Do you feel one group is more emotional? And is the belief that women are more emotional spread by men?
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
Both are emotional in different ways.
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.
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
Many men seem to forget that anger is an emotion.
Removed by mod
Putting a smile after your comment doesn’t make it less hostile. Please don’t treat members unkindly, and please don’t put me in the position that I have to ban you.
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?
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.
Well this thread ended up being a mess of biological and gender essentialism and assumptions. Be careful in here folks.
Oh fuck you for having a gender maybe.
Haha, what?
Yeah that’s what i wonder every time i think about it too.
Were you insulting us or something else? We aren’t sure what you meant.
Sorry no i was being a sleep deprived chaos edgelord. Literally nonsense.
Okidoke.
More emotional? No. Men and women both are creatures of emotional complexity.
More violent in their emotions? Hell, yes. Men, hands-down.
My gf begs to differ. Pmdd is insane
Yep! A woman’s bad day could cause disruption. A man’s bad day could lead to people dying. Oversimplification obviously.
This also might have less to do with the conception of violence within the mind of a person having a “bad day” and the ability of that person to carry out vilolence in a way that effects more people: ie physical strength and an interest and availability of weapons.
Much of it is, yes, ability to commit the violence. It leads to a feedback effect. Men can commit violence more easily with less harm, so they do. The act of doing it validates it so they do it again. This becomes encoded as "manly’ behaviour in society so now it’s expected. When it’s expected, it leads to more such violent expression and the feedback loop continues.
It’s really eye-opening, incidentally, to live in a country with different markers of masculinity that are culturally enforced. You don’t get a lot of wall punching here, for example. Shouting, sure. But not physical displays. Because physical displays of anger, etc. are frowned upon and get you shunned.
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.
Perfect explanation that doesn’t just blame or diminish one side or the other
Yep, men are assertive women are bitches. And you’re right, men are expected to smother emotions that aren’t “manly”
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
Have there been any studies showing if that is due to biological/hormonal differences or just societal norms?
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 🙂.
This is a very messed up view.
How so? It’s just mentioning their observations about common societal expectations, how society often treats people, and what behavior is accepted or not, all based off of someone’s perceived gender, and then how that ends up affecting people. I’m curious what your issues with the comment are.
*Edit: or did you mean that the phenomenons that the comment describes are the messed up views? Maybe I misunderstood your comment.
We will respond to the comment directly with our issues with it since that is easier on an app.
That is a very ambiguous criticism — view of poster or view of society?
We have responded to the original post in this thread with our views.
Women mature earlier
is this actually true, or are women and girls expected to be mature earlier? and therefore forced to be?
iirc the onset of puberty happens earlier but the rest is 100% societal expectation
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.
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.
Please read testosterone rex and delusions of gender both by Cordelia Fine to see that biological essentialism, especially about sex hormones, is often bunk.
I appreciate the suggestion. I’m familiar with these books. Imo, they both jump to conclusions about the large grey areas between what is and isn’t bunk when it comes to sex hormones rather than admit we scientifically have no solid answers about those questions and are still looking.
I encourage you to have a good talk with any trans person that has transitioned. Their very valid and common experiences taking these hormones to transition heavily suggest otherwise.
As all it takes is those hormones, and your physical biology will change with them. (Men will grow breasts, and Women facial hair.) Which means unquestionably, that these hormones are tied to our biological sex, and likely the behaviour associated with it, seeing as our bodies have the flexibility to easily become the other gender with them.
I enourage you to have a good talk with any trans person who has transitioned.
We are trans and have transitioned on hormones (estrogen etc) and still hold the same views as what happened for us was not the hormones that made us less angry etc but more acceptance and understanding from both others and ourselves. We can still be very angry about certain things and express that in many ways but it is much less likely now because we learned the tools in order to deal with those things from partners, therapists etc in healthy ways, not because of hormones. We felt like we were allowed to cry etc.
Edit: You seem to be using very terfy/biologically essentialist talking points in other ways in saying that trans men are women and trans women are men and that those are the only sexes/genders that exist. Please do not do this as it is incorrect and comes across as transphobic and anti-science.
I am in no way a biological essentialist and am using simpler terms people are more familiar with to make my point.
I find it rather insulting that you would come to this conclusion after I readily explained how little our biology determines our identity, and how it can quite literally be changed through hormones, specifically:
End of my last comment:
… all it takes is those hormones, and your physical biology will change with them… our bodies have the flexibility to easily become the other gender…
How could that possibly come across as Terfy?
We are literally agreeing with each other about the trans experience too:
… what happened for us was not the hormones that made us less angry etc but more acceptance and understanding from both others and ourselves. We can still be very angry… but it is much less likely now…
That is, you admit there has been a change in the frequency of your anger after transitioning, correct?
To be very clear: I’m not at all doubting the roles that acceptance, understanding, a good partner, therapists, and more have in regulating our emotions, or the extreme effort you have put into doing the same for yourself.
I’m simply saying: it is possible these hormones also contribute to our emotional state, specifically amplifying the emotions you already have as a person - rather than not affecting our emotional state at all as concluded by the books you mention.
Books, specifically, that actual Terfs OFTEN misquote to jump to a black and white conclusion about gender and hormones.
https://trans-express.lgbt/post/185913420710/on-how-terfs-misrepresent-science-and-feminism
Bookmark this article and refer to it the next time a TERF stars using… Cordelia Fine… to invalidate trans people.
Which is, admittedly, what I felt you were doing in your first comment. Specifically, in how you implied there’s no grey area left in science that’s still determining the influences our hormones have over our emotions.
Which, as of 2024, is starting to look unquestionably real:
https://www.broadwayclinic.com/article/how-are-mind-hormones-linked-to-emotional-shifts
Hormonal fluctuations significantly influence mood, particularly with reproductive hormones at various life stages. Recognizing these patterns can be the first step toward managing mood more effectively.
Which is exactly what I’ve previously stated.
I have several people in my life that have likewise transitioned. I even know of someone that was born intersex, and transitioned to female in their late 20’s.
Conversations with them have been enlightening, as most agree that hormones are at least a PART of the reason they too felt better about their emotional states after transitioning. To quote one in particular, “Anger juice (T) is no longer the only fuel this body takes.”
By the same token, some women are very influenced by their cycles - or at least like to blame a bad attitude on such - which is often used to play up the “unpredictable/emotional narrative”.
Downplaying or excusing bad behaviour as “just that time of month” also puts women in a bag light overall. For a semi-predictable event, knowing how to manage the influence of ones own biochemical factors should be part of personal responsibility, not an excuse. From the side of male partners in that equation, providing some comfort - whether it be prepping a hot water bottle, picking up stuff to help regulate cycle pain - and maybe expecting to pick up a bit of extra slack on chores a few days a month can also be part of a healthy relationship, but walking on eggshells for several days a months is not.
I’m living with an eggshell gf and it’s an insane emotional rollercoaster every monthly cycle , i want out but she’s so good to me when she’s not hormonal…
It’s not so much managing the influence of one’s own biochemical factors, but their consequences.
We absolutley have no control over these hormones releasing in our body, and by what amount (unless prescribed as an Rx).
All we can do is tolerate the feelings we get from them, and eventually, through exposure, understand that we’re being controlled by them.
The example you provided is valid, but I would debate the conclusion you are drawing from it.
Woman absolutley have an increase in certain sex hormones hitting them once a month, but they have no control over the amount or frequency. All they can do is bear with it, including cramps, and grow to understand their behaviour is being influenced by the chemically enhanced emotions they’re now experiencing.
I’m not a fan of being in constant pain, so having to experience intense amounts of it in my lower abdomen once a month would certainly make me irratable at that time. Hormones or otherwise.
The ability one has to identify WHEN their emotions are being influenced by these chemicals is what gives us any power over them. Regardless of sex, our worst behaviors often happen when we haven’t realized we’re currently emotionally compromised by these chemicals.
I’ve seen a man get pissed off at a small rock he stumbled over, then kick it, break his toe, and proceed to harrass the strangers trying to help him. All because he was hungry, which can trigger the release of testosterone.
He didn’t know he was emotionally compromised. And lacked the ability to recognize it in time before breaking his toe.
Very similar anecdotes certainly exist between both sexes.
Which to me implies a universal struggle for us to understand our bodies well enough to know when we’re being emotionally influenced by them regardless of our sex.
I’ve never heard of the hungry=testosterone thing before but that’s really interesting. It kinda puts a new spin on those old “you’re not yourself when you’re
hungryfull of triggering hormones” commercials.Also, totally agree that it’s not about “controlling” the chemicals as recognising and mitigating their influence over decisions (easier said than done, I know) or possibly preparing for them ahead of time to the extent that’s possible. Maybe Snickers really did have it right… at least for guys :-)
That’s hilarious about Snickers, and very well said! :)
There’s been a lot of very interesting studies that have been done in the last 5 years or so about how our bodies more essential functions have odd ties to our hormone levels. Imo, It’s fascinating to say the least.
For example: one of the more interesting ones I’ve looked at involved a study of young men that proved a strong correlation between low testosterone and eating disorders.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32643144/
Consistent with animal data and prior research in adolescent boys, men with lower testosterone reported significantly higher levels of dysregulated eating symptoms even after controlling for depressive symptoms, body mass index, and age.
Overall, these scientists further studies are now somewhat suggesting there’s a “sweet spot” for the amount of testosterone flowing in males that would make it easier for them to regulate good eating habits.
In turn, this implies some new opportunities to explore treating eating disorders with low dose hormones. (At least in males).
Which is a very long way for me to make the joke that scientifically, you COULD make the argument that “Snickers satisfies” the hunger Testosterone creates. ;)
Both sexs sre overly emotional
It’s just that they are fundamentally different emotions that they allow to control them
It’s just that
they are fundamentallysociety encourages/discourages different emotionsthat they allowto control themYou may have been the boy made fun of for crying, who only got respect by reacting aggressively. Or you’ve been the angry girl who repeatedly got told, “you’re so cute when you’re mad,” but whose bullies went silent once tears started to fall. Either way, the same emotions happen for all of us. It’s just that as we grow up, boys are socially conditioned to respond with anger while girls are socially conditioned to respond with sadness, and we’re each expected to suppress the opposite emotion.
This dichotomy is not fundamental to the sexes in the slightest.
The only thing fundamentally different about men’s and women’s emotions are how we’ve been conditioned to present them.
The idea that men have fundamentally different emotions is part of what fuels the male loneliness epidemic. Men are not any less in need of emotional support then women are, women are just socially conditioned from a young age that it is okay to give and receive it.
If you are a man, when was the last time you felt like you could talk about your feelings without being judged for it?
If a man wants to grieve, but is only taught that it is okay to show anger, then that is all that we will see no matter deeply in grief he may be. How one presents their emotions is not always how they feel, much like in autistic people.
Who is that punches walls? Not women.
Thanks for reminding me, gotta go punch my daily walls!
