying to get at. For a woman put in that position, by her own choice, what sorts of behaviors might she have to resort to? What might her mindset be like?

[hawkwing-lb.livejournal.com]

That really depends on how much she is dependent on social acceptance, doesn't it? A woman who embraces violence as a means to an end often thereafter (historically speaking, at least) is something of a social outcast, unless she can convince society that the episode was a justified aberration and really, she's all better now. A woman who embraces violence as a lifestyle is, in real terms, a social aberration.

Examples of this include women of the special services in WWII, and modern female soldiers, who are expected to be soldiers with other soldiers, which is a role generally viewed as 'male' and then to return to acting 'female' roles after their service is over.

By society at large, anyway.

(But then to society at large I'm aberrant, being 5'9, physically active - less so than I'd like - and distinctly un-'female' in dress. But, you know. The compensations of being able to be so outweigh the social disapproval of the more middle-class and middle-aged types. Many people do tend to just assume I'm gay, though. :P)

[clarentine]

And, if she can't get that acceptance, she'd likely make a show of not wanting it, eh?

[hawkwing-lb.livejournal.com]

I would say yes.

(And damn, but is this a topic I like to talk about or what? Wind me up and watch me pontificate. :P)

[clarentine]

LOL

Not that I'm objecting or anything. *g*

[hawkwing-lb.livejournal.com]

:)

[hawkwing-lb.livejournal.com]

And re-reading, now that I notice you say by her own choice:

I suspect that a woman in that position is very much like a man in that position. Except she will lack the automatic acceptance of her position by others granted to men in the same situation, and thus she would consequently either resign herself to being a perpetual social outcast, or constantly fight for - demand - that acceptance (with, most likely, far from complete success).

And possibly her own view of her 'female'-ness would be affected, possibly to the point of alienation.

Very likely she would not be a shiny happy person. :P

[clarentine]

I think...she is a deeply conflicted person. Demanding acceptance, and mostly getting it, but not believing in her heart that she's good enough. And then, in the book I'm poking at, she's put in a situation where she feels like she's been thrust back into female expectations, and is totally lost.

[hawkwing-lb.livejournal.com]

Conflicted is a good word. :)

Social expectations screw with your head, man.

[clarentine]

Oh, and:

presumably social conservatism is not an unknown phenomenon on your side of the Atlantic

That is a fair statement, yes, its degree depending in large part upon where you fall in the economic spectrum.

[hawkwing-lb.livejournal.com]

My observation is that it's primarily an attribute of the middle class, or those who want to believe themselves/aspire to be middle class. I'd be interested in your thoughts?

[clarentine]

Middle class being the only place where you can both need to look better to advance and have something to lose? Sure. I buy that. Lower class doesn't have anything to lose by seeming not to conform, and upper class doesn't care about anyone else's opinion on the matter.

[hawkwing-lb.livejournal.com]

That's it exactly.