[JimmyDimples]

I had seen this a few days ago… and it hit kinda close to home:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8101517/site/newsweek/?GT1=6657

I’m not saying at all things were better when girls didn’t go for it… but…

Any thoughts?

[Axel3.14]

Maybe they all went to DtV 😆

Seriously, that article failed to make sense at times. They partially attribute the efflorescence of violence to violent tv personae, but you don’t see Xena beating people up for I-pods. I can’t help but wonder if this has something to do with rising population densities, though.

[Matthew Lim]

I kind of agree with Axel on the idea of violence in the media. I personally think that the uprising in violence among the youth has to do with lack of outlet. With America becoming a lazier country, many young people aren’t involved in extra curricular activities. But I agree with the article with it’s idea that girls involved in activities are motivated to take a more masculine role. But with topics like these, this comment is eventually going to pop up. It all comes down to the parents. A good parent can spot signs of violent outlets at early ages, my parents could spot it, my grandparents could spot it. But that’s just my opinion, I know someone is going to disagree with it.

[Axel3.14]

On the DvD Super Size Me, an extra describes a school for delinquent children that experienced a sharp decline in aggressive behaviors when they ceased to serve the students processed food. Perhaps violent outbursts are increasing as a function of prandial tendencies.

[RyuuQuadraxis]

Sounds like that girls are experiencing slight "primitive" behavior(sp?). You know, when humans(our ancestors) were basicly wild animals, they did this kind of stuff.

[Axel3.14]

You mean atavism?

[Anonymous]

Let me touch on a couple things already said, and then I’ll give my 2 cents on the issue.

I personally think that the uprising in violence among the youth has to do with lack of outlet.

This actually has been disproven. It was the theory of "catharsis" suggeted by Freud. The treatment given to violent people was to have them do things like hit pillows when they were angry, but it did nothing (and sometimes increased) to their violent nature.

an extra describes a school for delinquent children that experienced a sharp decline in aggressive behaviors when they ceased to serve the students processed food.

This is very interesting, and with what we know about chemicals and how they affect the brain, it’s not that surprising once you think about it.

Okay, what I think about the topic:

Women are as capable as men in "masculine" things, and men as capable as women in "feminine" things. This is because we are people, and while men and women may excel in certain things, that doesn’t mean the other gender can’t do very well. For example, women generally are better with children, but that doesn’t mean the average man is a retarded ape around them. In fact, many fathers are very good nurturers.

Basically, it comes down to what we as people are capable of, as well as what society deems acceptable (and how many of us pay attention to what society says). Before, people thought women were bad at math. The reason wasn’t because women were stupid or lacked the capacity for mathematical reasoning, but simply that women were not encouraged by society (or were not allowed to at all) to pursue these fields. Once women were allowed and encouraged to pursue higher education, including math, we find that men and women do equally well (and in fact, some studies show women doing better). This means that people in general have a capacity to do math and will pursue it should they A) want to and B) be given the opportunity.

Violence is no exception. Just like there were women who took higher math classes even when it was heavily discouraged by society, there were violent and deadly women way before the woman’s lib movement. Now that we see women being more "ballsy" (for lack of a better term) in our culture in movies, comics, etc., it’s become more acceptable and thus more women will participate in it. Women are people, and people can be violent. The article said that the rise in male violence was 22% while in women was 125%. It’s not that women are surging in violence, it’s that we’re "catching up" to already accepted male standards of violence. If men committed 100 crimes in 1990 and women committed 50, and then in 2000 men commit 122 crimes and women 112, then we can see that women are "catching up" to male crime rates. Now, if all people are basically equal, and society is showing more and more violent females (society being one of the main factors that tells people how to act) when we know that violence in males can be due to society showing male violence, this should come as no surprise at all.

It’s not that women are desperate to become men, they are wanting to be equal and have equal opportunities. The same is true with men. I have heard many men tell me that it’s unfair that men are seen as "gay" and "wussy" if they show emotion. What about men that like fashion? I’d wager that the increase in buying fashionable clothing for men rivals the percentage increase in violent women. More and more society is accepting a "gentler" man, a man who isn’t afraid to wear nice clothes and tell us how he feels. Since society is accepting it (and encourages it with certain movies, TV shows, magazine ads, etc.), then more and more men are engaging in these formerly "sissy" activities. But if you believe that we are all equal, since we’ve given men the opportunity to be more equal to women, this should come as no surprise.

I also want to point out that the people the article quotes are not experts in this field, nor are they sociologists, psychologists, or social psychologists…they are professors. They may or may not have the credentials needed to make their assessments. I think it’s demonstrated here: "We rely on boys to get out there and block a football, go in the Army and defend the country, carry guns and be cops. One of the side effects is that some boys take [physical aggression] too far." According to James, the way to reduce physical aggreession is to get rid of contact sports, the military, weapons, and law enforcement. A little more than ridiculous.

Basically:

–Men and women are equal.

–Society deems what is and is not acceptable for each gender.

–Society starts to allow, portray, and encourage each gender to pursue things that are associated with the opposite gender.

–More men do "female" things and more women do "male" things because since we are equal, we have the same basic desires to do everything human beings are capable of doing, whether we call it traditionally "male" or traditionally "female."

–Men add "female" activities to their current "male" activities. Females add "male" activities to their current "female" activities. It’s not a trade-off, it’s an addition.

–Humans in our society become more well-rounded since normally emotional women are encouraged to pursue education and physical activities while normally stoic men are encouraged to pursue emotions, nurturing, and fashion.

That’s how I see it. This isn’t a downside, it’s just that we’re HUMAN. If society tells men it’s okay to be violent and men run around and hurt others, then when society tells women it’s okay to be violent women will do the same.

[Author]

Posts