>On Thursday 09 November 2006 15:42, Jesse Lemisch wrote:
>
>
>
>>More male rage.
>>
>>
>
>This is a phrase I've heard used before, and I've always found
>it a little puzzling. Is the implication that rage is an exclusively
>male vice or prerogative -- that women don't rage? I have seen
>a counterexample or two, in my time. Or does it mean that
>male and female rage are different in kind, somehow? If
>so, how?
>
>
>
This is typical position for some radical feminists (also known as
"testosterone poisoning"): aggression, domination, and heartlessness are
intrinsic to males, just as relationality, cooperation, and empathy are
instrinsic to females. I don't buy it, myself, because both men and
women tend to adapt to the needs of the social situation; they don't
stay true to some "male" or "female" essence. Example: Eagly's
meta-analysis of leadership styles among men and women. In business
settings that emphasize "getting it done", both male and female managers
have a "task-oriented" leadership style; women in this setting do not
display a "relational" or traditionally "feminine" style of interaction.
To come back to the question, rage is rage, and both men and women learn when to display rage and when to control rage based on social cues.
Miles
Miles