Do you feel one group is more emotional? And is the belief that women are more emotional spread by men?
Many men seem to forget that anger is an emotion.
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2025
535 points (100.0% liked)
WomensStuff
375 readers
240 users here now
Women only trans inclusive This is an inclusive community for all things women. Whether you're here for make up tips, feminism or just friendly chit chat, we've got you covered.
Rules…
- Women only… trans women are women, and transphobic or gender critical talk isn’t allowed. Anyone under the trans umbrella (e.g. non-binary, bigender, agender) is free to decide whether a women's community is a good fit for them.
- Don’t be a dick. No personal attacks, no aggression, play nice.
- Don’t hate on groups, hatefilled talk about groups is not allowed. Ever.
- No governmental politics, so no talk of Trump actions etc. We recommend Feminism@beehaw.org for that, but here is an escape from it.
- New accounts or users with few comments may have their posts removed to prevent spam and bad-faith participation.
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
I believe we have the same emotions, but men and women deal with them differently. Also physically there are difference in hormones that are present. Men don't have periods etc.
Being "emotional" is just being immature about how you handle your emotions, which all genders are equally capable of.
Though currently, traditional masculinity teaches ineffective ways of dealing with emotion, that make men appear "less emotional" while not actually helping them.
Any man who respects himself should learn how to properly manage their emotions, by starting with accepting instead of denying them.
It should be expected of any good person to fight to break through the cage their assigned gender has built around them, or any other societal cages they find themselves within.
We are humans, so the "men/women are more emotional" view can go to hell. And since mysogynism does exist, this view can spread by any uneducated fool of any gender, and often is
Both are emotional in different ways.
More emotional? No. Men and women both are creatures of emotional complexity.
More violent in their emotions? Hell, yes. Men, hands-down.
Yep! A woman's bad day could cause disruption. A man's bad day could lead to people dying. Oversimplification obviously.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I think the main difference is in how men and women express their emotions, and to whom.
Go on...
Well, I really do believe men are often encouraged to suppress emotions of sadness, loneliness, and vulnerability, and women are more likely to receive support from both genders for expressing the same emotions.
I also believe women are judged more harshly in professional and public settings for being assertive and confrontational even when it’s justified. These emotions, along with signs of aggression, are tolerated more coming from men.
I try not to make such generalizations, especially since people’s culture and upbringing also play a large role in how they manage and display emotions, but those are the two I have observed most often.
Women are allowed to express "weak" emotions: heartbroken, lonely, ashamed, anxious, panicked, etc. Women are also encouraged to work through their emotions and understand them. If women express emotions that can be associated with strength, they can be seen as not womanly enough: too much confidence is manly. Too brave is manly. Too proud is manly.
Men are allowed to express emotions of strength. Too much might be rude or classless, but there's no issue with it not being manly. OTOH, too much of the emotions of "weakness" and it's womanly.
I think men are seen as being less emotional because it's "manly" to suppress both "strong" and "weak" emotions. Athletes are given some of the most leeway in how they're allowed to act, but a male athlete who cries after losing is often seen as weak. One who celebrates a win too strongly is seen as a bad winner. Compare that to a lawyer who isn't really allowed to be sad after a loss or too proud of a win.
Women are expected to tone down certain "strong" emotions, but encouraged to display and talk about most other ones. Nobody would expect a women's team who lost the world cup final to be stoic. Crying is not only permitted, it's expected. But, if a female athlete goes too far in celebrating or taunting it's unusual at a minimum.
I suspect that men and women experience emotions similarly. But, I think male emotion is probably more destructive because men aren't encouraged to find healthy ways to express normal emotions.
We are all expected to behave like Jeff Bezos warehouse robots anyway. Society does not want people, it wants bots that work.
We are just an (in)convenience until AI replaces us.
Yep, men are assertive women are bitches. And you're right, men are expected to smother emotions that aren't "manly"
load more comments
(1 replies)
I think it’s accurate to say that most women express emotions more frequently, which is healthier, whilst men are more likely to bottle up emotions and thus have more noticeable and chaotic outbursts.
Of course, neither of these are hard rules, but they are observable societal norms
load more comments
(2 replies)
Well this thread ended up being a mess of biological and gender essentialism and assumptions. Be careful in here folks.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Men are what happens when you indulge tantrums. Women mature earlier, so there's this really early period when boys are behind. The boys get mollycoddled, the girls are shamed and belittled, the boys get used to having thumbs on the scale in their favor, and to being defensive. The girls are conditioned to modify their behavior for the benefit of others. I think this is a very key building block for the larger prejudices in society later in life.
Men are what happens when you indulge tantrums.
We disagree, instead we understand that it's what happens when you emotionally suppress somebody, when you teach them that genuine regular and healthy emotional expression is bad and thus they learn that they must suppress it all until they explode.
Women mature earlier
This is an often given idea but it's not inherent to women and it's kind of messed up that this is often seen as a good thing since it can be through very dire circumstances which they are forced to, and/or it's just society conditioning them to, it's not necessarily an inherent biological truth or anything like that.
The boys get mollycoddled, the girls get shamed and belittled.
Whilst we agree that there are a lot of ways children assigned different genders at birth are treated we wouldn't say looking after children's emotional needs is bad and there is a fine line between 'mollycoddling' and actually looking after children as they need to be. It just feels dangerous to us as seems to be being suggested here that it's okay to not look after children's emotional needs as that is what causes dysfunctional and unhealthy teenagers and adults more often than not. We do completely disagree with shaming and belittling children at all, to be clear.
Yes, the way we treat and train different people of different actual or assumed genders is extremely messed up, but we must be careful in our analysis of what is actually going on rather than looking to some, if not all, outdated or not well understood stereotypes or ideas about people, biology, sex, gender and society.
[Sincere] We hope this clears up our thoughts and viewpoints and we hope you are well 🙂.
Women mature earlier
is this actually true, or are women and girls expected to be mature earlier? and therefore forced to be?
load more comments
(1 replies)
I read an interesting book called “How Emotions are Made” by Lisa Barrett which talks about how emotions are created by the brain - they’re not things you have; they’re things you make and they’re influenced by culture, your past experiences, and what your body is experiencing right now.
There was a few key takeaways (this is generated by GPT bc it does a better job at summarising).
Core Argument: Barrett argues that emotions are not hardwired, universal reactions to the world. Instead, they are constructed by our brains, much like perceptions or thoughts.
Key Concepts:
- The Classical View vs. The Theory of Constructed Emotion
- Classical View: Emotions like anger, fear, sadness, etc., are innate, universal, and triggered automatically by specific stimuli.
- Barrett’s Theory: Emotions are not universal biological responses, but rather concepts constructed by the brain using past experiences, cultural knowledge, and context.
- The Brain Predicts, Not Reacts
- The brain is a prediction machine, constantly guessing what will happen next based on past experiences.
- Emotions are predictions your brain makes to make sense of bodily sensations in context.
- Concepts and Language Shape Emotion
- We learn emotional concepts from our environment, especially through language.
- Your culture gives you the emotional categories that your brain uses to construct experiences (e.g., some cultures have words for emotions we don’t name in English).
- What people feel and how they express emotions is shaped more by gender norms and socialization than by biological sex. For example: Women are often encouraged to express vulnerability or sadness. Men are often encouraged to express anger but discouraged from showing fear or sadness.
- These differences are learned, not biologically programmed.
- Emotions are not hardwired or universal
- There is no specific brain region for each emotion.
- Physiological responses (like heart rate) vary widely even within the same emotion category.
- Interoception: The Basis of Emotion
- Emotions begin with interoception—your brain’s perception of internal bodily states (like hunger, fatigue, or arousal).
- Your brain interprets these signals based on context and past experience and labels them as an emotion.
Practical Takeaways:
- You can reshape your emotional experiences by:
- Learning new emotion concepts.
- Becoming more aware of your bodily sensations (interoception).
- Expanding your emotional vocabulary (“emotional granularity”).
- Emotional intelligence involves managing predictions, not just reactions.
Barrett’s theory reframes emotion as a highly individual and cultural phenomenon, shaped by your brain’s predictions, concepts, and social context—not a universal biological blueprint.
—
I went down a whole rabbit whole of “your brain is a prediction machine” after this and it was super cool.
I think there's a big difference between conscious perception of one's emotions and one's actual emotional state. How emotions are processed, expressed, and understood are very culturally influenced. But idk that you can socialize people to feel or not feel particular emotions. Like, if emotions were cultural, and men are socialized against sadness or fear, then does that mean that men don't feel those things? Or is it that they do feel those emotions, but are either consciously unaware of them, or try to suppress them or express them in a culturally acceptable way?
For example, judges are more likely to pass harsh sentences just before lunch, when they're most hungry. I don't think that's learned behavior, and I would expect the trend to cut across culture, in many times and places.
Or is it that they do feel those emotions, but are either consciously unaware of them, or try to suppress them or express them in a culturally acceptable way?
That’s it exactly I think. There’s no difference between genders as to how the brain creates these emotions, but the expression of them is culturally learned. It’s been a while since I read the book so I hope I’ve got that right.
Very good points. Furthermore, if men are socialized against fear or sadness but in favour of anger and if emotions are not universal then shouldn’t there be examples of the opposite? Are there cultures where men are socialized to express vulnerability and women socialized to express anger?
I think Italy is a good example - men and women are both socialised to express their emotions more naturally than other countries.
Maybe subcultures?
I'd say, e.g. Maggie Thatcher, plus many other women I've worked with in positions of power in govt or civil service seem to me to have (or fake?) similar behaviors to men in the same positions.
Its very possible that the business leaders thing is just a selection effect. Those traits exist in some men and some women and those people are likely to select into those roles. But then I think these subcultures may reward and reinforce traits in the long run.
It'd be interesting to hear the experience of say women in traditionally male dominated roles like the army. Or men who work in the traditionally female dominated roles roles like nursing or childcare.
There must be some twin-studies on this type of thing.
I think the difference is actually between how each sex biologically regulates emotion.
We're essentially the same, the only difference being a tweak of brain chemistry and hormones.
Most of those differences affect mostly how and when we feel emotions.
So while there certainly are differences, we both feel the same feelings. It's just when we feel them, and the frequency in which we feel them, that differs.
For example: Men biologically produce more testosterone. So its much more likely they'll have quick tempers, constant arousal, and aggresive competition as a result. While these emotions are difficult to regulate, which is very commonly seen in young males, the persistent exposure to testosterone does eventually lead to better control over the emotions it amplifies. (Assuming these males are aging in a healthy environment).
Women, unquestionably, can have these same exact emotions. However, due to the lower levels of testosterone, the frequency in which these emotions are experienced are far less than men. Which means over time, these emotions are less likely to be easily regulated, simply because the chemicals that produce them aren't as persistently experienced.
That is, an older male in a frustrating situation is less likely to get angry simply because they've been getting angry their whole life and know how to better bury their anger because of it. While older females may not have experienced anger / testosterone as much, so in frustrating situations don't have the experience needed to know how to regulate their temper better.
Imo, this is why we have the term "Karen" with no male equivalent.
For biological women, they produce more estrogen (and some other cool shit) which is why they tend to have more friends (it's the social hormone), express sadness easier, and also nest-build / want to have children.
Likewise they become experts at these emotions as they age, but get tortured as young teens who have to feel these extreme things for the first time.
Men, likewise feel these emotions, but since it's far less frequent, also have issues controlling them. That's why men have less friends, fear crying in front of people, and take so long to know if they want kids.
They feel the same emotions, but far less frequently so they have no idea how to regulate them. Men treat their sadness like anger, bury it, then want their GF to also be their psychiatrist since they have no clue what to do with those feelings they bury.
Imo, that's why the trope of the insecure male seeking lover / therapist exists as well.
That's all to say, we feel the same things. Just in different amounts at different times. Depending on when you look, either sex could be viewed as "more emotional. "
(Assuming these males are aging in a healthy environment).
That's a pretty big assumption, isn't it? Maybe in a Star Trek utopia, what you're saying would be accurate, but in the present day I think most men are growing up in an unhealthy environment.
Imo, this is why we have the term “Karen” with no male equivalent.
The term "Karen" is a product of modern day socioeconomic conditions, it's not an innate biological quality. The term was coined to refer specifically to middle-class white women treating service workers badly. This is a learned behavior that comes from privilege and a general lack of empathy, or seeing the target as human, which exists in more subtle ways even when they haven't lost control of their temper. I don't think "being a Karen" necessarily means losing one's temper, it's more about acting in an entitled way.
For your overall point that exposure to an emotion makes it easier to control, I don't think it holds up. Statistically, men are much more likely to commit acts of violence, whereas your theory would seem to suggest that older women are more likely to. I think it's just as likely that a high degree of exposure to a particular emotion will be buried or suppressed in an unhealthy way, leading to outbursts.
That's a pretty big assumption, isn't it?
No bigger than the one you're making to the contrary:
I think most men are growing up in an unhealthy environment.
We'll have to agree to disagree. Unless you want to quantify what a healthy environment is, or provide meaningful research that suggests you're right here, I'm unwilling to do either for you. I'm not going to believe you're right just because you say you are, and you clearly feel the same.
The term "Karen" is a product of modern day socioeconomic conditions...
Agreed.
However, I disagree about it not involving anger. Yes, absolutley they act in an entitled way. But that entitlement is very often expressed through clearly angry or upset behaviors. Specifically: frustration / violence / "I wanna speak to your manager" verbal harassment.
In all seriousness, could you provide an anecdote, even a made up one, where someone gets called a "Karen" yet their behaviour doesn't involve frustration / anger / verbal harassment?
I honestly cannot imagine one in which that person would be called a Karen, and not simply entitled. (However, I admit I very much could be wrong here.)
For your overall point that exposure to an emotion makes it easier to control, I don't think it holds up. Statistically, men are much more likely to commit acts of violence...
You do realize if I'm wrong about that, it would be ALL men who commit acts of violence right?
What, in your opinion, is the difference that seperates violent and non-violent men if not the development of the capacity to emotionally regulate themselves better over time?
It has to be something, so if not that what is it?
The higher frequency of violence in men is actually more proof I'm right. Because that violence could be a result of those who haven't learned to well manage the amplified feelings their testosterone generates. As men, they have T, but getting used to what that does to you after puberty isn't easy. Those that adapt, cause no violence, those that struggle with it, do. Overall, the average rate of violence increases among men, but is not seen in all of them. Which is what's observed in most studies as you've said.
I think it's just as likely that a high degree of exposure to a particular emotion will be buried or suppressed in an unhealthy way, leading to outbursts.
This is very much a big part of the point I'm making too.
When first experiencing emotions that are intensely enhanced by sex hormones, people get easily overwhelmed. They don't know how to stop those feelings from happening, so some end up burying them.
Doing so, PREVENTS those emotions from actually being felt or experienced. So the longer those go bottled up, the more explosive it becomes because the emotion has now compounded in its intensity, and the person who bottled it still has little to no experience or knowledge in which to handle it.
To be clear, running from or bottling emotions is not the same as experiencing them. And it's certainly not the same as experiencing them frequently.
Those that FREQUENTLY experience the same intense emotions, eventually, have no need to bottle them. They understand what it feels like to be intensely sad, angry, etc and will not be afraid of that experience or lack the tools to well manage it. They learn, over time, to work with those feelings rather than against them.
Basically, the intensity of an emotion matters, but so does the frequency in which it is felt.
For example: If you are frequently, once a month, feeling amplified saddness due to your own hormones (NOT Depression, that's entirely different) you probably have a damn good way of regulating that feeling so you can continue to function when you feel it.
In this example, there was likely a time that sadness was bottled, but because it was unavoidably happening once a month, over time, the use of bottling it becomes pointless. You quite literally get used to it, and learn to live with it. Bottling it is just a step on that journey.
For an emotion like sadness, that journey is much slower for men because they aren't exposed to it as frequently as someone with sadness as a period symptom once a month.
This form of emotional adaptation is also looking pretty scientifically solid these days:
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2023-25436-001
... the emotions are often misunderstood as entailing inflexibility and invariance. [There is] convergent empirical and theoretical work indicating that emotion adaptations calibrate to particularities of the situation, the self, and the socioecological environment.
We’ll have to agree to disagree.
I'm not going to "agree to disagree" on this any more than I'd "agree to disagree" on any other well-known facts. Here's the APA:
The APA defines traditional masculinity as “a particular constellation of standards that have held sway over large segments of the population, including: anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence.” The guidelines, which were highlighted in the January issue of the APA's Monitor on Psychology magazine, say the pressure boys and men feel to conform to certain aspects of traditional masculinity can lead to poor health outcomes, including higher rates of suicide, substance abuse, violence and early death.
In all seriousness, could you provide an anecdote, even a made up one, where someone gets called a “Karen” yet their behaviour doesn’t involve frustration / anger / verbal harassment?
You've moved the goalposts. You were claiming that women are more prone to outbursts of anger specifically, because of being less used to testosterone. Now you're adding "frustration" and "verbal abuse," which aren't inherently linked to testosterone. Let's stick to anger, shall we?
With that in mind, here is one of the prime examples that I remember being used for an example of a "Karen." She's not expressing anger, she is expressing distress (played up on the phone), but it's primarily about exercising her privilege against a minority, weaponizing the police to win an argument. That's 100% Karen behavior.
You do realize if I’m wrong about that, it would be ALL men who commit acts of violence right?
That's completely idiotic, no. Your claim is that exposure to testosterone makes men less prone to angry outbursts generally speaking compared to women. For that to be wrong would not require every single man to be prone to angry outbursts, let alone acts of violence. It would only require them to be more prone to those things relative to women, which they are, objectively.
The higher frequency of violence in men is actually more proof I’m right.
How fascinating. It seems that no matter what evidence actually exists out in the world, you're able to twist it around to support your conclusions. There should be a word for ideas like yours that are so obviously true, may I suggest the word, "unfalsifiable?"
To be clear, running from or bottling emotions is not the same as experiencing them. And it’s certainly not the same as experiencing them frequently.
You've played a very interesting trick of language in this section. Your argument rests on the fact that testosterone makes men more prone to feelings of anger, that is, to make them "experience" anger, but then you say that those who bottle up anger or react to it in unhealthy ways are not actually "experiencing" anger. This would imply that you think that testoterone doesn't merely cause the physiological symptoms that make people more prone to anger, but also inherently, biologically, causes men to respond to those symptoms in psychologically healthy ways. This of course contradicts your whole argument that it's necessary to learn through practice how to handle those emotions.
If "experiencing" anger means not only experiencing the symptoms, but also handling them in a healthy way and not bottling them up, then testosterone doesn't make people "experience" anger (only because you've redefined the word "experience" in a nonsensical way). If "experiencing" anger means feeling the symptoms of anger, regardless of whether it's handled in a healthy or unhealthy way, then what you're saying in this section is all nonsense. You can choose whatever definition you prefer, but you can't switch back and forth.
This form of emotional adaptation is also scientifically proven:
The paper you linked is very tangentially related to your point. Yes, people adapt emotionally to their environments. That has very little with your bizzare claim that men are less prone to angry outbursts or acts of violence than women because of biology.
The APA defines traditional masculinity as “a particular constellation of standards that have held sway over large segments of the population.
That is a definition from an academic journal you are clearly taking out of context. It is not an actual study, experiment, or metric.
Nothing in your link confirms the AMOUNT of men being raised in poor conditions.
It is simply about "large segments" of men being exposed to negative portrayals of masculinity.
Specifically this exposure is defined as what's seen in social media, films, television, ads, podcasts etc.
It is NOT, in any way:
- Specifying this exposure as being a major part of men's families.
- Specifiying this exposure as being a major part of men's upbringing.
- Specifiying that men are only affected negatively by this exposure.
These are all ASUMPTIONS you are making.
This article quotes ZERO studies reaching these conclusions.
You are treating the amount of "traditional masculinity" exposure in social media, as if it is a ready part of the majority of young men's upbringing that's already affecting them negatively.
As a logical comparison, if this article was defining "traditional masculinity" as something like a billboard with Joe Rogan advertising McDonald's, you are coming to the conclusion that the majority of young mens families are shoving Big Macs into their mouth.
That's not what this article is saying at all.
You are even avoiding the clarifying statements in this link to reach the wrong conclusion. From your link:
...What the APA report seeks to address is male suffering, of which experts say there is no shortage..." We often talk about gender in terms of women ... getting the short end of the stick. ... Well, masculinity isn't easy either," Jennifer Carlson, a sociology professor at the University of Arizona... "It isn't easy to be a man in the United States. Demands put on men — whether it's to be the protector, to be the provider, to respond to situations in certain ways, to prove yourself as a man — end up being not just outwardly destructive but also inwardly destructive."
So, literally, traditional masculinity is bad, and it's destroying men. NOT traditional masculinity is being forced onto the majority of young men. It is just a big part of current media, and that's affecting men poorly.
Also from your article:
The APA guidelines stress that psychologists must confront their own biases about masculinity, and encourages them to: Promote healthy intimate relationships among boys and men. Address issues of male privilege and power. Promote healthy father involvement. Strive to understand the factors that lead to male aggression and violence.
That is certainly what I've been striving to look for in this thread. The encouragement this article provides in searching for such an answer is absoule proof that it has not been provided yet, especially from this article.
You have made incredible leaps of logic not at all supported by the link you provided.
You've moved the goalposts.
I have not, in anyway, moved the goalposts.
I used basic logic, specifically the process of elimination to point towards a clear result:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_of_elimination
Process of elimination is a logical method to identify an entity of interest among several ones by excluding all other entities.
I did this, specifically, to avoid the pedantic argument it looked like you wanted to start, and now are very clearly continuing.
She's not expressing anger, she is expressing distress...
Specifically, this is pedantic.
You aren't allowing for the individual interpretation of her behavior in this video to be anything but distress. Based entirely on your own observation that it is distress. I, and a bunch of others could very easily interpret her behaviour differently.
Which is all pedantic, because it doesn't matter.
"Distress" is just as much of a negative-stress response as anger.
https://dictionary.apa.org/distress
... a negative stress response, often involving negative affect and physiological reactivity: a type of stress that results from being overwhelmed by demands, losses, or perceived threats.
Quite literally, you are trying to argue that distress and anger are different emotions, despite both of them coming from the same place.
You are basically saying that Pepsi isn't cola flavored because the can it comes in doesn't look like Coke.
It's still cola. You are just trying to redefine what that is.
So, even if this person is feeling distress in this video, it doesn't really prove she's managing negative stress well. It just proves, only to you, that she isn't "angry."
Which makes you appear right, but does absolutley nothing to further this conversation.
Which is why you then chose to avoid all the questions I asked as if they didn't matter. Specifically:
Whats the difference between men who are violent and men who aren't?
ALL men are exposed to testosterone. SOME men cause more violence.
ALL does NOT = SOME.
But you very much seem to not understand this when you insist:
It would only require [men] to be more prone to [violence] relative to women, which they are, objectively.
If they ALL have TESTOSTERONE. They would ALL be violent. They aren't. You even acknowledge this by saying "more prone" to violence relative to women. What you don't acknowledge is that:
Not ALL men are violent. OBJECTIVELY. Do you agree?
Unless you want to admit to being bigoted. The answer is no.
You've already twisted facts to favor a world view that you've only assumed to exist. In addition to the pedantic nature of your critique, I don't feel this conversation is worth continuing unless I know I'm talking to someone who rationally wants to stay on topic more than get on a Soap box for attention.
Not ALL men are violent. OBJECTIVELY. Do you agree?
What an idiotic, rambling comment. You ignore basically everything I said and latched on to a couple random pedantic points, while accusing me of being pedantic.
Quite literally, you are trying to argue that distress and anger are different emotions, despite both of them coming from the same place.
You are basically saying that Pepsi isn’t cola flavored because the can it comes in doesn’t look like Coke.
Except the distinction does matter, because testesterone is connected specifically to anger and not to general "distress." Women are just as likely to experience feelings of distress as men, that means that there's a significant difference in the context of this discussion between the two.
Not ALL men are violent. OBJECTIVELY. Do you agree?
Of course. At NO point did I ever claim otherwise. What I have claimed is that, generally, statistically men are more prone to violence, which is just as objectively true as the fact that not all men are violent, despite your claims to the contrary.
they ALL have TESTOSTERONE. They would ALL be violent.
This is complete nonsense. Testosterone only makes people more prone to violence, generally, statistically, it doesn't make every single person violent.
This is a ridiculous strawman that you've constructed to divert the course of the conversation into utter nonsense. It has nothing to do with anything I said.
This is about the response I expected.
Nothing I said was idiotic. If anything, it was oversimplified. I even provided analogies.
But like I said, your overreaction was expected. It is the common behaviour of people who prefer avoiding hard questions instead of considering answers they don't like.
It's hard to admit you're possibly wrong. A "traditionally masculine" behaviour you keep providing great examples of. Quite to the contrary of your own conclusions.
Thank you for clarifying that this conversation is exclusively about your opinion, not the clear facts outside them you keep ignoring willingly.
You can have the conversation with yourself from here.
I just got the report now, I've permabanned them. Sorry you've faced such aggression, it's shit
Thank you! All good. Appreciate the notice, and great mod work.
Thanks mate
What "hard questions" have I avoided? I responded to everything you asked me.
It's a clear, objective fact that men are, statistically, more prone to violence than women. That means that you are, objectively, wrong. There's no reason for me to "admit that I'm wrong" when the facts and evidence are clearly on my side, lol.
What "hard questions" have I avoided?
How about answering the following question first to prove you actually intend to answer what you've avoided:
- Do you think vaccines cause Autism?
I'll bet you do.
It's the same identically flawed reasoning you're using for men and testosterone.
Specifically:
- People who are vaccinated are more PrOnE to Autism!
- Men with testosterone are more PrOnE to violence!
Do you also have thought terminating memes about vaccines in that vein too? Maybe something equally sarcastic and dismissive like the Kool Aid man bursting through a wall saying "NoT aLL VaXxED haVe Autism!"
Do you think everyone who got the COVID vaccine is also prone to death too?
What you are completely failing to grasp is what "prone to" means in an analytical and scientific context. And through that failure of comprehension you are driving through a dump truck of bullshit trying to convince me it's fertilizer.
With that context, here's the "hard question" you keep avoiding (this is the third time I've asked):
What is the difference between men who are violent and men who are not?
This is the same as if I were to ask:
What is the difference between those who are vaccinated, and those who are vaccinated and have autism?
These are the questions that actually get us meaningful answers in science. You shouldn't be avoiding them.
I've provided my hypothetical answer to this question, specifically, that men can adapt to managing their increased emotions from testosterone over time - and I supported it with a study you dismissed due to poor reading comprehension or malice.
You have provided no answer, and have only avoided this question as if it doesn't need asked. This is despite this question literally being the whole point of this conversation.
Instead, you've spent this time making it very obvious you have no interest in what I have to say. Especially when I clearly proved you are only arguing on assumptions, having interpreted the source you provided wildly out of context.
You dismissed all that as "rambling and illogical" because you can't admit to being wrong - that you clearly came to the wrong conclusion from your source.
So now you are pretending to need help seeing these questions and details despite how you've been ignoring them due to your own insecurities in the first place.
I fully expect you'll ignore these two questions further, and asked them simply to prove that assumption right.
The question you asked me before, multiple times, was "Do you believe all men are violent?" Which I answered. I will now promptly answer every single question you asked.
Do you think vaccines cause Autism?
No, obviously. Irrelevant nonsense.
Do you also have thought terminating memes about vaccines in that vein too?
No, and that logic is complete nonsense. Vaccines do not make people more prone to autism. Do you think they do?
Do you think everyone who got the COVID vaccine is also prone to death too?
No, of course not. This is all coming out of nowhere.
What is the difference between men who are violent and men who are not?
There isn't a singular difference. Some men are more violent than others because of the conditions they're born into, or the way they were raised, or different reactions and ways of handling testosterone (as you suggested). This question is largely unconnected from the point I've disputed, which is your claim that men are generally less prone to violence than women.
What is the difference between those who are vaccinated, and those who are vaccinated and have autism?
The ones who are vaccinated and have autism happen to have autism. What even is this question?
There you go. I'm not interested in responding to the rest of your rambling. I asked what question I haven't answered and then answered every question you asked, if you have another question you forgot, I'll answer that too. What did I have for breakfast this morning? Do I condemn Hamas? Go for it. You can say whatever you like about me, but I'm not afraid from answering questions or engaging with hard concepts, that's just false.
I'm not afraid from answering questions or engaging with hard concepts...
You absolutley are.
You just redefine any hard concepts you encounter as rambling, then refuse to engage with it.
You even admit to this readily:
I'm not interested in responding to the rest of your rambling...
Conveniently, what you've labeled as rambling is all the comparative analysis and supporting studies I've provided that immediately prove what I'm saying as valid.
We very much could be having that conversation if you were willing to listen.
Instead, you're trying to convince yourself this conversation isn't reasonable unless we ignore everything I've said that you don't like.
Here's another question to prove my point:
- Can you explain what parts of what I'm saying is rambling to you? (Specifically, direct examples of what I've said that comes across as "confused or incoherent.")
I would very much like this list, as it's the same list of hard concepts you keep running away from.
Please read testosterone rex and delusions of gender both by Cordelia Fine to see that biological essentialism, especially about sex hormones, is often bunk.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
Women and men are probably more-or-less equally emotional, but because men are more likely to be in positions of power (for other reasons), we tend to feel their wrath more when they’re upset than we do when a woman is.
view more: next ›