What If Woman Ran the World?
Men and woman are obviously two different types of people. They handle states of stress differently. Men tend to become more physically aggressive in moments of conflict. Women in turn are more likely to gossip, start rumors, and be more inadvertently violent towards one another without causing physical harm. Men have always been viewed as the providers, primarily due to their stronger physical strength and the ongoing social tradition. Stereotypically men "bring home the bacon". Women have historically been viewed as the caregivers and the gentle nurturers.
While women are in the military, the larger percentage of those in the armed forces who actually see combat are men. Women are not only physically weaker than men, but they can also be seen more emotional than men. Women are therefore often viewed as the weaker sex because emotions can lead them to make emotional and irrational responses to situations. With the problems of co-ed bunking and other such reasons, women are kept away from the battlefield. However, it has been shown that men more inclined to react aggressively and violently in retaliation to a stimulus. Campbell writes that there is 1 violent offending male for every 9 compared to the 1 for every 56 women (Campbell).
Campbell also states within the article that provocation increases aggression, and rightfully so (Campbell). It is part of human nature for one to retaliate to an attack on their person as a means of self defense. The study showed that with lower levels and much higher levels of provocation men and women showed to be somewhat equal in regards to the likelihood of aggressive retaliation. However, major differences showed when it came to the intermediate levels of provocation. Men proved to be much more likely to use aggressive retaliation.
While the difference might be slight, women are still less likely to engage in aggressive behavior. If women were more prominent within the government and the military, it is possible that a decrease in violence would occur. Women might be able to think more clearly in times of provocation which could prove to counterbalance the male tendancy to act aggressively more quickly. Whether this be on the battle field or in meetings with Heads of State, it is possible that women can decrease quick aggressive responses.
One might argue the fact that women are also more emotional and may be more prone to act irrationally due to emotional responses to a situation. And with the stress of diplomatic decisions one also might argue that the gap between differences in aggressive responses to a situation will be closed by the amount of provocation. But, if men and women were more equally present within the diplomatic society it is possible there will be a decrease of aggressive retaliation to a situation.
Campbell, Anne. "Sex Differences in Direct Aggression: What are the Psychological Mediators?" Aggression and Violent Behavior 11.3 (2006): 237-64.
Free Speech and Academic Engagement
13 years ago
3 comments:
How did Campbell measure aggression? Do you have a link to his experiments?
This is definitely an interesting idea, but I am left wondering how the researchers came to their conclusion. Yo may also want to see how sex affects other emotions in other situations. You make the statement that diplomacy needs to be more sexually balanced. This thesis would be much stronger if you looked at other experiments and situations.
I like the thought that men's aggression and women's emotions would balance each other out if equally present. The only problem I see is that if women are weaker, "gentle nurturers," then the men may not think that they deserve to be there. Even if there are as many women as men present within diplomatic society, men probably wouldn't give the women's opinions equal consideration.
Post a Comment