Emotional strongarm tactics used by women

Remove all ads!

I don't fear generalisations. Nor do I feel that personal experience isn't necessarily "factual". I have, however, noticed that people have a rather bizarre tendency to find what they look for......without regard to whether or not it's actually there. If you expect women to be less logical, that's what you find. If you expect them to be more emotional.....again, that's what you find. What happens is that you filter out everything that goes against your preconcieved notion of what to expect. If you are convinced that women are "less logical" or "more emotional" (and that's been a common stereotype since, uh, forever) you will fail to notice all the times women fail to act illogically or emotionally. You will also give instances in which a women are illogical or emotional more weight than you actually should. Not only that, but since on the other side of the coin you percieve men as being "more logical" and "less emotional" you will tend to overlook instances of men failing to behave logically or emotionally.

A textbook example of expectation trumping reality can be found when looking at the myth that more violent crimes occur on Halloween night. Almost everyone in medicine or the police subscribe to this, yet study after study has shown that there is no increase whatsoever in violent crimes on All Hallows Eve. Everyone in medicine expects to see this phenomenon, so they are paying more attention to the date when violent or particularly bizaare crimes happen on Halloween. On the other hand, when a violent crime happens in June, an emergency room doctor or nurse isn't exactly checking his calendar to see if it coincides with some religious holiday or star chart. In other words they give more weight to instances that occur on Halloween and they fail to give sufficient weight to instances that happen another time of year.

By the way, men aren't doing any better than women at math and science anymore, though men are still more interested in pursuing math and the sciences further. Males no longer score any higher than females on standardized tests and women no longer lag behind men at the middle and high school levels. In fact, they haven't lagged behind in math and science since the early nineties, according to the American Sociological Association. The idea that men do better at math and science is just another one of those stupid stereotypes that refuses to go away.

[ May 17, 2006, 13:58: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

This argument could be used from almost any standpoint to refute almost anything.

This 'placebo' effect can happen but it's not an accusation that can be thrown around lightly. Since the very same argument could be used against your stance on the issue, Drew.

 

@Abomination: Actually, modern phsycology agrees with my stance on this one......so the placebo effect doesn't really apply here.

For some reason, the men who have been commenting in this thread aren't making the connection that when they get "angry" about things, that this is also "being emotional" and "illogical". Just because men manifest their emotions differently doesn't mean that men are "less emotional". It just means that they are societally conditioned not to cry or show frustration and fear. In much the same way women are conditioned by society not to cover up their fear with anger as men tend to do. Such behaviour is not considered feminine in our modern society. Whether you are male or female, the underlying fear is still there.....the difference lies in how the fear is manifested.

[ May 17, 2006, 14:01: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

I understand that anger is an emotion also, yet I am hardly ever emotional be it anger, crying, or any other.

Just because men manifest their emotions in a different way doesn't mean that they are just as emotional as women.

I guess being emotional is one thing since everyone gets emotional yet comparing who lets emotions effect their decision making and who maintains the emotion for longer, women on average win hands down.

 

Perhaps, when comparing them to you, but your behaviour isn't necessarily indicative of the behaviour of all men.....or even most men. Also, when I was single, I invariable kept dating the same "type" of women. Everyone does this on a subconcious level (usually to find someone that reminds them in some way of their parents). The experiences you have had with women you have dated or been intimate with are not necessarily indicative of women as a whole and are, therefore, not a representative sample.

 

In that case, some other men who have been commenting in this thread haven't really been paying attention. I'm repeating for the umpteenth time that anger is also an emotion and clouds reason. You claim that I say the opposite because it fits your argumentation but in that case, you're only debating with yourself or comparing some abstract visions you have in your head that you can't really attribute to me.

That's exactly what you've been doing with regard to my posts. The previous quote is not the first case of that.

If you stick to the politically correct preconceived idea that women and men differ only in the shape of their underwear, then you are going to become impervious to anything which suggests otherwise.

You are trying to turn "are more" into "are exclusively". It's sometimes an effective tactic but it has not much to do with what the other side is in fact saying.

By standarising tests, you don't refute anything. If you make a test specifically in such a way as for males and females to score equally high, don't be surprised when they really do. The only thing you prove that way is that it's possible to create a test formula in which the focus on particular abilities is distributed in such a way that males and females will have similar scores per average.

You may even claim that all the male/female differences are based on different upbringing, but even that won't negate their existence. Also, many of those have been confirmed by science and I doubt you can attribute things like different sight range to different upbringing models, anyway.

In short, it looks like you're holding for dear life to the liberal modern tenet that men and women are practically the same, but that's a pretty claustrophobic option, refusing even to consider the possibility of one sex being better here and the other there. Besides, like the unisex clothes fad, it's a bit passe now.

 

All of you logic guys: When was the last time someone succesfully used logical arguments to convince you you were wrong about something? Or used logical arguments to calm you down when you've been upset?

 

Sex Roles: A Journal of Research
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980520132438data_trunc_sys.shtml

http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/EmotionWomen.html

After I see some links to research written by PhD's in phsychology from the other side of the argument, I'll be happy to discuss this further. Until then, I'm just going to smugly point out that the prevailing professional opinion is that the theory that women are more emotional is nothing more than grade A .

This statement is completely ridiculous. How in the world do you expect to compare men and women in the area of mathematics if you don't ask them the same questions? Without standardised testing, any statements comparing women and men are based on literally nothing at all.

Actually, all I've said so far is that available data (which is plentiful) does not support any of your conclusions. I'd be happy to accept the conclusion that men were better at math and science than women if it were actually true.

I won't argue for a second that men don't make better marathon runners (but not ultra marathon runners....thus far, the fastest ultra runner is actually a woman) and power lifters than women because this is easilly quantifiable and the facts support it. Mathematical aptitude, however, is also easily quantifiable. How exactly do you make a gender biased math test? If men were actually better in such an easily quantifiable area the data would support it.

Why exactly is it a liberal notion to insist that we base our conclusions on available facts? Does that mean that not basing our conclusions on available facts is conservative?

[ May 17, 2006, 16:35: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

No, sorry. As a "liberal," let me explain to you what liberals believe, and it is not that "men and the women are the same," but that they are equal. That means exactly as you would also believe, that they should be treated and regarded with the same respect, dignity, rights and choices, regardless of their gender. THAT is what liberals believe.

 

Drew, have you read those links or just assumed they agree with you? They say male and female experience of emotion is similar but expression differs, then putting it down upbringing. Problem is that my basic idea that women act on emotions more than men do is consistent with that. We both seem to be saying that women are culturally/socially expected to show more emotion than men, while I'm not claiming it's a biological difference, so I don't understand why you insist on building up some imaginary things that I don't write. Also, it's worth noting that the journal of research was created by female scientists, anyway, and the language suggests active feminist interest, so tell me more about impartial science.

Don't turn it upside down. All pupils in schools get the same questions. Standarising as in your tests means some kind of equal opportunity tweaking aimed at making both sexes score equally well.

Sorry, but you apparently need some reading comprehension first. Show me where I write men are better at maths. More interested, sure. Better? Not necessarily. Most great mathematicians will have been male, but most mathematicians in general will have been male, so this says nothing about sexes except that for some reason men are more inclined towards maths and the like. You will also notice, if you pay attention, that women are generally more in the direction of arts, humanities, social studies. In my secondary school, the maths class had three females and the most extreme humanities class one male. Two or three also happened in that kind of classes.

No, it means that your insistence on lack of non-physical differences is something you stick to like a religious belief, against plain human experience and common sense.

Also, if you choose to ignore all the research into the sex of the brain and sex roles, I wish you good luck. You don't need links, you need to go to a bookshop. Or even a search on SP. The discussion about making school more boys-friendly first comes to mind. Do yourself a favour and type "gender" ("sex" is more correct, as "gender" is but a linguistic term denoting the masculine or feminine gender of a word) and "brain" and/or "differences" in google and lose yourself in it for a gloomy evening or something. Or try at wiki and read up a bit -- there's also an awful lot of links to studies and articles at the bottom of the entry. If you still want to pretend testosterone and estrogene are pretty much the same substance, it's your problem.

@Chandos:

From a purist point of view, yes (although not purist enough to ignore the anachronism of considering the 18-19th century attitudes of liberals towards equality. Strictly speaking, equality is a democratic, not a liberal idea, and the two groups didn't get along well until late in 19th century. However, there's no denying that some people take equality so far that they start talking about equality rights and from there they infer some exotic rights to be regarded the same in spite of being different, such as it was with races and is now with sexes. It's quite reassuring to hear you don't buy the sameness thing, though. In fact, overlooking the differences would lead to giving women the same position as men, theoretically at least, but in a masculine world, where women are defined by being as good as men are. And ultimately that's not really equality. For men and women to be equal, female roles and qualities and traits, need to be given more recognition, not denied.

[ May 18, 2006, 03:34: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Heck, this is the title of one of the articles. The articles state that men simply control their emotions more than women.

Now here comes the birdy. I watch a movie and it is a sad movie. I am saddened by the movie yet I do not cry and while the credits role I compose myself and walk out no different than before I walked in. Whereas a woman cries and walks out still crying. Yes, we both experienced the same emotion yet we expressed the emotion to a different degree. In this case the man is able to supress his emotion, not even allowing his body to act on it.

The simple argument is control. If you can control your emotions it simply means that your emotions don't get control of you. Yet if you can not control your emotions the opposite will occur. Men are better (ON AVERAGE) at controlling their emotions, all of those links provided agree here.

When? Recently and it occurs quite often yet with the emotional part and being calmed down? I rarely get emotional and I calm myself down by using logic. When I'm upset or angry or whatever I seek more information on the matter and usually I find out things are not as bad as first percieved I calm down.

 

Your claim is that men control their "emotions" more so than women. Yet, your only example is built largely around only one real sample of emotion - crying. I fail to see how this instance spills over into other emotions, such as anger, lust, love, anxiety, melancholy, grief, humor, joy, passion, etc. The "simple argument," is that your argument is overly simple, unless you only mean to say that women cry more so than men, which in itself is a meaningless statement, since emotions have many modes of expression beyond crying. Perhaps it is that one mode (crying) of emotional expression that gives you so much trouble.

 

I haven't argued that men and women don't necessarily think differently. I have argued that men are just as emotional and irrational (prevailing phsychological opinion) and that men don't excel more at math than women do (easilly corroborated not only by looking at standardised tests, but also by comparing the success of women vs men within high school math curricula).

I believe things that have factual support. And, yes, I will concede to "clinging to factual support" as if it were a religion. My grandfather's "plain human experience" tells him that black people are lazy, women are unsuited to most professions, and Asians are dishonest. This should illustrate why I tend to distrust "plain human experience".

In response to an assertion that men were better in areas like logic and math you said:

Did I misinterpret that, or were you simply not paying attention to the statement to which you were responding?

Regarding the idea that men in general show less emotion....showing emotion does not mean that emotions rule the decisions you make. Not showing emotion does not mean that they do not. I am not responding to statements that women show less emotion. I take issue, however, with the idea that women are more likely to allow their emotions to cloud their decisions and logic. Showing your emotions doesn't imply that emotions rule your decisions. Showing your emotions only implies that you are, uh, showing your emotions.

Men aren't better at controlling their emotions. They are better at hiding them. Ironically, men usually cover their emotions up with anger, which is (last time I checked) still an emotion.

[ May 18, 2006, 07:22: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

I don't think women are as effected by their emotions as are men, despite their easy tears. I think women tend to relate to their emotions as almost a weather-like phenomenon, while men are often at the mercy of their hearts. It is a bit more complicated: I think men do not quite feel as often, but when they do, that feeling is primary; women are more emotional, as in they feel more often, but then they are also able to see through those emotions with relative ease, and manage their lives with a cold ruthlessness that a "good and simple" man cannot understand.

If women did not nurture that which they found "cute", they truly would be the epitome of evil.

But I'm not bitter or anything...

 

@Chandos:

His particular example is crying but his idea is that showing emotions is used, consciously or not, as a tool in making the man drop the case.

I'm not an expert on that, but it often looks like men have a slight advantage if only because they are more interested in it and motivation can't be neglected. There's also the social thing pushing women more into arts and guys into sciences and even technical ones, which is not exclusively social, anyway. After all, boys and girls aren't equally inclined towards cars or dolls.

Oh please, no lofty appeals. It sounds like poetry.

I'm not pushing the claim that men are 100% certainly better at maths etc at the cerebral level. I just don't know. What I know is that women react more to their emotions than men do and that men are more into deliberating rather than "searching their feelings". Regardless of the rate of success, men are more inclined to base their actions on thinking, whereas women on feeling. This is even proved by Myers-Briggs, Enneagrams and other personality profiles, if you look at stats.

Please cling to scientific proof on that one for a while. Where are you pulling that from?

 

Who ARE these women?

I hate people to see me cry. I, in fact, will go through great lengths in order to avoid people seeing me cry. I'll cry at a movie if the theater's still dark-I'll cry at something my husband did or said if he's not around. And I've never started crying when I did something wrong and got chastised for it. Oh, I'll get kinda *sarcastic* if I don't want to be chastised, but crying? I'm sorry, but I think of little girls who can't control their emotions.
The last time I cried was in an actual knock-down, drag out (figuratively) fight where we were BOTH wrong, and were slinging nasty words at each other.
(this was a while ago, it's not a common thing, and we were both moody.)

 

Prevailing professional opinion. Phsychology 101. Or you could try reading the links I posted which were written by PhD's in the field. The idea that men cover fear, frustration, remorse, and grief with anger is really basic phsychology that a phsych major learns in his first semester.

I made no appeal. I merely pointed out that your "personal experience" is what you make of it. Two different people who go through the exact same experience will learn completely different lessons depending on their world view. For example, most people I know were "initiated" in high school. Some people learned that being initiated was a dehumanising experience and thus decided that they would not repeat the practice when it was their "turn" to do initiations. Others learned that it is better to give (initiations) than it is to recieve.

Racists and biggots always cite their "personal experiences" as the reason for their beliefs. My grandfather cites numerous reasons from his personal experiences tp justify his racist beliefs and becomes angry with any who choose to argue with his "wisdom". Like it or not, people see what they choose to see. Personal experience should always be taken with more than just a grain of salt.

Motivation is not equal to aptitude. When discussing aptitude, motivation should be neglected. Women also don't lag behind in math. Less women pursue math majors, true, but this is not a reflection of aptitude. It's a reflection of interest. By the way, our societies most prolific musicians, writers, and artists are usually men......not women. On the other hand, more women than men are now graduating from medical school. Does this mean that women have a higher aptitude for medicine?

[ May 20, 2006, 00:17: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Though I have no wish to get embroiled in this discussion, I simply must point this out.

Not what he asked. I would direct you to BTA's post at the top of the page. (Also, the typo in 'Psychology' loses you some points, though it looks far worse than it really is.)

EDIT:
I take that back. Your repeating it means it's not a typo, and loses you even more credibility. A shame.

 

Felinoid: Your right, Fel. Spelling a word incorrectly completely negates the value of what I have to say. You are being unnecessarily mean. Psychology is a science. Therefore, citing modern psychological thought on this matter is a perfectly valid and scientific approach. In the future, I would appreciate it if you were to attack my ideas instead of me.