As of 8:24 AKST, a Show of Hands poll revealed that 51 percent of males and only 15 percent of females had been in a fist fight. Do you think this gender gap is greater influenced by social factors or genetic differences?
More genetic than societal, even though both influences are there. Biology & evolution, etc
Because the question said fist fight not cat fight. If Tony had asked who had been in a cat fight you would get different results.
Guys measure up to each other. Girls tend to be more passive aggressive in their disputes.
Genetic. Boys and girls are different and not just in the plumbing.
Both. Genetic women simply aren't strong enough to do well in a fist fight, and social because it's not ladylike to fight.
Plenty of women are skilled at fighting.
Agreed, plenty are. Still I don't think most of us are. I'm certainly not.
Genetic. Men have always been the ones starting conflicts. From super powers starting wars against each other all the way back to caveman times.
In nature the male is always more aggressive. It's not just humans.
while male animals may socially fight more the females in nature will kill quicker and are far more brutal as a general rule; from mammals to birds to reptiles to arachnids. That's where "the female is more deadly than the male" saying comes from
Men are naturally more aggressive. Hence why males have always been the hunters and the ones who go to wars. This is thousands of years of evolution at work!
Men and women are different by nature. Nurture emphasizes the differences, but the differences exist by nature.
Men are more aggressive. It's genetic.
I agree, but I asked about the greater influence.
Men and woman think differently. Men are more aggressive, thanks to more testosterone. There's not anything social about that.
Gender. That's why the Liberals have drugged American males.
He means medications like Ritalin for ADHD. He's said it before, Jeni.
I've said it because it's true. They are very dangerous drugs that are completely unnecessary.
That may be true. But, it has nothing to do with liberals. That's just plain silly.
Or with males, for that matter. There are several girls in my family who have had this prescribed.
Lol grandma! Who else would want to dull the American male down a few notches?
It's dangerous for both genders, but American makes scare Liberals. They don't want to compete so they level the playing field. But don't do drugs kids! Lol!
Mostly social, guy just like to get into it more, but I've seen some pretty good cat fights.
Funny. In my 9 years teaching, I can remember maybe one or two fight involving guys. The vast majority of fights involve girls, at least among teens at school. I guess guys wait until they are off-campus.
On the fighting question, there may legitimately be some biological explanation in that women's bodies have a harder time turning protein into muscle. That said, even there there is a lot of cultural influence (e.g., no fighting "below the belt" even
though this would give women a significant advantage).
Not to mention, the physical differences wouldn't explain why men are more likely to fight other men, who have the same biological advantages and disadvantages. So, still largely cultural.
If you asked what were they fighting for. It would be 51% over women and only 15% cuz of men
In grade school I was one of the bullied ones. Another girl hit me. I did not hit back. But I finally grabbed hold of her arms with my nails. But I said yes.
They're fighting over females!
Every time I hear someone use the word "females" as a noun like this, I can't help but think of this:
Social because ladies don't fight. Ya know the classy kind that had mommas who care. The women who fight are just...it's social. I was taught not to fight.
Guys are naturally more aggressive it is how it has always been it's not something we are just taught or socially acceptable
I disagree. I think we teach socially that physical aggression is a masculine trait, whether it is fighting or contact sports.
Look at history. Men have always been the aggressors
Saying men have always been the aggressors isn't evidence of it being natural... History definitely shows that we have always treated the two genders very differently.
But it shows it isn't just a social thing today
I never said it was exclusively social, just predominantly social. I think the gap would be smaller if we didn't permeate society with these artificial concepts of "masculinity" and "femininity." Boys are even expected play with army dolls and
superheroes and encouraged to participate in contact sports much more than women.
And this gender gap has existed forever which leads me to believe it isn't just society's influence
Actually if anything the gender gap today is lower than that of many years ago
Actually, it hasn't existed forever. Anthropologists have revealed that humans had very similar divisions of labor amongst early hunter-gatherer societies. Gender roles actually correlate closely with the development of religion and agriculture.
The only time in which is it speculated is pre history times of hunting gathering,
Which is when humans were most separated from social constructs, indicating our biological differences are likely minimal, when compared to the gender differences of modern American society....
No because anything in this time period is speculation. They do not know exactly who did the hunting and who did the gathering but they do know the mother was always in charge of watching the kids
When it comes to animals the male is generally the more aggressive.
For me - it's both. I grew up watching wrestling and wrestled with my brother on my parent's bed. But I also love physical endeavors naturally. My body wakes up and I'm just peaceful. I try to play fight with my gf and she hates it.
We didn't ask how many boys had been beaten up by a girl as kids, but I'd bet it's a lot. You learn to respect the power of crazy at a young age. Social.
Social. We don't teach our young men any other way of resolving conflict. In fact we praise them being "manly"--i.e. fighting. And then we wonder why our prison system is the largest in the world...
Yup, and even worse than being unmanly, a boy/man who refuses to fight might even be labeled, insult of all insults, a "girl." Shudder.
In fairness, guys are more aggressive by both genetics and conditioning, but the fights I've seen with women are FAR more vicious.
I think it's like nature: males put on the more frequent show for social reasons; females kill.
You got that right - don't mess with Mama Bear! I will take you out!
But most of the time I'd rather have fun, be nice and avoid violence altogether.
If men are fighting to put on a show for social reasons, doesn't that mean it's cultural rather than natural?
Social reasons with a genetic impetus. Think of lions where the males organize the Prides but the females do the hunting. Both are crucial to overall survival.
Primate evolution is on a totally different branch from felines though.
Insert "Mountain Gorilla" and you have the same relationship.
Why not bonobos? We're pretty closely related to them too.
Oh now that's just blasphemy.
Little boys are taught that if someone hits them, hit back. Little girls are taught that it's unladylike.
Speaking for myself, it's a bit of both. I was forces into many in second grade. It was not of my own accord, but of the older kids who were looking for entertainment.
The Hunger Games of elementary school
Basically, more accurately a dog fight. We didn't get weapons.