Boys Act Out; Girls Act Up
We’ve all heard it. Observed it. Wondered why this gender difference exists. Boys seem to act upon others, want to see their effects on something or somebody (graffiti, a well-placed punch), girls seem to act against themselves (”who likes me? I hate myself!”).
Ken Driggs notes this difference in the September, 2006, issue of Sunstone, in his “Reflections of a Public Defender,” a review of his twenty-five years in the world of criminal defense. The article/personal essay summarizes his handling of 150-175 felons a year, “people whose misdeeds range from minor drug and theft crimes up through a good many armed robberties, rapes, aggravated assaults, and murders.”
”Women,” he says, “constitute a small portion of my caseload, less than one in twenty. However, I have observed some noteworthy differences between them and my male clients.” Driggs observes, “Whereas men are more likely to lash out at the world, women tend to turn their anger against themselves. My women clients are more likely to be substance abusers or mentally ill” than to have committed a crime against another person.
During the craziest years of mothering seven kids, I noted subtle differences in parenting between Bill and me. I call Bill’s style the “back at ya” method, and mine the “absorb-it-all.” When he encountered annoyance, Bill acted upon. And the annoyance was communicated via his response. “Cut it out! Go to bed!” followed by: child ends up alone in bed. Lights out. Bill’s style. Still gentle, but unruffled. Lisa’s “Go to bed!” is followed by: Lisa laying down by the child on his bed, tickling the child’s back, falling asleep half-way through a prayer flung up into the night for the child’s future well-being. Lisa absorbed the annoyance. Tried to address the source of it. Became drained by it. And rewarded the annoyer in the process, probably.
Child asks Bill for money. “Sorry, don’t have it,” says Bill. End of conversation. Child asks Lisa for money. Lisa wants to know what the money is for, how much more the child needs, where the last savings went, how to help the child earn more (absorb, absorb). Still don’t have money to give. End of conversation. Except Bill is full of energy afterwards. Lisa is exhausted by the need she now understands, but can’t fill. What is that difference? I’m still not putting a finger on it. Easy to say women are empathetic, loving and whatnot. But it was no picnic! And it left me unable to act. Clearly, what I was doing was not effectively loving.
But it does illustrate the noted gender differences between men’s and women’s responses to the stresses of everyday life. And there are more.
Take SI (self-injury), intentional injury to one’s own body, more informally known as “cutting,” although other types of SI are common (burning, hitting, hair-pulling). Medical journals have long chronicled the rate of non-fatal self-injury among women being at least twice that of men (Am. J. Public Health, 1985 Jan 75(1) 90-92). Repeated self-injury is almost exclusively a female phenomenon. The precipitator of repetitive self-injury appears to be overwhelming distress, the act of self-injury serving perversely as a self-soother to those who practice it (Fiona Garder, Self-Harm: A Psychotherapeutic Approach, NY: Routledge, 2003). Cutting as self-soothing? Go figure.
Why is it more likely that a woman would self-soothe through self-injury? Why do women (in general - not true of all women, of course) act against themselves rather than turn their anger outward and act upon?
November 14th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
It beats me, sister Hansen.
I have always been puzzled by how much more guilt women experience than I do, and often I have more reason to feel guilt than they do.
November 15th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
The Lisa-&-Bill parenting dynamic — his “back-at-ya” method; her “absorb-it-all” method — certainly resonates with my experience, both as a child of my parents, and now as a parent to my own children. The pain and exhaustion many women experience in this regard seems to be an unavoidable side affect of their inherent ability to nurture. It may be difficult, or impossible, to selectively nurture.
Other than my armchair observation above, I have no especial insight into your question. I did love the Driggs article in Sunstone. I liked how it challenged our Sunday School norms regarding free agency. If we are a product of our DNA (which we did not choose) and our environment (which we did not choose) and our choices (which we largely are not reponsible for until the age of eight), is free agency really free? Such questions should give us pause before we self-righteously question or judge those boys that act out, and the girls that act up.
Finally, Lisa, as a parent of three young children (5, 3, and 1), I really enjoy reading about your expert experiences rearing seven children. Keep it up.
November 15th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
Could it be that boy are fueled by testosterone, an aggressive hormone and women are fuel by estrogen which is not an aggesive hormone.
We are born with drugs (hormones) in us and they are bery powerful.
I hear that when women take testosterone they become more aggessive and men who take estrogen become less aggressive.
Gordon