According to U.S. News & World Report, two new studies show that people associate anger with male faces and happiness with female ones. When subjects were shown androgynous faces that looked angry, they were more likely to identify them as male. But if the faces looked happy or fearful, people were more likely to label them as female. And in another experiment, subjects were slower to identify faces as female if the faces looked pissed off. Says psychologist Ursula Hess, "The present research shows that the association between anger and men and happiness and women is so strong that it can influence the decisions about the gender of another person when that person is viewed briefly."

In another study, researchers gave women testosterone pills and studied how they played a cooperation-based game. The game involved giving one woman $10 and instructing her to choose an amount to offer her partner. If the partner turned down the offer, neither got money. Women who received testosterone were no less generous than their peers — unless they were told they'd gotten the hormone. Those who knew they'd gotten testosterone "stood out with their conspicuously unfair offers," wrote the study authors. Lead author Ernst Fehr says that when asked about how they thought testosterone would affect them, the subjects said things like, "Oh, testosterone would make me more egotistic, more risk-taking and more aggressive." In other words, they thought testosterone would make them drive a harder bargain, and so they did just that, even though the testosterone alone might have had no effect.

What's interesting about these studies is that they show how deeply ingrained our perceptions of masculinity and femininity are — and, in the case of the bargaining study, how these perceptions may be even stronger than reality. Are women actually happier than men? Are men more angry? Probably not — but we may be socialized to express these emotions more freely, with the result that they become associated with gender. The result looks a lot like a feedback loop: girls are told it's not feminine to get mad, so they avoid making mad faces, and so people begin to think that anger is for men, and the cycle begins all over again. Similarly, if women learn that aggression is "male," they may not behave aggressively (except when hopped up on testosterone), further reinforcing this stereotype. The finding that this stereotype outstrips the actual effects of testosterone underscores the fact that gender differences are problematic, and that we shouldn't be too quick to assume that any difference in behavior has a biological basis. As Michael Naef, co-author of the testosterone study, says, "In a society where qualities and manners of behavior are increasingly traced to biological causes...this should make us sit up and take notice."

Are Angry Women More Like Men? [U.S. News & World Report]
Women On Testosterone Only Think They're Macho [New Scientist]
Testosterone "Prompts Fair Play, Not Aggression" [Reuters]

He wonders how to reconcile the two contradictory feelings, saying:

Fighting is bad. But I couldn't help but be filled with pride if No. 07 were my daughter whomping the crud out of a male hockey player who tried to push her around. Is this the same sort of mixed signal like how guns are bad, but a gun in the hand of a woman is empowering?

Cook's feelings are quite common. Due to defined roles for women, it's tempting to respond to anything that makes women seem like they are breaking down barriers. Pride at seeing a girl "whomping the crud" out of male players symbolizes three different things.

The first thing is that she is good enough to be able to participate on the same field as boys. One of the arguments for gender segregated sports teams is that women cannot physically perform at the level of men, so the fact that a woman is playing in the same rink is a big deal.

Secondly, it demonstrates that she is a full participant in a space usually dominated by males - as the boys do, she does.

Third, it shows her willingness to defend that space (i.e. not take shit). The video contains graphic notations as to where she is being pushed around by the other players, and the fact that she was able to brush herself off and bring the fight right back does exhibit an indication of her being on equal footing.

Where Cook feels conflicted, however, is a longstanding item of contention. Does this encouragement of women to defy gender roles and fight for their space still hold when they're doing something potentially harmful to others? I am not familiar enough with ice hockey to know if there is a movement of any sort to stop fighting on the ice. From the few matches I've watched, I received the impression that altercations are to be expected.

Interestingly, the reaction this video prompts is different from the one soccer player Elizabeth Lambert received when she exhibited aggression on a field of peers. She was playing in a female- dominated soccer environment and her confrontational style of play (in addition to a ponytail yank, among other things) prompted her suspension earlier this year. But one of the major differences between the two situations is the context in which the behavior occurred.

In Player Number 7's case, she was well within the bounds and conventions of the game she played. With Lambert, her behavior was unsportwomanlike, and not really worth applauding - even if she was behaving just as aggressively as a male soccer player would.

Just because men get away with horrible behaviors, it doesn't mean we should applaud when women do the same. And so, in this case, Cook shouldn't feel conflicted - it's fine to be proud. But if player number 7 decided to take the fight off the ice, it wouldn't be commendable - just violent.

Girl Beats Up Boys In High School Hockey Fight [True/Slant]

Earlier: Violence In Sports: Suspended Soccer Player Speaks Out

Agreed! But forget the movies: Between the talking heads on the news, squabblers on reality shows, magazines that mock women who dare to leave the house without makeup or hit the beach with cellulite and mean-spirited blogs where cum shots are drawn on teenage celebrities, is it any wonder we're becoming a nation of assholes?

For instance: What would prompt a person to write the following comment on Sadie's post about meeting her fiancé's parents: "Wow your body looks like a 90 year old lady's. Gross." ??? Why do people read Drunken Stepfather? Why do millions of women visit PerezHilton.com every day?

Do we blame movies? Do we blame our fast-paced, "throw-away" culture, in which being kind and gentle means you're sure to be trampled? Do we blame (DUM DUM DUM!) the Internet, where people's freedom to express themselves often turns into nasty one-up-manship?

One thing's for sure: Some people are already mean. But with the validation of movies, magazines and websites, they figure, why hide it?

Meanness Appears To Rub Off On Viewers [USA Today]