Passive agression

Started by dr e, Mar 29, 2006, 12:30 PM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

Metal MRA

Just for argument's sake:

Main Entry: passive-aggressive
Function: adjective
: being, marked by, or displaying behavior characterized by expression of negative feelings, resentment, and aggression in an unassertive passive way (as through procrastination and stubbornness)

I don't think the hair twirling and chest thumping (or whatever the hell women do when they flirt) would quite qualify under the Merriam Webster definition.  Manipulation would be one thing, but for passive aggressivness, there has to be negative feelings, resentment and/or aggression.  Unless the girls were out purposely trying to get men just to take out some (passive) aggression out on them, I don't think it would quite qualify.  Hopefully this will help us focus on the true meaning.....
en occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing has happened.
--Sir Winston Churchill

The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.

If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth

The difference between 'involvement' and 'commitment' is like an eggs-and-ham breakfast: the chicken was 'involved' - the pig was 'committed'


Dr. Evil,

I have no intention of dropping anything.

I have asked a question of you a few times now. If I can't find a peer reviewed study, does this mean that assumptions are false? What if a peer reviewed study has never been done in this regard? What does a peer reviewed study really have to do with anything? Dr Phil says lots of shit, but common sense tells me to disagree with him. Dr Farrell also says lots of shit and common sense tells me to agree with him - except for his views on sexual fondling and incest, which common sense tells me to disregard because he's just plain out to lunch.

We do it every day on this board. We find a Ph D or a study to back up what we say and say "See... Dr So & So found in his study that X happened." Then the next day some other Ph D comes out with a study saying that X% of women will we be physically assaulted in the next 5 minutes and we use our common sense to debunk the second Ph D because we don't agree with the said view. So what does a peer reviewed study really matter, when we continually play both sides of the fence to our advantage? Common sense is all that can prevail.

Ph D's and peer reviewed studies shouldn't be viewed as some almighty holy grail because in the world of "soft science", as I have already stated, it is easy to observe that a "peer reviewed study" will be challenged and debunked usually in around a decade or so.

I have personally been told anecdotes by several women who said they tried peeing standing up - but I think that plumbers were correct in not bothering to find a peer reviewed study to support their assumption to omit urinals in women's washrooms.


Metal MRA,

But now you are assuming that "aggressive" has to be a bad thing. And it doesn't have to be. It can also be assertiveness.

Donald Trump is aggressive in the world of business. This does not mean that he is acting out in anger by doing business.

Metal MRA


I am right there with you on that one.  Believe me, I have used outright aggressiveness in the past with no qualms at all!!  Assertive I would think is generally a more 'PC' term since aggressive has the stigma of a sort of 'hard-headed male' trait (not that I give 2 flying fu(%$ about PC)

Let's check it out:

Main Entry: as·sert
1 : to state or declare positively and often forcefully or aggressively

Main Entry: ag·gres·sion
1 : a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master

So, it seems that assertive, and aggression may be closely linked.    I wonder, could one be assertive without being aggressive?  But I digress..

Yes, Donald Trump is DEFINATELY aggressive in the world of business, but could it be labeled as passive aggressive according to the definition I listed before?  Negative feelings and resentment seem to pretty much be a pre-requisite of passive aggression.  Does Donald Trump have these feelings towards his business competitors?  Maybe.  But it seems that the negative feelings and resentment HAVE to be present for it to qualify as passive aggression.  That is my only point.
en occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing has happened.
--Sir Winston Churchill

The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.

If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth

The difference between 'involvement' and 'commitment' is like an eggs-and-ham breakfast: the chicken was 'involved' - the pig was 'committed'


Quote from: "zarby"
I will be happy to do a study on how women move their asses when they walk. I wonder if the government would fund my study?

They funded a study for the flow rate of various ketchup brands, I say go for it. Certainly if you dressed it up a bit, perhaps something about health and milkshakes. :lol:


Maybe it might be a good idea in this discussion to avoid the use of the psychiatric term passive aggression.

I keep thinking that if you want an example of women's aggressive nature then maybe consideration of the White Feather campaign might be a good example.

For those of you who don't know this was a "war effect" mainly conducted by women and the purpose was to shame men into conscript.

Anecdotally I would suggest that this sort of behaviour is still exhibited in the female populous but in perhaps a more covert fashion these days.

dr e

Rob - If Ph.D.'s are so "dime a dozen" and putting out such a volume of data you shouldn't have a bit of trouble in finding something to support your claim.   You don't seem to get the idea I have been trying to gently get across to you.  You can talk all you want about your own experience or the women or men you know etc, but to make a blanket and negative statement about either gender is going against the rules here.  Can you simply take responsibility for what you wrote and just say ooops?  If so, then let's move on.  If not then that's a warning for you.   Your choice.  I have no more time to fool with this.
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.


Well, Dr Evil,

Sorry to butt heads, but I'll take the warning rather than recant the common sense and observations that my life on the planet has given me. I never made a blanket statement about either gender. I did say that passive aggression is more of a female trait than a male trait. I never said that only females are capable of it. I also said that the purpose of passive aggression is to provoke aggression. I still believe that.

You also asked for specific examples, then asked for further explanation of examples and then attacked for providing examples. I don't particularly understand that logic.

As far as Ph D's and their findings, this entire board and in fact the entire MRA movement is made up of regular individuals using their God given common sense to question the "findings" of such studies. If a Ph D does a study that has passed review by his peers and thus that study becomes irrefutable, then why are we even concerned about Men's Rights? There are 10's of Thousands of Peer Reviewed studies that have shown that men are the cause of domestic violence and all other evil things in the world. They must be right then.

With great disappointment, I will not say "oops" to assauge your demand. I'm going to declare that I will Stand my Ground.


Did I see some scumbag above denigrating those who have PhD's in Psychology?

This is an outrage of the very highest order!

Death is the only fitting penalty.

Well, I have a PhD in Psychology - and I know quite a few others who are similarly endowed, and I have to tell said scumbag above that he is correct!

One of the main reasons that I quit being much involved in the psychology 'profession' was because of the amount of hokum that was part and parcel of the whole area; e.g. see my piece

I would not say that all those who are in the profession are imbued with hokum, nor that all the research is hokum. Much of it is very good indeed. But there is far too much nonsense espoused within the profession and far too many people within it who do not have the intellect to deal with the complex problems that they purport to understand.

And some of the issues purportedly addressed to a high standard by psychologists are, in fact, far too complex for **anybody** with a human brain to understand.

The worst offenders in my view are the psychoanalytic types and those who claim to be able to reach deeply into the minds of people.

The more experimental psychologists who employ strong statistical methods to analyse their data across individuals in order to identify more superficial - and more simple - phenomena have much to offer; but, even here, their thinking is often wooly - and, indeed, often clouded by prejudices and politics.

An example.

When I was an undergraduate I got very excited over a piece of research that demonstrated that individual brain cells in a cat's visual cortext were very choosy about what they responded to. For example, some of these cells would only respond to straight lines of a certain orientation. Others would only respond if these lines were actually moving in a certain direction. Change the orientation of the line, or its direction of movement, and a cell would suddenly stop responding.

Anyway. This relatively simple experiment had major implications concerning issues to do with the way in which the brain 'worked'.

When I got my hands on the original paper and the data I studied all the details surrounding the experiment. I poured over them for about two days. And what did I find? Well, I found 12 flaws that undermined the validity not only of the experiment itself but, as a result, also of the conclusions derived from it.

I was mortified.

I wrote politely to the main author (at Oxford Uni) and I got a reply; and he agreed with me!

Anyway. I then started looking far more closely at the details surrounding many other studies in my area, and I found that **most** of them were 'very weak' to say the least.

And, in some cases, the conclusions of the authors were not only unwarranted, their data showed results which, if anything, implied the complete opposite of what they were concluding.

I was astounded.

In a nutshell: 'Psychology' is a mess. This is partly to do with the sheer complexity of the subject, partly to do with the lack of intellectual ability among ****many**** of those in the profession, partly to do with 'arrogance', and partly - particularly nowadays - to do with politics.

Well, that's my view!
ttp:// ... the only site in the entire world with the aforementioned domain address


I think women use the passive aggressive approach lot more that men do. I believe this, because most women cant afford to take the covert aggressive approach, this would fail. Our society is set up so a woman can be as PA as she wants, and the man gets screwed in the end. Passive Agression, is taylor made for a woman i.e. the weaker sex. Also, I think that if a man uses PA, he will eventually get his a** whipped.
Gentleman is a man who consciously serves women. I prefer the golden rule.

Behind every great man, is a

Women who say men won't commit, usually aren't worth committing to.



Dr. Evil, would it be considered passive-aggressive to use such terms as,

"I was thinking that maybe we could...."

"That's a good idea, but perhaps you could...."

"You know, I was wondering if maybe it would be better if..."

or is this considered passive?
quot;I can resist anything but temptation."

 Oscar Wilde


Bullying styles are generally considered to fall under two categories, direct and indirect. Direct physical bullying is to, hit, shove, kick, trip, push, and pull. Direct verbal bullying can involve name-calling, insults, threatening to hurt the other. Indirect bullying, I>also known as social or relational aggression (Crick 1997) involves attacking the relationships of people and hurting the self-esteem. It is subtler and involves behaviours such as spreading nasty rumors, withholding friendships, ignoring, gossiping, or excluding a child from a small group of friends.

There is no doubt that stereotypically, males are more physical and direct in their bullying styles and females more manipulative and indirect (Olweus, 1997; Bjorkqvist, 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist & Peltonen, 1988). Boys in our Western culture are encouraged to be tough and competitive and as they maturate slower and develop social intelligence at a slower rate they will use physical aggression longer than girls (Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, & Peltonen, 1988; Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kauliaien, 1992). However there is no reason to believe that females should be less hostile and less prone to get into conflicts than males (Burbank, 1987, in Bjorkqvist 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). As females are physically weaker, they develop early in life other bullying styles in order to achieve their goals. Indirect aggression in girls increases drastically at about the age of eleven years (Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz and Kaukiainen, 1992) whereas physical aggression among boys decreases during late adolescence, to be replaced mainly by verbal, but also indirect aggression (Bjorkqvist 1994).

There is a growing body of research in gender differences of bullying and other adolescent aggressive behaviours. There are hundreds of studies dedicated to the topic, many placing the emphasis on boys or the forms of aggression, more salient to boys. Forms of aggression more salient to girls has received comparatively little attention (Crick, 1997; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995).



• Studies have consistently documented higher rates of aggression in males than in females. Crick & Grotpeter argue that this is because aggression has been conflated with overt physical acts, and that these behaviors are not ones which would adequately express aggressiveness in females. It appears that girls intend to inflict harm on others just as often as boys-the difference is in how they express these feelings. Girls tend to aggress in discreet ways, through their relationships and through third parties. Now that these behaviors are coming under the purview of "aggression", the cultural wisdom regarding higher rates of aggression in males will need adjusting.

dr e

Good job Rob.  Nicely done.

Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.


I found this one to be interesting top. Their definition is different I'll bet but an interesting study.

While research has not yet suggested that different factors trigger men's anger, researchers continue to uncover differences in how men and women experience it. Such was that case for Raymond DiGiuseppe, PhD, chair of the psychology department at St. John's University in New York, in his research to develop a new anger disorder scale. In a survey of 1,300 people ages 18 to 90, DiGiuseppe investigated 18 subscales of anger, including how individuals experience their anger, how long the anger lasts and what they get angry about. While he found that differences in men's and women's total anger scores were not significant, he did find differences in the way they experience anger. Specifically, men scored higher on physical aggression, passive aggression and experiences of impulsively dealing with their anger. They also more often had a revenge motive to their anger and scored higher on coercing other people.

Women, on the other hand, were found to be angry longer, more resentful and less likely to express their anger, compared with men. DiGuiseppe found that women used indirect aggression by "writing off" a higher number of people--intending to never speak to them again because of their anger.

Go Up