It's findings like this that makes me wonder about the stereotype that men are more physically aggressive than women.
Is it really a sex differential per se or merely that most people tend to only initiate physical violence against vulnerable targets and women are typically physically weaker and therefore have fewer potential targets than men?
Put another way, if we controlled for the usual size and strength differential between the sexes, would there still be a differential in physical aggression (and if so, would it instead be women with the higher rates of violence)? It looks like it might be that way, given these numbers when the victims are children (and therefore both men and women are comparatively larger and stronger than the vulnerable victims).
Fascinating! Thanks Jim.
You're welcome, Tom.
It's findings like this that makes me wonder about the stereotype that men are more physically aggressive than women.
Is it really a sex differential per se or merely that most people tend to only initiate physical violence against vulnerable targets and women are typically physically weaker and therefore have fewer potential targets than men?
Put another way, if we controlled for the usual size and strength differential between the sexes, would there still be a differential in physical aggression (and if so, would it instead be women with the higher rates of violence)? It looks like it might be that way, given these numbers when the victims are children (and therefore both men and women are comparatively larger and stronger than the vulnerable victims).
I don't like comparing human beings to dogs but it's almost always the smaller breeds of dog which are the nastiest in behaviour.