Fighting Like Girls

Sit back and take a deep breath, people, because I’m going to say something that once got me branded various kinds of nasty and which is very controversial.

Are you ready?  Take a deep breath.

Men and women are different.  They’re different beyond the fun vive la difference. They’re different in the head, different in how they react to things. Hormones shape them from the womb, shape them even more so after puberty.

And they’re particularly different in aggregate, which is to say in groups.This is because individuals vary a great deal but how each sex behaves in groups tends towards the mean.  No pun intended, but how each side behaves as a mob is different, too.

Note all this is apparently very controversial. Which is utter nonsense. I realize the fear of saying the sexes are different because it might mean one is better than the other (it means no such thing.) or that an individual always fits perfectly into the median definition for that sex (which is nonsense. We’re humans. Our variety infinite.) But last time I said something like this the mean girl side of my field was agog with how “transphobic” I was. Which is plain idiocy (see, crowds are stupid) because if the sexes are entirely the same inside the head, you just nullified the concept of a man trapped in a woman’s body or vice versa.

Anyway…. Moving right along and ignoring people who couldn’t follow an argument if it came with a tracking dog.

So if you get a bunch of guys seriously riled up, you might get punched, or they might gang up on you and punch/kick you to death.  That’s because guys are the NICE ones.

Anyone who has ever been ganged on by girls knows that. Because girls don’t usually hit you (if they do they aim to disfigure, though), instead they start a campaign of lies, rumors, innuendo and mind games, until they strip you to the bone.

If you survive a beating by guys, you will eventually heal. If you survive severe bullying by girls you might also, but it will take longer, and it might leave you permanently crippled in a way other people don’t see, and you don’t see either which means you can’t fix.

See, this is because humans are great apes (or at least pretty good apes) and as such we have a social nature. And as social animals we enforce pack cohesion.  Also like all social animals, our pack hierarchy is dual and divided by sex.  Males enforce pack unity physically, but females having lower upper body strength (yes, I know, I’m just full of heresy today. I should make the featured image one of the heresy memes, I guess) are more likely to enforce it psychologically.  Apparently in great ape packs, the lower wrung females can get bullied so strongly they stop ovulating.  In human packs, too.

Why does this matter? Beyond ragging on women?

Well, I am not ragging on women. I’m noting that the different sexes have different ways of enforcing pack cohesion, that both (heresy! Yeah, I said sex not gender, didn’t I? Because that’s not a discussion for THIS blog) can turn bad (toxic!) in ways that permanently hurt or maim someone.  Or even kill them.

What is the problem with this?  The problem is that we’ve been focusing too hard on the ways masculinity can go wrong, while giving femininity a total pass.

This is wrong in many ways, though I’d speculate it had its roots in the cold war and the idea rule by women wouldn’t have brought us to the brink of total war.  The people who thought that were wrong (they were mostly men, who tend to idealize women) but that is not the point.  Women are actually more likely to loose a nuke in the night, they’re less likely to march in ranks.  Both sexes can do both, yes, it’s just a matter of likelihood.

Because women were physically weaker and that mattered when our minds were formed (since there were no guns and even bows need body strength) our fights tend to be stealthy, deadly, often psychological, but if physical less… for lack of a better word “honorable.”  Which makes perfect sense since honorable is a word men invented, to rein themselves in and not outright kill rivals. Women have no such compunction.  In fights between girls, (note noun) it tends to be a disfiguring attempt.  In fights between women, or between a woman and a man (which is worse) the woman will kill you horribly if she can, the minute you blink.

We have to. We know about being weaker. We can’t give an attacker a second chance.

Which brings us to why this matters: the internet has weaponized “female ways of fighting.” The twitter mob, regardless of who does it, is a pack of women.  Worse, because the internet shaves maturity off humans, so twitter mobs are howling packs of middle school girls.

Why this is a problem: any business that has a strong imbalance of one sex over the other adopts the mode of behavior of that sex.

And a lot of our professional fields — except most of STEM — are becoming dominated by women.  This has several reasons, not relevant here. It’s not because women are better, no. But the fact women are better at social maneuvering and establishing social connections, both peer to peer and above. Far from women being disadvantage in the modern world, we were made for it.

The problem is this: because men’s danger was obvious, way back in pre-history, an entire code of chivalry and honor was devised to keep them from dying unnecessarily or stupidly (and sometimes it rebounded. The code duello was honor forcing them to die stupidly.  I didn’t say that humans are rational, particularly in groups.)

A lot of business as early established relied on this UNSPOKEN code. Men who broke it were considered “not quite the thing.”

Women don’t fit that code. We don’t even understand it. It doesn’t work well with our head systems. The idea of holding back when you can annihilate a competitor would never occur to us. Because women are weaker, remember.  When we fight, we fight with all we have.

The problem, as I said, is that the internet weaponizes female ways of fighting. And a lot of fields, particularly artistic fields where we’re not, let us say, the most stable people around, are dominated by women now.  Certainly, contra the legend, publishing is, at least since I came in twenty years ago. Most editors, and under editors and most publishing house staff are women, as are, frankly, most writers, because by the time I came in writing was poorly-paid work done indoors, so “woman’s work.”

And being isolated, we’re more dependent on the net for advertising and contact with our peers, both vital to social apes.

So writers are particularly vulnerable to toxic femininity.

It is in the nature of it, that it always attacks the most promising right off the gate.  And it picks and it pecks like a bunch of feral chickens, until you’re nothing but a bloody lump o the floor.

I’m here to tell you this can’t go on.  Toxic femininity will destroy individuals (yes, even with indie, you can still be mobbed.) and businesses and productivity.

Because the really bad women, the ones who like to fight? They’ll neglect work for a chance at just one more swipe at “that b*tch” who might have done nothing more than stand out.

This is not good for any business and it’s death on creativity.

And in this case, yes, sure, it’s time women police their own and devise boundaries.  It’s time to say “We don’t do that!” to the bullies and “That’s beneath contempt.”

It might even work.

Yes, men can do it too, but these women have INSULATED themselves from male rebuke, and decided whatever men say doesn’t count.

So, it’s time we stick our necks out.

Because the females who go toxic (and the males who join them and act like them online) are always the least creative and the most destructive. And those they pick are always people who threaten them with their creativity.

There’s little enough creativity on average. The species needs all of it. Let’s push back.



  1. One small, small nitpick. STEM is no longer the realm of males. My STEM classes ran 50/50 women, sometimes tilt more to female. The lab I work in currently is 70% female at the moment, my first job at a lab was 80% female. Given class make-up, I don’t expect that’s different in other places. I will say that neither of those labs was ‘feminine’ in the mental games you might expect in, oh, say, a fem-dominated office. I’ve worked in those, too, and you learn to hunker down and be very very qwiet if you are not a queen bee.

    1. Mine was probably near 50/50 too. I think it takes math, physics or engineering to find mostly men anymore. Biology is mostly female. Chem might be more mixed? The workplace culture might not be “feminine” though, because of self-selection. And I wonder if in geology (at least) we were all so weird in that direction that any sex differences approached statistical noise. I do know that there were usually one or two students in a class from some other major to fill an upper level science requirement and they really *really* didn’t fit in. You know… girls who *really* had trouble pee’ing behind a rock on a field trip.

      1. Mine was such an oddball degree. Not a lot of Forensic Science and investigation females. But the bio, chem, and other science classes were mostly Odd women. It was the nursing classes who were more ‘normal’.

    2. When I first trained as a broadcaster – there were two other women in my DINFOS class of about thirty. By the time I retired, the spread was more fifty/fifty.

    3. A few days ago I overheard a couple of young men (university age) in the street (in NZ) with what I believe to be American accents discussing how they were looking forward to their *Engineering* classes because there’d be so many young women to hit on…

      I have no idea which Country or University these classes would be in/at, but it did strike me as an odd field to pick if your goal was to get laid rather than educated.

        1. Irony is entirely possible I suppose, as I wasn’t even aware I was listening to them until after I’d realised what they’d just said, so I missed any other context.

      1. There’s a saying among the women in those fields:

        “The odds are good, but the goods are odd.”

      2. I recall an engineering class with two women in it. Not sure if one stayed in engineering through everything. The other described herself as “just one of the guys.”

  2. C. S. Lewis talk about women being in “charge of the household” and men being in “charge of relationships between the household and the outside world” because women would be more likely to go “total warfare” against other households. 😉

    On the other hand, years ago I heard/read about a successful woman in the business world.

    She was called “too pushy. too aggressive”, etc … by other women in her work place.

    But the men in her work place, thought she was “one of the guys” and easy to work with. IE she understood and followed the rules men used (the following is how i took her statements) to compete while working as a team.

    1. She is wedded to convictions—in default of grosser ties;
      Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies!—
      He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild,
      Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.

      Unprovoked and awful charges—even so the she-bear fights,
      Speech that drips, corrodes, and poisons—even so the cobra bites,
      Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw
      And the victim writhes in anguish—like the Jesuit with the squaw!

  3. I must agree, Sarah. I noticed a long time ago that many, many women have no honor. None at all. They’ll say one thing and do another the moment it suits them.

    Some women do have honor, of course. They can be few and far between sometimes, sadly.

    The difference, IMHO, in this regard between women and men in our culture is shame. Many men have no honor either, but if you -catch- them in a lie, a theft or other transgression, they at least acknowledge what they are doing is wrong, and they are ashamed.

    Women have no shame I can discern. When caught they invariably brazen it out, daring you to do anything about it, and have no shame at all. They feel justified in their transgression, and happy to do it again next time.

    This makes all-female workplaces (like hospitals) a snake-pit of conflicting factions and feuds. (Don’t leave your loved ones alone in a hospital. Don’t do it.)

    One of you pearl-clutching idiots all outraged that I said it out loud, change my mind. Convince me why I’m 100% wrong.

    1. I find the lack of honor in everyday interactions bewildering. It’s one thing to “fight dirty” when your physical life is at stake, but if your children can’t trust you mean what you say, how are they supposed to grow into responsible adults?

      …Which of course always leads to me getting stabbed in the back, because I simply can’t wrap my mind around the social snake-pit. Oy.

      I do think that tendency is exacerbated by the wreckers of modern culture, though. Everything’s going back to more tribal behaviors. This is Not Good.

        1. Me, too. After I picked my jaw up off the floor, I thought of brushing it off with something snarky about him not knowing many people, but that seemed really rude. I just said “thank you.”

    2. Definitely agreed on the hospitals bit. There are some people in nursing who, when asked questions, take it as a personal offense – it’s a challenge to their authority. I’ve found that it tends to be women who get angry at “But…” or requesting clarification. They are angry that ‘some uneducated mom’ is asking questions. (Oddly enough, doctors of both sexes have tended to ask first “Is this normal for you/child?” and the two doctors I’d drop into ‘overbearing asshole with god complex’ are evenly split on the sexes.)

      Mind, most of the nurses we’ve run into were great; overworked but great. There were maybe one or two that we thought “You really shouldn’t be in this profession any more.” (And maybe they did leave, because after a few shifts, we never saw them again.)

    3. I recently heard it theorized that while men tend to cluster at the ends of the intelligence spectrum with more geniuses and not-so-geniuses and women cluster at the middle, there’s a similar metric for morality, with women being extremely moral or extremely immoral or amoral.

      Sort of an explanation for the Madonna/Whore phenomena, and why there can be such apparent reverence and respect for women as moral enforcers and counselors to be listened to, alongside the image of the lying, scheming woman archetype.

      1. Yeah, I’ve wondered if intelligence might be orthogonal to something with the opposite variation in distributions with sexes. I think morality might be the wrong way of thinking about whatever it is.

        1. Might be more about preferred mode of obtaining social cohesion. Where the visibly “moral” woman attempts to inspire people to the “correct” behaviour via example, the more, let’s say “pragmatic” type attempts to manipulate people into that behaviour through whatever means works, up to and including the engineering of complete expulsion for elements deemed too incompatible. internal vs. external behavioural focus, essentially.

          (Note that I put both “moral” and “pragmatic” in quotes here because in practice the desired cohesive social behaviour, or the tactics meant to gain it, need not be either moral or sensibly pragmatic.)

          1. Referring to the CS Lewis quote above, I notice women are capable of different types of extremes: they can be incredibly prejudiced in favor of their own families/households, or incredibly prejudiced in favor of the Other and oikophobic (Refugees welcome!).

            Wonder if that signifies anything?

  4. Women are vicious, especially to other women. In the Army, this is a serious problem. It’s not all sisterhood and tea and cookies. I spent a long time wondering why my boss hated me. Then someone pointed out that she behaved like that to all the younger female officers, but I was the only one who was her direct subordinate. (I wish I’d reacted with much more class and grace to her pushing, so I’m far from blameless here.) Sometimes people try to eliminate that “crabs in a bucket” mentality, but those intiatives always get taken over by someone who sees it as her chance to better her career over everyone else’s and down we all go again.

    Women do know behaving like this is wrong and awful, but -just like men- they’re so fixated on their own ambitions, whatever they may be, that morality and even other people become irrelevant.

  5. thephantom182 As I clutch my pearls I speak, knowing I can’t change your mind about anything. I don’t have the statistics or the bitter experiences you appear to have had. My experiences are different, but I can’t use them to produce viable arguments. I remember when my mom took on outside the home work (Montgomery Ward) she was so surprised to find the men were worse at malicious gossip than the women were. Does that translate to every workplace? I have no idea. About hospitals and the six of them I have worked in, yes indeed they are snake pits of feuds, again not limited to the women, but I have never seen that affect the level of care for patients. About shame: the majority of women I hang around struggle daily with shame. I doubt men can even see that struggle as they are not going to speak about it around people they consider dangerous. Here’s what I do know even if there are not statistics or studies about it: men who express the level of bitterness you are expressing here are off-putting to women and feel dangerous to us.
    Hoyt was talking about the mean. I’m wondering if most of your experiences have been with the far edge of the bell curve of female behavior. Or if I just hang around such a small subsection of humanity that I know absolutely nothing at all.

    1. I’m going to be plain and then I’m going to be blunt. As I said today is heresy day.

      a) yes, men can be worse women than the women… in a female dominated environment. That is the key. Once the mode of a work place flips to female some men join the pack and are FAR more vicious. Hence, why we need to change the culture of “how women work together.” Men managed it sometime in the middle ages, in the west. We never needed to, as petty tyranny works fine in families. But it’s time. And it won’t be instant.
      b) Most women who are aware of what is going on in work places don’t feel men like Phantom are “threatening.” In fact most women don’t feel threatened by WORDS unless they’re threats. Confusing “feeling uncomfortable” with “it’s dangerous” is a bad crazy derangement that younger women are falling into. Best stop it. Tamped down resentment turns explosive.
      Also Phantom is, I believe, talking about hospitals in Canada. Whole other ball of wax.
      c) The only women who don’t perceive the queen bees are the queen bees, who are perfectly happy with all female environments, provided they are on top.
      d) if you call me “Hoyt” once more as though I were your subordinate in the army, it will go badly with you. Use Sarah Hoyt or Mrs. Hoyt, thank you so much.

      1. Men frequently — maybe even usually — refer to other people by their last names. I once had a very interesting online conversation with Virginia Postrel noting that women are often referred to by their first names, men by their last (e.g., “Hillary”, “Trump”).
        So, Sarah Hoyt, I think frank4man was thinking of you as one of the guys. Consider it a compliment.

      2. “c) The only women who don’t perceive the queen bees are the queen bees, who are perfectly happy with all female environments, provided they are on top.”

        And then there are some of us who are just plain oblivious to social cues. I haven’t been able to figure out if it’s made life easier or harder. Maybe a little of both.

      3. That is the key. Once the mode of a work place flips to female some men join the pack and are FAR more vicious.

        I knew men who were like that by default, and weren’t the typical Filipino gay.

        (Most Filipino gay men take the ‘flaming, loud fabulously gay fag hag’ descriptor, hug it close with an enthusiastic squee, and run with it to introduce it to everyone they know. They’re an odd and entertaining cross between the image of a Western crossdresser and gay. Look up a Filipino gay beauty contest sometime.)

    2. As I clutch my pearls I speak

      Is that person real? I’ve heard Conservatives/Sane libertarians talk about “Liberals clutching their pearls” (IE Dismissing them.)

      But a “Liberal” actually talking about “clutching their pearls”? 😆

      1. Mad angry vicious women around? The heck with pearls. I’m taking my man parts somewhere safe!

      2. Phantom mentioned pearl clutching.

        In any case, guys can be very bad and will and do gang up on the weak-link. They’re likely to pile on in a hazing or harassment sort of situation.

        I do think that the bullying is usually more direct than women do, though. Less deniability.

        Different workplaces can be very different. I never noticed any real girl-on-girl fighting in the Air Force, (for example) though I was enlisted and officers are a different sort of thing. Anyone that I worked with seemed on board with straight-forward interactions. Sometimes it can be one poisoned person that shifts it all. My current workplace is too small and because everyone’s job is one-deep there’s not actually opportunity for competition.

        High school? omg.

        1. Agreed, men certainly gang up. I’ve seen it many times. Usually a bit of fisticuffs ends it one way or the other. You show the ringleader he’s going to get hurt, usually things quiet down. Or you leave.

          With women there is no such safety switch. Claws are out, they stay out. Nobody cares who gets hurt or how much.

    3. Frank4man said: “but I have never seen that affect the level of care for patients.”

      I have. I have seen patients used as game pieces between feuding departments. I have seen them used against doctors, other nurses, day shift against night shift. I saw a terminally ill patient used like that.

      Frank4man said: “Here’s what I do know even if there are not statistics or studies about it: men who express the level of bitterness you are expressing here are off-putting to women and feel dangerous to us.”

      Yes, that’s the racket that is usually pulled. Making people “uncomfortable” is the new unforgivable crime. That discomfort you are feeling is shame. The danger you feel is the knowledge that someone knows you for what you are, and is waiting for you to put a foot wrong. Sadly, behaving honorably never seems to occur to such people.

      Imagine what happened to the woman I mentioned who used the terminal patient as a pawn in her little drama game. Dismissed with no reference, along with most of her department. The look on her face was memorable. No doubt I made her most uncomfortable indeed.

      Superannuated cheerleaders playing high school drama with sick old people for chips. That’s a modern hospital. Don’t leave your relatives alone.

    1. When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
      and the women come out to cut up what remains,
      jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
      and go to your gawd like a soldier. Rudyard Kipling

  6. Anyone who has ever been ganged on by girls knows that. Because girls don’t usually hit you (if they do they aim to disfigure, though), instead they start a campaign of lies, rumors, innuendo and mind games, until they strip you to the bone.

    And men don’t?

        1. Little Andrew literally has nothing better to do than try to circumvent blocking on all the places he’s banned from. Given that, it is telling that he so seldom manages it.

          You can delete my responses to him if you like, no sense having that cluttering the place up.

            1. I see no point in you worrying about this clown. He’s a mental cripple living on the opposite side of the world from you. Even the eeeevile Vox Day, upon hearing the details of little Andrew’s life, said it would be unseemly to go after him further. He literally lives in his mother’s basement.

              1. Well, no. It’s not ‘worrying about this clown’ and more ‘here’s proof that we aren’t lying about what he does.’

                Especially since he’s gone and tried his darndest to sanitize his presence on the Internet that was referenced before.

                1. True, but he’s rubbish at it so his little troll stains are still everywhere.

                  He’s self-incriminating too. Always goes straight to the poo-flinging within three comments.

                    1. He’s a fruitbat. His button is permanently pushed. Any attempt to make sense of what’s going on in there is doomed from the start.

                    2. From your link: “Thanks for reading Mashable Humor: original comedy every day.”

                      So… they thought that was funny? No wonder there’s nothing good on TV.

  7. There’s another element, involving the fundamental consensuses of the American meta-culture, which lets alien cultures form workable peaces when mixing. Some elements of this are a male honor code.

    Sometimes you come to the end of the acceptable process, and have to accept that you’ve lost, and not escalate beyond the end of the process.

    There was a mystery writer who was sanctioned by body that issues mystery awards for misconduct during a time when she was a prosecuting attorney. It is alleged that she improperly obtained some convictions that were later overturned. Courts of appeal are an acceptable process for criminal prosecution. Licensing bodies and civil suit are an acceptable process of escalation for allegations of professional misconduct. Shopping the evidence to later prospective employers after a court of appeals tosses the case would be an unacceptable escalation for criminal prosecution. If no professional body will sanction on the evidence, presenting the evidence to each any every social contact is an unacceptable escalation for professional misconduct. There is a school of thought that unacceptable escalation is laudable from one group, and intolerable from another. This school undermines the reciprocation and consensus that make life tolerable for everyone.

    It is difficult to advocate for this honor code. Why? Because many people have a historical education such that it seems credible to them that this code is “whites only”, and has no other validity. A lot of young white people are partly convinced by this argument. (Partly, because if they were wholly convinced, they would not think that treating people as if they were outside the code is unjust. I see the belief that it is ‘unjust to treat blacks as if they were outside of the compacts of American society’ in every extant cohort of American whites.) It is more compelling for many blacks, because we know very well that blacks were treated as if they were not part of the compact. It is difficult to argue that someone must trust after a profound betrayal, and this is exactly like that. (It only fails to be a betrayal because the people involved were never loyal in the first place.) It difficult to present this argument, because the implicit demand feels unjust, and at the same time it would be horrible if we as a people no longer have such consensus.

    It does not help that the media has carefully chosen a sample of blacks to present that choose not to honor the consensus, despite that we can work out that many blacks do.

    Thus, American society is under a form of stress from social justice warfare that is not the same as the mean girl effect.

    1. The answer to “these people have been excluded from this beneficial structure” isn’t ever ever going to be “lets destroy this beneficial structure.”

      Though I notice we’re at MGC so overt politics is off the table.

      1. Nonsense! Since it’s obviously not perfect, we need to destroy it, and then absolute perfection will rise from the rubble!

  8. This reads like a comment on last week’s YA twitter issue, which led me to do a lot of thinking about why the writer in question was so immune to the outpouring of support she got. That points out another reason abuse from these twitter groups is so effective – because they draw people into them, in the first place, by actually being helpful.

    The writer in question had benefitted from the group that was attacking her. She had made friends, gotten advice and sympathy, been steered toward opportunities. The people telling her to stand her ground, on the other hand, were random online strangers, many of whom seemed only to want to co-opt her story into their culture war. Had any of them done a thing to help her, or even known she existed, before she became a cause celebre?

    So yeah, the behavior of mean girls is appalling. But their power doesn’t all come from being mean. A lot of it comes from people feeling they have nowhere else to go, no other support group. I see a thousand articles about the need to fight back for every one about how to give potential victims somewhere else to go.

  9. Another take to “The code duello was honor forcing them to die stupidly.”
    — Seems to me, the code duello was honor forcing them to die singly, rather than lashing out lethally at a group (that was convinced that one, or the other, was without honor and therefore “other”).
    It was also a holdover from ancient means of determining truth in ambiguous situations: trial by combat, which had the sole advantage of letting the Group (tribe) believe that truth had been found and the ambiguity resolved, and preventing the group from having to become “mean girls” to punish the transgressor.
    I.e. basically, code duello was about having a consistent rule of social “law” that benefits the group. I think.

    1. Two men enter, one man leaves…

      And Aunty Entity watches and smiles…

      Still better odds than facing the Wheel.

    2. The alternative to code duello was indeed extinction of the bloodline feuds. What little I know of these is third-hand, but I’ve heard of stories where the men were expected to fight it out to the last man standing – even if the last man is a 10 year old boy. Some of the later generations fled their area and changed their names because they had no desire to kill, be killed or be murdered by their own for refusing to fight what was essentially often a minor disagreement that got out of hand, or happened in their great-grandfather’s time.

  10. Mrs. Hoyt, thank you for writing this. I was beginning to think I was the only one left who saw this difference as obvious. Okay, except for the screenplay writer for Heathers…

  11. Interesting reading. I will note that I run a law enforcement agency that is 50/50 on staff, and 1/3 2/3’s on patrol officers. F/M. Having to “decipher” codes and meanings of the female staff and officers is an “interesting challenge”, however the female officers generally will act and respond more in a male pattern. I do note that I occasionally have to “rein in” the female officers to ensure they do not engage in vendetta type behavior, as they sometimes have difficulty or a reluctance to “letting go” of an incident. I believe the old phrase is hold a grudge until it dies of old age, then have it stuffed and mounted on the wall. Over the years in this calling (32 and counting) I’ve dealt with a whole heck of a lot more female “Hatfield and McCoy” style responses then from males. As far as the more dangerous of the species, my first training officer as well as my Uncles all taught me to Never turn your back on the woman. especially if the “woman” was gender male.
    Of course lately, I have had a number of females explain to me that my thinking is irrelevant to any issue because I am a male and I am not allowed to express, or even to have, an opinion or thoughts on many subjects. I apparently fail to Award them the value they Expect and the respect they Demand. As I was taught, treat every one of them like a lady, until they prove they are not.

    1. “…they sometimes have difficulty or a reluctance to “letting go” of an incident.” Which incident can involve coffee cups, right?

      This is precisely what I’m talking about. Happens everywhere. It can be managed, but it is most certainly a Thing, as they say.

      Imagine a nunnery. [shudder]

  12. In both of the _Violence_ books mentioned here a while back, the author points out the “Monkey Dance” and how important it is to recognize the difference between dominance posturing and actual threat. He also points out that it is nearly 100% male.

    Quick Monkey Dance summary:
    “What are you looking at?”
    “Your ugly face.”
    Threatening postures with lots of gesturing while insults continue.
    It turns aggressive with a push or poke in the chest.
    First hit is almost always a hugely telegraphed roundhouse.
    The fight ends when someone goes down.
    The most likely serious injury is someone falling and hitting their head.

    It’s the stereotypical bar fight for a reason. It’s almost impossible to imagine two women doing this.

    Those are great books. Thanks to whoever brought them up.

    1. Women would circle, have words, and then the razor blades and shivs would come out.

      Um, yes, I’ve heard stories about bar girls in Subic Bay. Why do you ask?

      1. “…bar girls in Subic Bay.”

        And they always go for the face, right?

        I think I just had an idea. Thanks Red! ~:D

          1. That’s what I thought. Eliminate the competition. The more you think about it, the more evil it gets. The kind of situation where you don’t pick a side, you call in an air strike.

            I’m thinking up some evil for my super robots to deal with that can’t be solved by punching people in the face. Getting in a fight with bar-girls is made to order.

  13. I think it was joining a writing group (several writing groups actually) that made me realize that, yes, men and women think differently.

    First, it quickly became mostly women. Then the writing groups became romance groups and I left, but there was an odd time in between where I was reading a lot of works in progress, and so many of the apparent heroes and heroines did things that I found…repellent. There’s no other word.

    1. I’ve seen that quite a bit in SJW-friendly writing, where the alleged “good guy” does things that one might expect from Super Villain or Mad Scientist characters. They don’t seem to have any grip on what a “good guy” is, they only look to the intended result.

        1. The favorite seems to be the Thief who’s down on his/her/Zer luck and living in the space-station slums, cue whatever victim group said thief belongs to being Done Wrong by the rich and powerful. The character then goes and does something utterly, toe curlingly horrific, like stealing all the spare organs from a children’s hospital, or poisoning the space station’s water with DeathBug47. But it is all okay because Reasons. Zrrrl power!

          And the Bad Guy is bad because he’s a capitalist and expects to get paid for things he does. How many fucking times do I have to read that, Lefties? Get a new plot, for God’s sake!

  14. -these women have INSULATED themselves from male rebuke-

    And yet all it takes is one ‘nasty woman’ to send them into hysterics.

    One wonders about all the articles and campaigns against ‘shaming language’ and promoting censorship. What’s all this endless validation supposed to drown out?

      1. And you’re an idiot. If you read any crime history or procedural, women still prefer poison. Which makes perfect sense since we’re weaker.
        How about thinking instead of quipping stupidity, Chlamydia?
        Or perhaps you can’t. Is that your major dysfunction? Your writing certainly indicates that.

            1. Aww. 😦 The Iron Finger is disappoint.

              (Actually banging on its cage and roaring. Going to take ages to quiet it down.)

              1. Don’t worry. If history tells us anything, it’s that Clamps will always try again.

  15. In one of the recent ship collisions that resulted in fatalities – one of the contributing factors was a woman at watch on the bridge would not work with a woman down in the combat control center because they had a personality conflict. There were other factors but in most events of this magnitude it takes more than one error to crash a ship and kill people.

    1. Can you imagine being the Captain of a warship and letting shit like that slide? The mind boggles.

      I also read in the report that the bridge crew didn’t know how to operate the radar. They were basically steering a giant ship by looking out the damn window.

  16. This is similar to what I learned in animal psych–animals that had teeth and claws also had hardwired behaviors limiting their use (to keep them alive long enough to reproduce). Prey animals have no such instincts.

Comments are closed.