I'm not sure which offends me more, the racism, or the sexism.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Please tell me what non-physical aggression is as bad as sticking bamboo shoots under people's finger nails.

Ask black people in America from 1864 until the 1970s.

what is your evidence to show that men are less likely to be non-physically aggressive

Do you think that men are more passive aggressive than women? Or more into social ostracism?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Please tell me what non-physical aggression is as bad as sticking bamboo shoots under people's finger nails.

Ask black people in America from 1864 until the 1970s.

I'm assuming that they will say that being lynched was worse than not being able to eat in the same restaurants as whites. But that's really irrelevent since they can eat in those restaurants with white people today.

what is your evidence to show that men are less likely to be non-physically aggressive

Do you think that men are more passive aggressive than women? Or more into social ostracism?

I'm inclined to believe that men are just as passive aggressive as women. Do you have evidence contrary to that?

edit: actually you can try to show that women are more likely to be non physically violent in general.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm assuming that they will say that being lynched was worse than not being able to eat in the same restaurants as whites. But that's really irrelevent since they can eat in those restaurants with white people today.

What exactly do you think lead to those lynchings? And do you think that black people would be happy if all physical aggression against them was ended, but they were still ostracized from society in second class positions?

I'm inclined to believe that men are just as passive aggressive as women. Do you have evidence contrary to that?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_n3-4_v30/ai_15383471

I'll post a few quotes from it:

If we limit aggression to physical strategies only, then it is certainly true that males are more aggressive than females, at least in Western societies. But, as anthropological studies have shown, such as research by Fry (1988, 1990, 1992) and Cook (1992), it is not a universal truth. It does not hold for all cultures.

There is no reason to believe that females should be less hostile and less prone to get into conflicts than males. But being physically weaker, they simply have to develop other means than physical ones in order to reach successful results. Accordingly, one should not expect women to develop and use exactly the same strategies for attaining their goals as men do. If strategies for aggression and conflict resolution are learned, not innate, then women are likely to learn different methods than men.

There are good reasons to believe that, as far as adult interpersonal conflict is concerned, physical aggression is really the exception, not the rule. Other means are more likely to be used.

Burbank (1987) reviews anthropological research on female aggression. She finds females of different cultures having a large potential of aggressive means to use in order to get even with their husbands, such as, e.g., locking them out of the house for the night: she regards this as an act of aggression. Burbank (1987) found females seldom to resort to physical aggression against their husbands, but they did so, occasionally. The most common reason was that their husbands had committed adultery. Burbank found, however, that women are much more often aggressive towards other women than towards men.

One of the main arguments why males so often have been suggested to be more aggressive than females is the presumed testosterone-aggression link. The connection between testosterone level in human blood serum or saliva, and aggression, is not, however, established, and the testosterone-aggression link is very uncertain, as far as homo sapiens is concerned.

Sex differences in aggression are, accordingly, most likely developed through learning mechanisms, and not directly linked to hormones. There is much to support this opinion. As above was pointed out, there is no clear evidence between hormones and aggression among humans -- perhaps because the development of higher cerebral functions among humans made other styles of aggression than physical ones possible: more subtle, but still highly effective methods, in which direct physical power is not a prerequisite.

Bjorkqvist, Osterman, and Lagerspetz (1993) suggest that sex differences, and developmental trends in regard to aggressive behavior, may both be theoretically explained by what they refer to as the effect/danger, or cost/benefit, ratio of aggression.

interviews with adolescent girls were conducted, and it was asked how they, their friends, and enemies behaved, when angry with or in conflict with another child. Not surprisingly, girls described indirect, manipulative methods, such as gossiping, exchanging friends, trying to win others to one's side, excluding from groups, writing nasty notes, and so on, as typical types of behavior when in conflict with each other.

Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, and Kaukiainen (1992) showed that indirect aggression increases drastically at about the age of 11, especially among girls. However, also among boys, the mean level of physical aggression decreases during late adolescence, to be replaced mainly by verbal, but also indirect means of aggression. This is most likely a consequence of increased social intelligence.

Since females are physically weaker than males, they may early in life learn to avoid physical aggression, and instead develop other means. Choice of aggressive strategy may become partly habitual, and also reinforced by social norms in the society in question.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:00VsxH4LcswJ:www.canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/What_About_Girls_Aggression_Ohio_State_1997.aspx+female+aggression&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

Using measures completed both by teachers and children, Crick found that girls engaged in higher levels of relational aggression than boys. Girls who engaged in relational aggression exhibited a number of adjustment difficulties, and had self-reported higher levels of depression, loneliness, and social isolation than their peers. In addition, peers disliked relationally aggressive girls more than other girls.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
What exactly do you think lead to those lynchings? And do you think that black people would be happy if all physical aggression against them was ended, but they were still ostracized from society in second class positions?

Whatever the cause of the lynchings, it's the same thing that caused segregation. Segregation certainly didn't cause the lynchings. IMO, the thing that caused both of them is White American culture; religion etc..

If we limit aggression to physical strategies only, then it is certainly true that males are more aggressive than females, at least in Western societies. But, as anthropological studies have shown, such as research by Fry (1988, 1990, 1992) and Cook (1992), it is not a universal truth. It does not hold for all cultures.

And you think that means that women commit as much physical violence as men?

Also, this article is only dealing with intimate relationships between men and women not men on men violence or other violence.

Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, and Kaukiainen (1992) showed that indirect aggression increases drastically at about the age of 11, especially among girls. However, also among boys, the mean level of physical aggression decreases during late adolescence, to be replaced mainly by verbal, but also indirect means of aggression. This is most likely a consequence of increased social intelligence.

This actually makes the point that men are just as likely to use non-physical violence after adolescence. The only thing that you have shown is that adolescent girls use more non-physical aggression than adolescent boys.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The article distinctly talks about men on men and woman on women violence (saying it is more prevalent than intersex violence).

Of course you ignore the entire discussion about women and men not being more or less aggressive than each other, but women, being physically weaker come up with different strategies to be aggressive, using social manipulation.

And, of course:

Sex differences in aggression are, accordingly, most likely developed through learning mechanisms, and not directly linked to hormones.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The article distinctly talks about men on men and woman on women violence (saying it is more prevalent than intersex violence).

And what does it say about how common women on women violence is. Granted it says that men on men violence is very common.

Of course you ignore the entire discussion about women and men not being more or less aggressive than each other, but women, being physically weaker come up with different strategies to be aggressive, using social manipulation.

That's because that says nothing about how women are more likely to use non-physical aggression. Indeed the article even says that male non-physical aggression is very common.

Sex differences in aggression are, accordingly, most likely developed through learning mechanisms, and not directly linked to hormones.

Why do you think that's relevent?

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's because that says nothing about how women are more likely to use non-physical aggression.

Hmmm... if women and men are equally aggressive and men use more physical aggression, what do you think that means for women's aggression? This isn't that hard to figure out.

Why do you think that's relevent?

To show the BS of the biology argument.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

That's because that says nothing about how women are more likely to use non-physical aggression.

Hmmm... if women and men are equally aggressive and men use more physical aggression, what do you think that means for women's aggression? This isn't that hard to figure out.

So in otherwords you are just assuming that women are just as aggressive as men even though men use more physical violence?

Why do you think that's relevent?

To show the BS of the biology argument.

The only biology based argument that I've used had nothing to do with hormones.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
So in otherwords you are just assuming that women are just as aggressive as men even though men use more physical violence?

There is no reason to believe that females should be less hostile and less prone to get into conflicts than males. But being physically weaker, they simply have to develop other means than physical ones in order to reach successful results.

The only biology based argument that I've used had nothing to do with hormones.

So aggression is based on... ?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

There is no reason to believe that females should be less hostile and less prone to get into conflicts than males. But being physically weaker, they simply have to develop other means than physical ones in order to reach successful results.

So aggression is based on... ?

What do you mean, biologically or psychologically?

[Kidlicious]

Even in children aggression that girls exhibit is more expressive than that of boys. Aggression that boy's exhibit is more often actual.

Social representations of physical, verbal, and indirect aggression in children : Sex and age differences

Previous research has suggested that females hold expressive social representations of aggression and males hold instrumental representations [e.g., Archer and Parker (1994): Aggressive Behavior 20:101-114; Campbell et al. (1992): Aggressive Behavior 18:95-108]. There is also evidence to suggest that an instrumental representation is associated with higher levels of actual aggression [e.g., Archer and Haigh (1996): British Journal of Social Psychology 35:1-23; Campbell et al. (1993): Aggressive Behavior 19:125-135] and that although males employ more physical aggression, females use more indirect aggression [Lagerspetz and Bjorkqvist (1994): Plenum Press]. In light of these findings, the present study aimed to (1) devise questionnaires measuring social representations of physical, verbal, and indirect aggression, suitable for use with children aged 7 to 11 years; (2) examine sex and age differences in these questionnaires; and (3) compare representations of physical aggression with representations of indirect aggression for both boys and girls. Results showed that compared with girls, boys held more instrumental representations of all three forms of aggression, whereas compared with boys, girls held more expressive representations. Likewise, children aged 10 to 11 years held more instrumental representations of all three forms of aggression compared with children aged 7 to 8 years. There were no differences between representations of physical vs. representations of indirect aggression for girls or for boys. Sex and age differences were discussed in terms of sex roles and a developmental change in children's views on aggressive retaliation. In addition, previous research suggesting a link between representations and actual aggression was questioned.

[Kidlicious]

Here's another relevent article from this journal (The Journal of Aggressive Behavior) regarding empathy and aggression.



Does empathy predict adolescents' bullying and defending behavior?

Through structural equation modeling, this study tested a path of relations in which different levels of empathic responsiveness were posited to be differently associated to bullying and defending behavior. Three hundred and eighteen Italian adolescents (142 girls and 176 boys; mean age = 13.2 years) completed the Davis's Interpersonal Reactivity Index [Davis, 1983] for empathy and the Participant role scales [Salmivalli et al., 1996] for bullying and defending behavior. The results revealed that the model fitted the data adequately, but only in the case of boys. As hypothesized, low levels of empathic responsiveness were associated to students' involvement in bullying others. In contrast, empathy was positively associated with actively helping victimized schoolmates. However, the estimates algorithm did not reach convergence with girls' data. The current findings confirm and extend the literature on the relation between empathy, prosociality and aggressive behavior. Educational implications are also discussed. Aggr. Behav. 33:467-476, 2007. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.