Emotional strongarm tactics used by women

Remove all ads!

I wasn't saying that at all. Just that it loses you credibility when you can't even spell the name of the science you're supposed to be speaking for. It implies that you don't know as much about the science as you claim, whether or not that is actually the truth.

And pointing out a mistake is not an attack. I meant what I said about it being a shame, as I would like to see this discussion continue on an equal basis, since I'm not really sure at this point which side is right, if either. (Another reason I don't want to get into the discussion.) Though one wonders at the psychological reason for your overreaction.

Finally, noone (that I've seen, anyway) has claimed that psychology is not a science. It is simply not as concrete a science as others. Quoting professional opinion is not only weaker than quoting studies, it's also not even possible to back it up. (Unless you want to gather the majority of psychologists from across the globe.) And chev asked you for proof, not opinion. At least quote a psych book or something.

 

If you want to get technical, science never actually proves anything. They just fail to disprove things over and over until they've failed to disprove a principle enough times that it may as well be proven. In this, psychology is no different. While it is a soft science, any science that attempts to link physiological differences to actual behaviour difference is also going to be equally "soft". When we start talking about the different behavioural tendencies of men and women psychology is as good a science as any. Actually better, since linking differences in brain functionality between genders to actual behaviour differences is no small feat. In other words, if you are talking about behaviour, you have to defer to behavioural science.

 

Any reproducable emperical study is scientifically valid. Studies done involving psychological test groups are just as accurate as any biological field research. People often assume that neuro-psychology and other biological based pyschological studies are as "unstable" as theoretical psychology, which isn't the case. However social-psychology and neuro-psychology are entirely empirical fields of research. To say their methods of research are not concrete would be to claim that any non-math based science is not concrete. Biology has many areas of research that aren't empirically sound (macro-evolution), but we believe them anyway (because everything points to their truth), it's just that psychology still carries the stigma of Freud which it is no longer anything like (i.e. psychology is no longer a philosophy).

I know this is off topic, but I felt the need to back Drew up, because the type of psychology he used is just as valid as another type of empirical study.

Also I apologize for any spelling or gramatical issues, I've had a whopping 15 hours of sleep (roughly) over the last 3 days.

 

I'm finding this topic to be quite interesting and entertaining.

I'd like to respond to the topic as it was originally intended first: I don't get angry when a girl begins to cry. I tend to soften myself when that happens. However, if crying is being used as a manipulative and malicious tactic then it really pisses me off. That said I'd like to put in my two cents where the topic has arrived.

I think it's irresponsible to brush off personal experience as invalid. You can't possibly say, with 100% certainty, that that's what men choose to see where women are concerned. I'll admit that not all women I've ever known are mostly (keyword here, because they're not completely) driven by their emotions but the majority of the ones I know are. It is difficult to sometimes convince them of something in a rational and logical manner. It is EXCEEDINGLY difficult to convince me of anything during a dispute when responses and arguments are emotionally charged.

I'm really appreciating this thread because the arguments presented, from my perspective, are all mostly stemming from the realm of logic and no one is getting emotional about it. However, I feel it is necessary to reiterate my original point: You can't disregard personal experience as invalid.

I'm not saying personal experience proves that all women are mostly driven by emotions. Far from it and that should NEVER be inferred from this post. I am in NO WAY saying that women as a whole are emotionally driven. I am just saying, from my personal experience, that that notion tends to be true regardless of what the published research says.

 

Yes, and I'm waiting for more examples of all these emotions of which I keep hearing. Crying is particular to "mostly" women and considered feminine. It is despised by men for that reason, and any man who cries is mostly thought of as "unmanly" and treated with contempt. Of course there are extreme cases where it is not, such as in instances of profound tragedy.

Nevertheless, I am still waiting for some examples of how women are more emotional than men, other than the expression of crying. Emotions such as anger as an expression of aggression? Do women start more wars than men? joy displayed as a result of a reaction to too much humor? Do women laugh more than men? Do women batter their husbands more than men batter their wives as a result of anger and aggression? I'm waiting to hear about all these overly "emotional women." And how men are so "calm and rational" most of the time.

 

The experience, no, can't be disregarded as invalid. The interpretation of those experiences, however, needs to be handled with a grain of salt, if it is accepted at all. We all think we believe the way we do because of our experiences. Given the numerous ludicrous and dangerous ideas that humans have held throughout the course of history, it is clear that we often fail to view our own experiences with the unbiased eye necessary to make empirical statements based upon them. The experiences aren't suspect. We (humans) are.

[ May 21, 2006, 06:59: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Delicate subject. All I'll say is that I am trying to deal with some serious mysogynistic knee jerk reactions that have come about from my experiences. I know it's not rational, but it sure feels sometimes that women expect perfection from men and don't take responsibilities for their own mistakes, and if a man dares to even question her or discuss an issue he gets slammed with the 'abuser' tag. Even when a woman is 1000% in the wrong, it seems she can turn it around and make it all the man's fault.

Pretty obvious old LKD won't be in a relationship until he gets past this crap!

 

Ok, I'll throw this in first. The greatest organic difference between a man's nervous system and a woman's is the size of the Corpus Callosum. This is a band of tissue that links the left and right halves of the upper brain, allowing them to communicate. A woman's is roughly 3 times the size of a man's.

What does this mean? It means that, in general, women are better at activities that involve both halves while men are better at activities that only involve one half. Contrary to popular belief, however, emotions are not all seated in one half. Rather, the 'negative' emotions (fear, anger, sadness, etc) are seated on the right side and the 'positive' (love, joy, excitement, happiness) on the left. On top of this, the right side also controls such things as percieving the emotions of others, emotional inflections, and viewing the 'big picture'. The left side controls detail work.
This means that women are more able to process love and sadness at once, while men tend to only process one at a time. This, then, means that men are able to 'mask' one emotion with another much more than women are, because we can only process one from each side (same brain matter can't do 2 things at once very easily) and men can't process from both sides at the same time very well.

Because of this, I'll say I perfectly believe that men tend to cover negative emotions with anger (a less 'shameful' emotion). I'll also say that women are more likely to have 'mixed feelings' (anger/sadness as well as love) which can easily lead to internal conflicts and tears, whether they're that sad or not.

As for what to do, being a man, I'd probably calm myself, make sure she understands what she did wrong, and then help her avoid it again. I'd honestly ignore the tears.

 

That men can "mask" emotions with other emotions, however, does not mean that men are less or emotional or better able to control their emotions. It merely means that men are better at substituting one emotion for another.

 

@Drew:
You don't call that control? I'd say willfully changing your emotional state by substituting a more desired emotion qualifies. If, OTOH, you are talking about the emotional level, then yes, there is not as much control there; no easy up or down, but some emotions are easier to control the level of than others, so it leads into a small bit of control. An amount of control which women match, I think.

 

I think what Drew means is that men mask thier emotions by giving the appearance of another emotion not pushing the first emotion out of existance and replacing it with another.

 

If that's the case, then he's dead wrong. I do it all the time. When I'm angry, I'm angry, not sad. And for anyone to say otherwise is a big load of hutzpah in thinking you know more about me than I do. Maybe some of you other guys "mask", but I don't screw around with that. When I shove an emotion aside, it's in a box in the corner, not masquerading as something else.

 

Felinoid: You are not controlling sadness or fear by masking it with anger. Anger is the most volatile of all emotions......more volatile than any emotion it is employed to cover. The anger that men use to mask those "weak" emotions is the same "anger" that drives men to be physically or mentally abusive (something men do a lot more often than women) because anger, once unleashed, is almost impossible to control. If anything, the tendency to mask "weak" emotions with "strong" emotions like anger would point to men having less control of their emotions than women. Not more.

 

Drew, that's just plain wrong.
1.) Anger as a substitute for sadness or fear is not usually the root of abuse. Abuse is generally rooted in serious psychological problems and/or alcohol.
2.) Anger is not almost impossible to control, and I personally find it much more easy to control than fear.
3.) There's a very blurry line between the ability to negate something and truely controlling it. On the one hand, negation does not equate manipulation. On the other hand, the ability to destroy something does grant a great deal of control over how it impacts you. And, for me at least, we are talking the actual replacement of the one emotion with the other.

 

Actually, no it isn't. Volatile = more likely to do violence. Anger always increases the probability of doing violence. The only time other emotions are going to cause abuse is when those emotions have been transferred to anger. Regardless of the reason for the emotional transfer, that fact remains. It's also a fact that it takes men twice as long to calm down as it takes women to do so (as indicated by blood pressure, heart rate, etc). In other words, men have to work harder than women do to control their anger. Women let it go much more quickly and easily.

Whatever the root cause of spousal abuse, unless the abuser happens to be some type of sociopath, he is going to be angry when physically assaulting his wife/child.....he will be abusing his spouse/child out of anger Men ordinarily inflict violence for one of 2 reasons........anger or self-defense. Given that self defense is clearly not the cause of spousal abuse, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that men who beat their wives do so out of anger.....it doesn't really matter what emotion or phsychological disorder from which the anger happens to stem (and let's not forget that substances like alcohol don't make you angry. They just remove your inhibitions). There's a reason that the courts order "Anger Management" for abusers......people who are capable of controlling their anger don't beat their wives or children.

[ June 07, 2006, 05:37: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

People who are excessively angry are considered to have rage disorders and can become incredibly dangerous when they become angry. A rage disorder is a "psychological disorder" in the shallowest of senses as it really is nothing more then a mismanagement of anger which is standardly treated with anger management or psychotheropy. These people's conditions are what we called "environmentally dependent" meaning they can happen to just about anyone.

With a rage disorder, anger is generated from an inability to respond to stimuli through proper channels.

 

@Drew:
No court that I've ever heard of has found a man guilty of spousal or child abuse and ordered 'anger management' therapy. That's what they order if a guy socks his boss or attorney in a civil case.

Blaming anger for abuse is like blaming guns for World War II. Anger is just an inapropriately used medium, it is deep seated psychological disorders, frequently centered around control issues or paranoia, that stir an idividual to unprovoked violence against a loved one.

And actually, in the case of abusers who were victims themselves, anger is frequently not an issue at all. They believe what they are doing is a legitimate method of discipline or they turn to it from habbit, for those that realize what they are doing is wrong.

Also realize that there is a HUGE difference between the emotion of anger and the physical response to it. I know women who have 'held a grudge' over insignificant things for decades, even letting it ruin their friendships and romantic relationships. This is anger in absence of elevated heart rate and blood pressure. All the difference in recovery time for heart rate and blood pressure indicate is that the male releases more adrenaline when angered.

@Ilmater's Suffering:
Is this 'rage disorder' the new excuse for road rage I've been hearing about? If so, it's total BS. The psychologists who are proposing it are ignoring human will. They look at a physical reaction to a mental choice and say it is the cause.

If that's not what you're talking about, sorry for the miunderstanding.

 

Then you've never actually checked out the results of court cases involving spousal abuse. Anger management is actually pretty standard in such cases, although only rarely is it the sole measure the court takes if you think that was what I was trying to infer.

 

Oh, yeah, that's what I thought you meant. Generally anger management is part of a much more comprehensive psycho-therapy program.

 

Haven't been following too precisely, but for now, I think I should say I don't really believe anger management problems are overly independent from actual violence. Anger per se doesn't have to lead to lack of control over it... for example I can be bloody pissed (and you don't want to be on the receiving end of it) but I still wouldn't hit people, let alone damage inanimate objects.