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]

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.