Why are arguments worse for women than men?

What I've outlined so far shows that arguments hurt a lot of people on engineering teams, not just women and minority groups. As I said in my introductory blog post, women and minorities are the "canary in the coal mine". High attrition rates from these groups indicate a toxic environment, which will hurt more than the canary in the long run but kill the canary first. So how do unregulated argument cultures hurt women before they hurt men?



There are a few key factors to take into account. First, society does not tolerate aggression in women the way it tolerates aggression in men. Women are more likely to be called "bossy" or "pushy" in the workplace, despite exhibiting less aggression overall [9]. Creating an environment that encourages aggression gives men an edge because it's more socially acceptable for men to be aggressive.



Second, men are conditioned to be more competitive towards women than men. In studies on boys and girls in gym class, boys try harder in competitive foot races against girls versus their male peers [10]. There is the potential for men to be more competitive in an argument against a woman because of social conditioning that men are supposed to win mixed-gender competitions.



Finally, in a competitive environment people are more likely to use inappropriate weapons to win. The groups of people who have the most weapons that can be used against them are the groups that have the most social stereotypes to their disadvantage. In other words, the most marginalized groups have the most weapons that can be used against them in a combative environment.