# Why do I get called a misogynist for pointing out that women are more emotional?



## Quality (Nov 17, 2013)

Wonszu said:


> Because every person has a different level of those hormones which makes MOST women emotional, but some are MORE emotional and some are LESS emotional. Ask any INTJ women - they tend to be called cold just because they don't show much emotions from cultural standards. The same is with men. Some of them has less testosterone than others and some have extra amount of this hormone which leads to lanky appearance vs. macho one. In the same time guys with less testosterone are more likely to be more emotional than guys who can chew a brick for breakfast and ask for second portion because why not.
> 
> Let's add that men have estrogen too as much as women have testosteron. Ovaries and testicles produce both hormones, the only difference is that they produce much less of respective secondary hormones.



No man will ever naturally produce as much estrogen as the least feminine female out there.
No female will naturally produce as much testosterone as the lease masculine man out there.

Both genders contain both hormones, but the variation in dominance will never naturally level out. If it did, then everyone would be Hermaphrodites. No exaggeration.


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

Everyone is different, but it is true that, in general, females are more driven by emotions. It does not mean that females feel more valid emotions than men.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

Quality said:


> 100% of birth females have vaginas. 100% of birth males have penises. The male hormone 'testosterone' and the female hormone 'estrogen' are responsible for for this. They are also responsible for much of your body's appearance (secondary sex characteristics) and influence brain development. If men and women are chemically different, why do you find it unacceptable to point out individual group characteristics?


This entire thought process is generally incoherent. I'm in a rush atm, but I will come back to this, lol.


----------



## Kingdom Crusader (Jan 4, 2012)

I've had to work hard to be as emotional as I am, or at least fake it, for an ESFJ favoring society here in the US.

If only merely being a woman made things that much easier...


----------



## Quality (Nov 17, 2013)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> I would like to see one for a claim like that. If you can find one please.


If you are truly interested, you'll take the time to research it yourself. 

Exploring the antidepressant effects of testosterone -- ScienceDaily
http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/HomePage/Faculty/Josephs/pdf_documents/SellersMehlJos_JRP.pdf


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

It depends on why and how you say it. Also, I don't think women are more emotional in general, they just express their emotions more easily, and in different ways than emotional men, perhaps because of gender roles.


----------



## Wonszu (Sep 25, 2013)

Quality said:


> No man will ever naturally produce as much estrogen as the least feminine female out there.
> No female will naturally produce as much testosterone as the lease masculine man out there.
> 
> Both genders contain both hormones, but the variation in dominance will never naturally level out. If it did, then everyone would be Hermaphrodite. No exaggeration.


I never said that the levels of hormones can be equal, I said they can wary from person to person. Still you are discarding that fact and tries to generalise the problem - the fact that there are different women and different men. There is no such thing like black and white, people goes with different shades of grey. Generalising is hurtful for both women and men. It's hurtful for women because emotional = weak. For men on the other side it's hurtful because they have to wear mask of being strong and emotionless even when they need to get off with emotions. That doesn't necessarly mean that they ARE less emotional.


----------



## theft23 (Feb 10, 2014)

[No message]


----------



## Quality (Nov 17, 2013)

Ace Face said:


> This entire thought process is generally incoherent. I'm in a rush atm, but I will come back to this, lol.


Would like to see your evidence discrediting what I said. Are males born with vaginas these days?


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Quality said:


> If you are truly interested, you'll take the time to research it yourself.
> 
> Exploring the antidepressant effects of testosterone -- ScienceDaily
> http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/HomePage/Faculty/Josephs/pdf_documents/SellersMehlJos_JRP.pdf


Lol you're the one who said that claim, you should be the one to provide proof of it as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Quality said:


> Would like to see your evidence discrediting what I said. Are males born with vaginas these days?


When on earth did she say that?


----------



## Quality (Nov 17, 2013)

[No message]


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Quality said:


> I won't be responding to your replies anymore. You aren't going to deliver an intelligent argument and have no interest in learning anything from this thread. Did you read the links I posted? You requested them, I hope you read them. Do you have any interest in this topic? Your mindset seems to be one of _"Oh! I need to win this online argument"_.


Oh...alright then.


----------



## Euclid (Mar 20, 2014)

It's called ad hominem. Typically used as a last resort by people who can't think of any valid counterarguments.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Euclid said:


> It's called ad hominem. Typically used as a last resort by people who can't think of any valid counterarguments.


I merely asked for a source to back up a substantial claim. But okay if you think that, it's clear where this thread is heading. So predictable.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

So many claims and only a single link.

Yes, men and women generally have differences, both physiologically and socially conditioned. Women are generally better with emotions, multitasking, gentleness, blablabla, while men are generally more assertive and competitive, less emotional, blablabla. There are some interesting documentaries experimenting on how men and women differ when tackling different problems and so on for example.

With this said, you are probably asking for trouble if you throw around the "women are more emotional" without explaining much, since this has a general negative connotation behind this expression. It is usually assumed that this kind of argument is used to disregard women's capacity to be rational, so you might get a lot of misunderstandings if you use it in the wrong situations.


----------



## Euclid (Mar 20, 2014)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> I merely asked for a source to back up a substantial claim. But okay if you think that, it's clear where this thread is heading. So predictable.


Was responding to OP. Not you.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Testosterone makes males act quite emotionally, like when they want to fight each other, or compete even to the point where their lives are in danger, like teenage boys do.


----------



## lightsandloudnoises (Mar 16, 2014)

This has to be a troll btw, nobody is this dumb lol back away people


----------



## Quality (Nov 17, 2013)

Euclid said:


> Was responding to OP. Not you.


I posted two links for her to read. She neglected to do that because she's just looking for an online argument. Once she reads the links I posted, I'd like to have a conversation with her about what she read.


----------



## Euclid (Mar 20, 2014)

Quality said:


> I posted two links for her to read. She neglected to do that because she's just looking for an online argument. Once she reads the links I posted, I'd like to have a conversation with her about what she read.


I was responding to the title of this thread. Calling you misogynist is ad hom.


----------



## JoanCrawford (Sep 27, 2012)

Because people get upset when you generalize them. It's just not a very diplomatic thing to do.


----------



## miuliu (Nov 3, 2013)

I say things like that sometimes if in a conversation, where the topic is brought up. I just find it to be true. The only reason I get away with it, is because I'm a girl and other girls are more comfortable hearing bad things about our gender from me, than they are hearing them from guys. This is mostly because they are more emotional, so they take things personally very easily, making people become careful with the things they say around them. I on the other hand wrap it up in a pile of non-threatening or "cutesy" examples and of course, don't have a penis.

Though sometimes if I say something that goes against feminist propaganda, some girl will lash out even at me. But I end the conversation then and there by acknowledging her claim and mocking it at the same time. That makes her brain pause for a while, enough for me to get away.

But in the end, it just doesn't pay to piss of women by telling them bad things about their gender and by talking about gender differences. They feel put down by this and can't separate a generalized conversation about a group, from a conversation about themselves personally. So just keep that in mind and always take a moment to evaluate whether arguing with a woman is worth it. And if it is, evaluate whether you even know how to do it.

Also ironically enough, calling you misogynist for calling women emotional, instead of asking you to elaborate, or adding some reasonable observation to your claim, is an emotional thing to do. xD
It's an attack on you personally and it is a self defense mechanism that has no intellectual background. There, serving to protect her feelings.


----------



## Quality (Nov 17, 2013)

Red Panda said:


> Testosterone makes males act quite emotionally, like when they want to fight each other, or compete even to the point where their lives are in danger, like teenage boys do.



Yup. These are all active emotions. Males are more aggressive, males like competition, and some males like to take risks. These are qualities that can be attributed to testosterone. If you made a statement like _"males are more aggressive"_ I guarantee no one would call you a misandrist.


----------



## Quality (Nov 17, 2013)

Euclid said:


> I was responding to the title of this thread. Calling you misogynist is ad hom.


Understood. Solid point.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Quality said:


> I posted two links for her to read. She neglected to do that because she's just looking for an online argument. Once she reads the links I posted, I'd like to have a conversation with her about what she read.


Okay one: you don't know if I had read those articles or not and two: what did I say that implied that I wanted some online argument?


----------



## Quality (Nov 17, 2013)

lapa said:


> I say things like that sometimes if in a conversation, where the topic is brought up. I just find it to be true. The only reason I get away with it, is because I'm a girl and other girls are more comfortable hearing bad things about our gender from me, than they are hearing them from guys. This is mostly because they are more emotional, so they take things personally very easily, making people become careful with the things they say around them. I on the other hand wrap it up in a pile of non-threatening or "cutesy" examples and of course, don't have a penis.
> 
> Though sometimes if I say something that goes against feminist propaganda, some girl will lash out even at me. But I end the conversation then and there by acknowledging her claim and mocking it at the same time. That makes her brain pause for a while, enough for me to get away.
> 
> ...


Just by reading this post, I can guarantee you are consistently the smartest person in the room.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Because people take life way too seriously. Because people are ridiculous. Because people like to make life harder than it has to be. Because you've a ways to go in understanding that some things, just don't matter. Most women ARE more emotional than men. Some are not. However, I would argue it's the expression of emotion that differs more so than to insinuate men have no emotion.


----------



## Euclid (Mar 20, 2014)

lapa said:


> Also ironically enough, calling you misogynist for calling women emotional, instead of asking you to elaborate, or adding some reasonable observation to your claim, is an emotional thing to do. xD
> It's an attack on you personally and it is a self defense mechanism that has no intellectual background. There, serving to protect her feelings.


Precisely. Unfortunately this is a very widespread tactic among feminists and it needs to end.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> Women generally are more likely to reveal their emotions, and men are generally more likely to put on a tough guy facade. Women are better at handling pain, men are physically stronger. There are common traits that exist. OP is not a misogynist, just tactless. :tongue:


Not true for me at all. I try to hide my emotions for the most part. I have a 0% pain tolerance threshold . Okay, you got me at the physically stronger part but that is the one of the three that is actually self-evident and not utter bullshit.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

A mysogynist is a person who hates women. There is no indication of hatred toward women in calling them emotional, as if "emotional" is a powerful directed insult anyway.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

Myoho Traveller said:


> Not true for me at all. I try to hide my emotions for the most part. I have a 0% pain tolerance threshold . Okay, you got me at the physically stronger part but that is the one of the three that is actually self-evident and not utter bullshit.


Not bull, just general traits in the majority. Just because you don't adhere to the majority doesn't make my claim invalid, just that you are an individual who doesn't exhibit common, generalized traits. No need for any conflict.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

The idea that men are from Mars and women are from Venus, with male and female brains wired differently, is a myth which has no basis in science, a professor has claimed.

Neuroscientist Prof Gina Rippon, of Aston University, Birmingham, says gender differences *emerge only through environmental factors and are not innate*.

Recent studies have suggested that female brains are more suited to social skills, memory and multi-tasking, while men are better at perception and co-ordinated movement.

However, speaking on International Women’s Day, *Prof Rippon will claim that any differences in brain circuitry only come about through the ‘drip, drip, drip’ of gender stereotyping.

“The bottom line is that saying there are differences in male and female brains is just not true. There is pretty compelling evidence that any differences are tiny and are the result of environment not biology,” said Prof Rippon.*


“You can’t pick up a brain and say ‘that’s a girls brain, or that’s a boys brain’ in the same way you can with the skeleton. They look the same.”

Prof Rippon points to earlier studies that showed the brains of London black cab drivers physically changed after they had acquired The Knowledge – an encyclopaedic recall of the capital’s streets.

She believes differences in male and female brains are *due to similar cultural stimuli.* A women’s brain may therefore become ‘wired’ for multi-tasking simply because society expects that of her and so she uses that part of her brain more often. The brain adapts in the same way as a muscle gets larger with extra use.

“What often isn’t picked up on is how plastic and permeable the brain is. It is changing throughout out lifetime
“The world is full of stereotypical attitudes and unconscious bias. It is full of the drip, drip, drip of the gendered environment.”

Prof Rippon believes that gender differences appear early in western societies and are based on traditional stereotypes of how boys and girls should behave and which toys they should play with.
Segregating the way children play – giving dolls to girls and cars to boys – could be changing how their brains develop, she claims.

“I think gender differences in toys is a bad thing. A lot of people say it is trivial. They say girls like to be princesses. But these things are pervasive in the developing brain and stifle potential.

“Often boys toys are much more training based whereas girls toys are more nurturing. It’s sending out an early message about what is expected in a child’s future.”

Earlier this year Consumer Affairs minister Jenny Willott said that women were being forced into professions that paid less well because of gender stereotyping when they are children.

Girls were often guided into low paying occupations like nursing because of the types of toys they were given to play with, she claimed. This led to an over-representation of women among nurses – and of men among engineers and physicists.

Debenhams has stopped gender specific labelling of toys – Mark and Spencer was now its own brand of toys more “gender neutral”.

Megan Perryman, who co-founded Let Toys Be Toys, a campaigning group against gender stereotyping said: "In our experience, children enjoy a range of toys and it's important they are encouraged to play with anything that interests them.

“Telling boys not to play at being caring, or girls to avoid toys involving science or physical activity can only serve to limit their potential.

“Children learn these 'rules' of how to be a boy or girl at a very young age, via marketing, media and those around them. It can be upsetting to the child if their interests do not conform and can prevent them from being the people they really are."


Source: Men and women do not have different brains, claims neuroscientist - Telegraph



I'm more interested in what a neuroscientist thinks, than what "just some forum person" thinks on the matter.

And while its not misogynistic to point out that you believe men and women are vastly different, there often is a misogynistic motivation underlying shoving it in peoples faces like many guys do on this forum. I will expand on that, if I need to.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

lapa said:


> Though sometimes if I say something that goes against feminist propaganda, some girl will lash out even at me.


Please be so kind as to humour me, by explaining how attributing specific psychological traits to me; based solely on the fact that I happen to possess a vagina is NOT propaganda?











ETA: Thank you @Promethea from preventing anymore of my neurons from committing suicide.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> Not bull, just general traits in the majority. Just because you don't adhere to the majority doesn't make my claim invalid, just that you are an individual who doesn't exhibit common, generalized traits. No need for any conflict.



Oh, pardon me; sure thing. :happy:



* *















:dry:


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Quality said:


> Just by reading this post, I can guarantee you are consistently the smartest person in the room.


This is a snide, passive-aggressive attempt at attacking the intelligence of everyone -else- who disagrees with you. 
You knew what you were getting into by posting this thread, so spare us the whole indignant act.


----------



## Satan Claus (Aug 6, 2013)

I don't find that statement misogynistic but wrong because everyone no matter what your gender or age is, is emotional. Things like your environnement, upbringing, mental health, friends, and surroundings will have an affect on your emotions either making you more emotional (i.e Someone with PTSD) or it won't. Depends on the individual. 

However, men do often keep their emotions to themselves while girls are more open about it making them look more emotional then guys when the reality is...it's the same.


----------



## Wonszu (Sep 25, 2013)

Promethea said:


> This is a snide, passive-aggressive attempt at attacking the intelligence of everyone -else- who disagrees with you.
> You knew what you were getting into by posting this thread, so spare us the whole indignant act.


Thank you, I was going to leave it like this to not make any unnecessary war out of it but I'm glad someone noticed that too.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Quality said:


> tl;dr article


This, pretty much. 

Also, I can personally attest that testosterone has made me more emotional in that I experience greater emotional highs and lows than before (and no, it did not make me more aggressive per se). 

A lot of the stuff in here seems to fall prey to circular reasoning and self-fulfilling prophecies. If you expect people to get emotional because you told them something upsetting and then they get emotional because you told them something upsetting... well, there you go. Good job. So rational of you.


----------



## Kingdom Crusader (Jan 4, 2012)

I thought this might interest someone in this thread, since we're on the topic. Here ya go, Some Women are from Mars, and Some Men are from Venus | Truity.


----------



## miuliu (Nov 3, 2013)

Promethea said:


> I'm more interested in what a neuroscientist thinks, than what "just some forum person" thinks on the matter.


Then use google. I have been researching this for a long time now and it is a part of my college education. There is an overwhelming amount of research from other neuroscientists and their studies claiming just the opposite and refuting everything she says point by point. I can't believe you even dug this lady up. 



> And while its not misogynistic to point out that you believe men and women are vastly different, there often is a misogynistic motivation underlying shoving it in peoples faces like many guys do on this forum. I will expand on that, if I need to.


There are always people who project their hatred when presenting facts. But as long as they don't lie or distort the truth, as long as their emotions don't create dogmatic thinking, it's ok. If a man hates women and considers them lesser human being(real mysoginist) and uses this kind of information to put them down, he is usually very stupid, or phychopathic, which will inevitably show trough what he has to say. There isn't much mystery, or depth to him. So there isn't much reason to pay attention to him either. Why would you bother talking about him?



Myoho Traveller said:


> Please be so kind as to humour me, by explaining how attributing specific psychological traits to me; based solely on the fact that I happen to possess a vagina is NOT propaganda?





Wikipedia said:


> Propaganda is a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of the community toward some cause or position.
> 
> Propaganda is information that is not impartial and used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or using loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. Propaganda can be used as a form of ideological or commercial warfare.


I share observations and am solely interested in an intellectual conversation. I have no political cause behind me, nor do I wish to influence some part of society by changing people's thinking. My cause is stimulating people around me into seeking and understanding the truth, reasoning properly and I care about me not lying to them about what I know and think.
I am not a commercial. I'm an impartial information generator and someone willing to connect the dots. And it's why I'm not giving propaganda.


----------



## Quality (Nov 17, 2013)

Promethea said:


> This is a snide, passive-aggressive attempt at attacking the intelligence of everyone -else- who disagrees with you.
> You knew what you were getting into by posting this thread, so spare us the whole indignant act.



I didn't call her intelligent simply because she agreed with me, I called her intelligent because her response demonstrated that she was an individual (and creative) thinker. 

It blows my mind that ANYONE could think that the average woman is less or equally emotional as the average man. I really don't understand why some women are so ashamed of this. Are you ashamed of being emotional? The only reason why a few of the women in this thread are offended and feel the need to be defensive is simply because they view being 'emotional' as a negative trait. If they saw it as a positive trait, would anyone deny it?


I'll look into Professor's Rippon's studies when I get the time. If you want to have a conversation about it, PM me in a day or two.


----------



## Euclid (Mar 20, 2014)

Promethea said:


> This is a snide, passive-aggressive attempt at attacking the intelligence of everyone -else- who disagrees with you.
> You knew what you were getting into by posting this thread, so spare us the whole indignant act.


This is another ad hom. Besides, saying someone is the smartest, does not give you any idea of how smart everybody else is, since it's comparative. So if say out of 3 people, A, B and C, it's said that C is smartest, person A could have a very high intelligence, as long as C's intelligence is higher. Mathematically, there is no limit to how high the intelligence of A and B can be, since there's always a higher number that C could have.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Asian_Chick said:


> I thought this might interest someone in this thread, since we're on the topic. Here ya go, Some Women are from Mars, and Some Men are from Venus | Truity.


Shhh, you don't want to go and throw any rationality into the mix. :kitteh:


* *




Oh, what the hell:


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

lapa said:


> Then use google. I have been researching this for a long time now and it is a part of my college education. There is an overwhelming amount of research from other neuroscientists and their studies claiming just the opposite and refuting everything she says point by point. I can't believe you even dug this lady up.
> 
> 
> There are always people who project their hatred when presenting facts. But as long as they don't lie or distort the truth, as long as their emotions don't create dogmatic thinking, it's ok. If a man hates women and considers them lesser human being(real mysoginist) and uses this kind of information to put them down, he is usually very stupid, or phychopathic, which will inevitably show trough what he has to say. There isn't much mystery, or depth to him. So there isn't much reason to pay attention to him either. Why would you bother talking about him?


You mean to say not all scientists agree with each other? That isn't news to me. 

I will make it very simple for you: in reality, there are plenty of women who are more logical, and less emotional, than many men. This does not indicate that theres some inherent difference in the male and female brain, it speaks more of socialization or we would not see those differences. Period. The scientist who I referenced likely has her head less lodged up the ass of the cult of academia, where a lot of scientists are completely out of touch with reality.

As for your second paragraph, it seems like you are addressing someone else as it does not apply to me.



Euclid said:


> This is another ad hom. Besides, saying someone is the smartest, does not give you any idea of how smart everybody else is, since it's comparative. So if say out of 3 people, A, B and C, it's said that C is smartest, person A could have a very high intelligence, as long as C's intelligence is higher. Mathematically, there is no limit to how high the intelligence of A and B can be, since there's always a higher number that C could have.


I'm not playing these games. Everyone knew what was implied in his post.



Quality said:


> I didn't call her intelligent simply because she agreed with me, I called her intelligent because her response demonstrated that she was an individual (and creative) thinker.
> 
> It blows my mind that ANYONE could think that the average woman is less or equally emotional as the average man. I really don't understand why some women are so ashamed of this. Are you ashamed of being emotional? The only reason why a few of the women in this thread are offended and feel the need to be defensive is simply because they view being 'emotional' as a negative trait. If they saw it as a positive trait, would anyone deny it?
> 
> ...


I guarantee that you are having more of an emotional reaction to this thread than I am.


----------



## Quality (Nov 17, 2013)

Promethea said:


> I guarantee that you are having more of an emotional reaction to this thread than I am.


Don't know about all that, but his is all interesting to me. Do you think that being emotional is a negative trait to possess?


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

Please, this thread has degenerated fast. I fear I may have contributed to this chaotic blend of overt negativity and misdirection, though with the diversity in information taught by our schools and homes, I wouldn't blame anyone on here that has. It may prove to be a better solution if everyone stated their point concisely, and provide the location, whether school, tv, book, or site. If you find someone acting close-minded, please mention so tactfully. If someone calls you out on something, please take it into consideration. Thank you!


----------



## Kingdom Crusader (Jan 4, 2012)

What's the point of this thread, or calling women "emotional"?

I'm now thinking of a scenario where someone tells me, "You're Asian!". And my reaction would be, "and...".


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Quality said:


> Don't know about all that, but his is all interesting to me. Do you think that being emotional is a negative trait to possess?


That is the wrong question. 

I will tell you how you are likely pissing people off with the topic though. When guys start slinging this crap around, its typically carrying the message that by default, any male can out-think any female "because men are more logical and less emotional" which is really just a way of invalidating what a woman says by using her gender against her.

If you were to approach a group of african-americans, and start disagreeing with something they're saying, then make a comment about an article you read claiming that "in general, caucasians have a higher iq" to help support whatever your argument is, you can expect an equally negative reaction that has nothing to do with their gender. 

I hope that helps.


----------



## Quality (Nov 17, 2013)

Asian_Chick said:


> What's the point of this thread, or calling women "emotional"?
> 
> I'm now thinking of a scenario where someone tells me, "You're Asian!". And my reaction would be, "and...".


LOL! Solid point. No need to ever point out the obvious. Looking at your username, I would think you're proud of your ethnicity. Would you be offended if someone asked about you or your family's heritage?


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

lapa said:


> Then use google. I have been researching this for a long time now and it is a part of my college education. There is an overwhelming amount of research from other neuroscientists and their studies claiming just the opposite and refuting everything she says point by point. I can't believe you even dug this lady up.
> 
> 
> There are always people who project their hatred when presenting facts. But as long as they don't lie or distort the truth, as long as their emotions don't create dogmatic thinking, it's ok. If a man hates women and considers them lesser human being(real mysoginist) and uses this kind of information to put them down, he is usually very stupid, or phychopathic, which will inevitably show trough what he has to say. There isn't much mystery, or depth to him. So there isn't much reason to pay attention to him either. Why would you bother talking about him?
> ...


I think that you missed my point. Nowhere in my post did I even remotely suggest that YOU personally were putting fourth any propaganda but making logically unsupported sweeping generalizations is merely based on a DIFFERENT form of "propaganda", than the one, you eschew.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

lapa said:


> Then use google. I have been researching this for a long time now and it is a part of my college education. There is an overwhelming amount of research from other neuroscientists and their studies claiming just the opposite and refuting everything she says point by point. I can't believe you even dug this lady up.


Yes, and just because it's your college education you take what those scientists claim at face value without once questioning their stereotype assumptions about man-woman and male-female and how they always unquestionably assume that these categories (especially man-woman) exist objectively? They don't problematize this at all, but instead assume that "we are going to study the differences between men and women" and already at that point they made a methodological mistake. You cannot assume that the categories you are going to observe exist objectively, especially not when current science actually suggests _otherwise_.

Neuroscientists are finally beginning to realize that brain plasticity may indeed play a huge role in these observations of cognitive differences between men and women and that we cannot just assume that since the average male expresses X, it means it is biologically innate. This becomes even more obvious once you actually start realizing that male-female exists in a spectrum in nature rather than discreet categories. Would these findings be the same when studying say, intersex individuals?


----------



## Kingdom Crusader (Jan 4, 2012)

Quality said:


> LOL! Solid point. No need to ever point out the obvious. Looking at your username, I would think you're proud of your ethnicity. Would you be offended if someone asked about you or your family's heritage?


Well, I realize that my little scenario isn't completely equivalent to calling an entire group of people "emotional". 

However, I just don't see the need to tell someone that. EVERYONE is emotional to some extent. Even as an INTP, I have emotions, even underneath the robot exterior.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

ephemereality said:


> Yes, and just because it's your college education you take what those scientists claim at face value without once questioning their stereotype assumptions about man-woman and male-female and how they always unquestionably assume that these categories (especially man-woman) exist objectively? They don't problematize this at all, but instead assume that "we are going to study the differences between men and women" and already at that point they made a methodological mistake. You cannot assume that the categories you are going to observe exist objectively, especially not when current science actually suggests _otherwise_.
> 
> Neuroscientists are finally beginning to realize that brain plasticity may indeed play a huge role in these observations of cognitive differences between men and women and that we cannot just assume that since the average male expresses X, it means it is biologically innate. This becomes even more obvious once you actually start realizing that male-female exists in a spectrum in nature rather than discreet categories. Would these findings be the same when studying say, intersex individuals?


All very well said.


----------



## Villainous (Dec 31, 2012)

Because women are emotional 






Just kidding people. It's because it's the cool thing to do right now.

Obviously, men and women are different.

Also, when someone makes that kind of statement, it implies "on the average" and that of course there are exceptions but everyone wants to take it literally so they have something they can criticize.

When someone says women do X and men are Y, they know that there are exceptions. They just mean that a large portion of that population has tendencies towards a certain behavior. COME ON PEOPLE


----------



## miuliu (Nov 3, 2013)

Promethea said:


> You mean to say not all scientists agree with each other? That isn't news to me.
> 
> I will make it very simple for you: in reality, there are plenty of women who are more logical, and less emotional, than many men. This does not indicate that theres some inherent difference in the male and female brain, it speaks more of socialization or we would not see those differences. Period. The scientist who I referenced likely has her head less lodged up the ass of the cult of academia, where a lot of scientists are completely out of touch with reality.


Most academia is a cult?
But scientists within that cult disagree with each other? (That's how cults work apparently)
And you pick a scientist that says things you like. 
She's not a part of the academia cult. She's right. She has a white coat and agrees with you. She has to be right.

A white coat doesn't mean authority on learning. It is your responsibility to observe reality honestly, to study impartially, to challenge what you know. It is up to you to reach the truth by taking what academia has to offer and by studying observing and reasoning yourself. Everyone is a scientist. Scientific method is just another tool for research and academia is a database. You are the one responsible for your reasoning. You alone. Pointing a finger at someone's degree doesn't mean anything.




> As for your second paragraph, it seems like you are addressing someone else as it does not apply to me.
> I'm not playing these games. Everyone knew what was implied in his post.


I don't. I obviously thought you talked about bitter guys and psychopaths.
Are you talking about patriarchy then?





> I guarantee that you are having more of an emotional reaction to this thread than I am.


Well, if you didn't guarantee it, I don't know where our conversation could have gone without this important observation. Wasn't it shorter to just call me misogynist? 



Myoho Traveller said:


> I think that you missed my point. Nowhere in my post did I even remotely suggest that YOU personally were putting fourth any propaganda but making logically unsupported sweeping generalizations is merely based on a DIFFERENT form of "propaganda", than the one, you eschew.


I gave you a general description of propaganda. What different form?


----------



## Kingdom Crusader (Jan 4, 2012)

I think all my schools are against "googling" my information anyway.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Villainous said:


> Because it's the cool thing to do right now.
> 
> Obviously, men and women are different.
> 
> ...


Ultimately its reinforcing archaic gender roles, and impeding the progression of culture letting those go. Why let them go? So that people can more easily express who they truly are, instead of being betty crockered if you're a girl, and being conditioned to stuff your emotions if you're a guy. That shit isn't healthy.

Its often the people who do deviate from the roles who speak up about these things, I have noticed. Why would they want someone trying to force them to devolve. It -is- annoying.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

lapa said:


> Most academia is a cult?
> But scientists within that cult disagree with each other? (That's how cults work usually)
> And you pick a scientist that says things you like.
> She's not a part of the academia cult. She's right. She has a white coat and agrees with you. She has to be right.
> ...


Predictably, you are taking everything I say way too literal to get all obtuse about it, and I'm not going to pour energy into that.

I stand by what I said in my first and second post - take it or leave it.


----------



## chimeric (Oct 15, 2011)

Quality said:


> Yup. These are all active emotions. Males are more aggressive, males like competition, and some males like to take risks. These are qualities that can be attributed to testosterone. If you made a statement like _"males are more aggressive"_ I guarantee no one would call you a misandrist.


If you make a statement like "men are more violent," you do get called a misandrist.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

lapa said:


> They can be fun, but not too useful.
> Also they are mostly instigated in emotion. If they weren't, they would be conversations between two receptive parties.


It can be useful if interesting points are made and if people are open minded enough.

I feel a bit confused with the definition of "debate" now (I speak 3 languages so sometimes I do get lost in the details of the meanings), doesn't "debate" mean engaging into different arguments from opposed/different points of view?
In any ways, calling it as "debate" or "discussion" is fine by me, the things I said in the previous posts applies in the same logic (I guess you and others got it so I don't need to rewrite using different terms).


----------



## miuliu (Nov 3, 2013)

AriesLilith said:


> It can be useful if interesting points are made and if people are open minded enough, doesn't "debate" mean engaging into different arguments from opposed/different points of view?
> In any ways, calling it as "debate" or "discussion" is fine by me, the things I said in the previous posts applies in the same logic (I guess you and others got it so I don't need to rewrite using different terms).


In a debate people are out to prove their point and counter their opponent, only considering their opponent's points as far as they can use them to counter.
In a conversation, people are considering their partner's points hoping the person will change their mind.

One is intellectually antagonistic, the other is honest and calm.


----------



## Quality (Nov 17, 2013)

Euclid said:


> There should be some statistics out there that show a correlation of women with F types and men with T types.


That's a very 'hurtful' and 'misogynistic' generalization to make! Everyone is exactly the same! 



























Not being serious. I think around 75% of women are type 'F'. 25% type 'T'.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

lapa said:


> You're right. you actually said:
> 
> 
> And the answer is no. Just because I say that she cherry picked, you can't assume anything about my own study process. The only thing you have is the fact that I disagree. What you claim is not deductive conclusion. That's just you assuming how I searched for my conclusion.


No, because...

a) You claim that you study this subject at college level thus asserting greater authority on the subject,
b) from which you then derive that Promethea's article is incorrect without actually backing it up with anything more than
c) what's actually realistic and observable.

From this I can actually deduce that you indeed trust the information provided by you at college degree, because if you didn't you would not have brought up the fact that you were studying the subject at college level as a way to assert your own authority over the subject. 



> Is this another one of your brilliant deductive conclusions? :wink:


Good to know that you admit to the fact that your lack of knowledge in the area is so lacking that it likely invalidates everything you've claimed thus far.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

Quality said:


> Not being serious. I think around 75% of women are type 'F'. 25% type 'T'.


I would tend to agree with that, although I do want to explain my Fe/Ti vs. Fi/Te split here.

One of the important differences is that women have more "mirror neurons," which result in being affected more heavily by the emotional states of other people. This combined with the tendency to nurturing seem like a good recipe for Fe.

A lot of correctly-typed FP women tend to strike me as having a slight "tomboy" quality that FJ women lack. They're still more sensitive in a lot of ways, but the type of emotion they show seems more egoistic, like that masculine self-confidence. They're also somewhat less expressive.

Also, a lot of TP women (though not all) still give me a "feminine" vibe despite being highly analytical. TJ women and FJ men tend to have the hardest time with their gender archetypes.

So, my theory is that women seem more emotional, and are more likely to test as F... because they're naturally programmed to show their emotions on the outside and have environmental attunement, rather than burying them and internally knowing what they want like men do. 

If a woman was T, she would most likely be a TP, because they still have Fe in their function stack despite it being non-preferred. This could make her seem more emotional, regardless of her actual preferences.

I don't know how reliable tests used to gather statistics are, so it would be hard to do a proper study. Hmm... well, for now I can't demonstrate this. Right now, the only available data shows a simple male T/female F distribution. While most of the men are TJs and most of the women are FJs, the differences in the other letters don't seem to follow any kind of function-related pattern. They seem like they just become rarer the more their letters differ from the two most common types.


----------



## miuliu (Nov 3, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> a) You claim that you study this subject at college level thus asserting greater authority on the subject,


Which is irrelevant because we are not discussing the topic at hand. And no I did not assert myself as an authority with an intention to prove I know more for sure. It was a response to a put down presuming I don't read anything.
Who knows more would be visible if we actually discussed that topic. Which we are not.
You're just arguing for argument's sake.



> b) from which you then derive that Promethea's article is incorrect without actually backing it up with anything more than
> c) what's actually realistic and observable.


There is more beyond the observable, but if you skip the observable, what are you saying about your own reasoning?



> From this I can actually deduce


Again, that's not deduction. That's presuming based on scarce data. Please, either study logic, or stop using the word: deduce



> that you indeed trust the information provided by you at college degree, because if you didn't you would not have brought up the fact that you were studying the subject at college level as a way to assert your own authority over the subject.


Information you have in your head has to be your own reasoning aligned with that you see, what you know and what you repeatedly put to the test.
If I claim this again and again, yet you presume I'm using my education to claim to be an authority, you're not even reading what I write.



> Good to know that you admit to the fact that your lack of knowledge in the area is so lacking that it likely invalidates everything you've claimed thus far.


Again, isn't the word misogynist so much more easy that these purposely flawed, passive-aggressive "conclusions"?


----------



## Euclid (Mar 20, 2014)

delphi367 said:


> I would tend to agree with that, although I do want to explain my Fe/Ti vs. Fi/Te split here.
> 
> One of the important differences is that women have more "mirror neurons," which result in being affected more heavily by the emotional states of other people. This combined with the tendency to nurturing seem like a good recipe for Fe.
> 
> ...


It's an interesting theory, and I tend to agree that Fi women who lack Fe come off as cold and unemotional. On the other hand I have also noticed that women who have a lot of Fi tend to also have at least a decent amount of Fe, so I suspect there is also a lot of mistypes or rather people who don't really fit into the MBTI molds (like me for instance - INTPs aren't suppose to have Fi>Fe). But I would like to suggest another theory that Fi actually encompass the same qualities as Fe, emotional expression and nurturing etc.. just that this only seen by people who the Fi user decides to let in. This is because the Fi user holds on to values that are controversial making them more or less outcasts and thus hide their emotions from society in order not to get hurt, but only expresses them to a few trusted people.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

This has been an amusing thread. Thank you all 

In case anyone's still interested in an answer to the original question (seems unlikely, but oh well), here's my take on it.

The reason you get criticised for it is because you're reinforcing an oppressive stereotype. As others have pointed out, the belief in this stereotype is often used to discredit women (and even men, on occasion), and by parroting this assertion, you're allowing this culture to continue. 

It's worth noting that a big part of why the stereotype is so effective is because it's so incredibly ambiguous. You make no distinction between behaviour as a result of conditioning and behaviour as a result of the X/Y difference. Which one were you talking about? "Emotional" is also an incredibly ambiguous word, and all I need to do is interpret it in slightly different, but still accurate, ways and I can make a case for pretty much any individual or any group of people being "emotional". Point is, for all the meaning that we give to the assertion, in the end it really doesn't mean anything at all (in that it basically means whatever we want it to mean at the time). 

Of course, if you actually believe that there's some truth behind the assertion, then it would raise the question of why you're being criticised for saying something that's true. But that's not what's happening. Instead, you're being criticised for not treating a sensitive issue with the level of respect that it deserves. If you could prove that women actually are more emotional than men (and I hope this thread has showed you just how difficult/impossible that is), then you would need to make every effort to avoid reinforcing the culture of oppression. If you don't, then expect to receive criticism.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Mee2 said:


> The reason you get criticised for it is because you're reinforcing an *oppressive* stereotype.


Opinion, btw.

This gets thrown around as fact a lot on the forum I've seen.

That being said, I do find many to be oppressive. Not all. There is room for exploration. Lines in the sand.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Veggie said:


> Opinion, btw.
> 
> This gets thrown around as fact a lot on the forum I've seen.
> 
> That being said, I do find many to be oppressive. Not all. There is room for exploration. Lines in the sand.


BRILLIANT POINT!


how the majority of these ideas are "oppressive" exactly completely evades my comprehension.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Veggie said:


> Opinion, btw.
> 
> This gets thrown around as fact a lot on the forum I've seen.
> 
> That being said, I do find many to be oppressive. Not all. There is room for exploration. Lines in the sand.


lol! My reason for thinking that it's oppressive was provided for you in the very next sentence! I said, "As others have pointed out, the belief in this stereotype is often used to discredit women (and even men, on occasion)." Do you contest that this happens? (I think I saw it happen in this very thread, actually )


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

lapa said:


> You're right. you actually said:
> 
> 
> And the answer is no. Just because I say that she cherry picked, you can't assume anything about my own study process. The only thing you have is the fact that I disagree. What you claim is not deductive conclusion. That's just you assuming how I searched for my conclusion.


Why yes, you're entirely right. He _can't_ assume anything about how you arrived at your conclusion. He can't say you're being intellectually dishonest or just plain dishonest. However, he _also_ can't assume that you're being intellectually honest and honest as well, and on top of that have noticed every possible flaw in your research. So basically, you've left any prospective opponent in a sort of void situation where they can't act because they have no information. Because you're _deliberately_ controlling the information flow, in my opinion. 

And that, frankly, bothers me. Mostly because it's poisonous to real debate.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

_Why do I get called a misogynist for pointing out that women are more emotional?_
Umm, because it hurts their feelings? :shocked: :tongue:

(ba-dum bum t'shhhh)


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

I wouldn't say they're more emotional, just that they're better at and more willing to express certain ones that might be considered feminine. That, and even strict thinking type females seem to be a lot more group-focused than men of the same type, considering how their actions will affect others. Again, this could be due to biology or upbringing, but the differences are definitely there.

Just try to remember who you're addressing and how you word something if you want to avoid offending others.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Mee2 said:


> lol! My reason for thinking that it's oppressive was provided for you in the very next sentence! I said, "As others have pointed out, the belief in this stereotype is often used to discredit women (and even men, on occasion)." Do you contest that this happens? (I think I saw it happen in this very thread, actually )


I guess that this part threw me off at the end:

"If you could prove that women actually are more emotional than men (and I hope this thread has showed you just how difficult/impossible that is), *then you would need to make every effort to avoid reinforcing the culture of oppression*."

I don't understand what you mean by that. 

So with that (as the last sentence of your post) in mind I had disconnected oppression (as it's now "the culture") from your originally tying it specifically to the stereotype of emotional women. I'd gone broad again to gender, and stereotypes period. My b.

Why does anybody need to do anything though?

Sure, people discredit each other all the time. It's human nature to a degree.


----------



## Faunae (Mar 14, 2014)

It's not misogynistic unless you're implying it's a bad thing that women are more emotional, as they often are due to the biological differences between males and females.


----------



## the_natrix (Aug 10, 2011)

Availability heuristic: a mental shortcut that relies on immediate examples that come to mind.

We see women being emotional more often than men. It's not that men are less emotional, we just don't see that side as often via gender roles/socialization.

As for having studies in the future that may prove women are say 10% more emotional or etc; I would still try not to generalize on a person to person basis since you can't tell what part of the population you're talking to at the time.


----------



## Mendi the ISFJ (Jul 28, 2011)

a more accurate way to say what u are saying is that the vast majority of women have higher estrogen levels, not our fault by the way.


----------



## Devrim (Jan 26, 2013)

Quality said:


> 100% of birth females have vaginas. 100% of birth males have penises. The male hormone 'testosterone' and the female hormone 'estrogen' are responsible for for this. They are also responsible for much of your body's appearance (secondary sex characteristics) and influence brain development. If men and women are chemically different, why do you find it unacceptable to point out individual group characteristics?



Because testosterone will also have the same effect with men emotionally,
Albeit different emotions,
Such as anger......

Both chemicals work with emotions,
With different ones,
And in different ways,
To say females are more 'emotional' would be a silly and naive statement,
Most school shooters are male,
And yes,
They experience a SUPER low in emotions and are 'emotionally unstable'.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Hmm, I like threads like this. It shows how inept the common people are at seeing the big picture, and fight using double-edged swords. Make sure when you are wielding your chosen weapon it can't be used against you... if you accuse someone of something, and then they accuse you back, you will go back in forth in this manner. You are fighting with opinions, which makes everything bias laden. Keep an open mind and acknowledge, don't fight the biases. Point them out of course, but if you get all "the fuck my brain" over someone's bias, but you're doing as much and worse, people are going to get all "the fuck my brain" about you and nothing good will happen besides both of you turning into polarized idiots.

Also, sweeping the issue under the rug by saying "we're all the same, just different." Cammmaaannn, really?

People call you misogynist because they are afraid of your massive penis.


----------



## Seranova (Mar 1, 2013)

_There's nothing bad about biological differences in men and women, nor stating that those differences exist. It's when those differences are used to stereotype, generalize, and denigrate either gender negatively that it is a bad thing. You're most likely being called a misogynist because they think and feel you are a sexist person for saying that(and maybe it's how you're saying it too)._


----------



## Kingdom Crusader (Jan 4, 2012)

Yes, Biology is supposed to be an objective science, as with the other sciences. However, Hitler/Germans and the Japanese have tried to use "science" to prove they were the master races, I believe.


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

Asian_Chick said:


> Yes, Biology is supposed to be an objective science, as with the other sciences. However, Hitler/Germans and the Japanese have tried to use "science" to prove they were the master races, I believe.


Red Herring much?


----------



## Kingdom Crusader (Jan 4, 2012)

Arclight said:


> Red Herring much?


My point is that people can spin something the way they want to. Our good friends on Storm Front are certainly capable of doing so.

That's not to say you would.


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

Arclight said:


> Brain scans people.. Brain scans..
> 
> They reveal what part of the brain is active and why it is active.
> 
> ...


I generally agree with you, apart from the statement in bold. Biology may not directly lie but people can interpret it incorrectly if they don't fully understand what they're looking at.


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

tine said:


> I generally agree with you, apart from the statement in bold. Biology may not directly lie but people can interpret it incorrectly if they don't fully understand what they're looking at.


 Agreed..And yet they have a Doctorates in biology and we don't ( I am guessing you don't) and have spent their lives quantifying and measuring the human body. Human biology is not an interpretation. Everything is not known but what is known is verified through repetition and review.


----------



## Kingdom Crusader (Jan 4, 2012)

tine said:


> I generally agree with you, apart from the statement in bold. Biology may not directly lie but people can interpret it incorrectly if they don't fully understand what they're looking at.


The back of my Lysol can says it kills 99.9% of viruses and bacteria. 

Is the above statement a lie? No. 

I kinda took that as under lab conditions, not in my kitchen and bathroom. Funny enough, there's a guy with a PhD in Cancer Biology who teaches Microbiology who says the same exact thing on video.

There's a lot of people who would apply that statement to all conditions. That's nothing bad to say about them. I understand a hurried mom with 5 kids at Wal-Mart not having the time to ponder things like that.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Asian_Chick said:


> Yes, Biology is supposed to be an objective science, as with the other sciences. However, Hitler/Germans and the Japanese have tried to use "science" to prove they were the master races, I believe.


There are also mistakes made, most science is just their current best guess, then in several years theres a different theory.

Biologists reveal potential 'fatal flaw' in iconic sexual selection study -- ScienceDaily


----------



## Kingdom Crusader (Jan 4, 2012)

Promethea said:


> There are also mistakes made, most science is just their current best guess, then in several years theres a different theory.
> 
> Biologists reveal potential 'fatal flaw' in iconic sexual selection study -- ScienceDaily


Thanks. I had yet to go onto mistakes (and I'm just speaking of the honest ones) being made. I can dig up a few science texts from my classes that will assert that not every scientist is the same, which stands to reason, since not everyone is equally good at their jobs to begin with. I'll take a look at the article now.


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

Arclight said:


> Agreed..And yet they have a Doctorates in biology and we don't ( I am guessing you don't) and have spent their lives quantifying and measuring the human body. Human biology is not an interpretation. Everything is not known but what is known is verified through repetition and review.


Even those who spend their whole lives on a subject can know little to nothing about it. It depends on their research and how innovative they are etc. I study biology at degree level, which isn't having a doctorate, but my professors have repeatedly said science changes because of realising it's wrong or misunderstood.



Asian_Chick said:


> The back of my Lysol can says it kills 99.9% of viruses and bacteria.
> 
> Is the above statement a lie? No.
> 
> ...


Yeah, a lot of factors change once you get outside the lab! They've made things in labs that can't exist outside of them and similarly behaviours that are only displayed in labs etc.


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

tine said:


> Even those who spend their whole lives on a subject can know little to nothing about it. It depends on their research and how innovative they are etc. I study biology at degree level, which isn't having a doctorate, but my professors have repeatedly said science changes because of realising it's wrong or misunderstood.
> 
> 
> Yeah, a lot of factors change once you get outside the lab! They've made things in labs that can't exist outside of them and similarly behaviours that are only displayed in labs etc.


 Regardless.. Putting all subjectivity aside.. Bran scans reveal that in general the emotional center in the female is active at all times and it is not so in the male brain. 
Again I will reiterate that this does not mean women are inferior or that men are inferior or that either is superior.. 
I am also one of the voices on this forum that is at constant odds with "science" .. However in this case the evidence seems irrefutable and not corrupted by misinterpretation . To deny that men and women's brains work differently is simply a case of political wishful thinking. 
You just need to look around you..
As I also said.. If it becomes a case "logic" then logic would dictate that emotion is an integral part of the equation.


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

Has the OP ever heard of tomboys? I think those women, at least this is what I'm gathering from the SP boards,will not be not emotional,but, just have a harder time doing so. As an SP, what are these called feelings?


Some one calling the OP misogynist for saying women are more emotional, I think, historically insults like that, have been used against women achieving more equality. The Armed Forces, even today, have denied women combat roles because, technically they're the "weaker sex." I've gotten in trouble when I say something that immediately pluralizes the noun, like women,because I'm only using information from my experience,which isn't representational of all women. I love PerC,because I'm sitting behind a computer,so I get to pick my words,then I get to edit the post. In real life, I've been attacked for being impulsive,and thoughtless with my words,because, I don't have a filter. I think the filtering of thoughts and words are important in not going overboard. I also think the delivery is important. Like another person said, it may not make you misogynist, for saying "women are emotional"but it is tactless. Just saying Some women can be emotional, stops the shove digging one's grave,because you're not casting judgement on a whole group. It's really know the difference between a lightning bug, and lightning. 



I also think,I'm going out on a limb here,but bear with me, you are an INTJ, I am an ESTP,that T, really makes us, what one person said to me, "cold and logical." Let's say for the sake of argument, all women are in fact emotional, and the OP is correct, and then you cite facts to back it up, you may've won,I've thrown out my own facts, but facts are cold and logical things, and you've got to understand how words hurt. Find your heart. Understand their viewpoint,you'll go far. Saying stuff in general,not really thinking stuff out has always gotten me into trouble. I think making broad generalizations like the OP, does is wrong. And I agree with some other posters that saying stuff like generalizing, in general, is an ad hom attack. 

Edit: Just so I don't get accused of anything,after I made post this article was posted about the marines postwww.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fourteen-women-have-tried-and-failed-the-marines-infantry-officer-course-heres-why/2014/03/28/24a83ea0-b145-11e3-a49e-76adc9210f19_story.html?hpid=z1,


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

Quality said:


> 100% of birth females have vaginas. 100% of birth males have penises. The male hormone 'testosterone' and the female hormone 'estrogen' are responsible for for this. They are also responsible for much of your body's appearance (secondary sex characteristics) and influence brain development. If men and women are chemically different, why do you find it unacceptable to point out individual group characteristics?


if you're still interested, i think it's because you string points together that are kind of accurate, but sneak in a few that aren't. why? 

i did a brief glance on google just to make sure you didn't really want a conversation, and "studies" indicate that both testosterone _and_ estrogen _may_ influence the conception of a boy, while it's precursors--"progesterone and gonadotropins"--will lead to a girl (but i'm kind of suspect of the source anyhow, because they it talked about gonadotropins as if they were a separate hormone, such as test. and est., when it's just a term for travels/"tropic" to the gonads--seems like the person reporting didn't even understand what they were saying). 

in any case, what about the genes that come along from each parent that combine to form the male, or female, or intersexed child? you depart so easily from "basic, verifiable, science"--like genetics--(most likely on accident, or without noticing, sense it's not really your goal to be right to begin with than it is to...?), but criticize others for doing so. 

in either case, while both scenarios could be true, you're taking one potentiality as being true over the other--when i'm completely sure there isn't any proof or evidence to support doing so--in the pursuit of making a counter-argument that you intentionally began under the umbrella-defense of ignorance. 

there's actually a lot of medical "facts" in this thread that even a semester and a half basic anatomy can pick out, let alone the need of a "scientific study" or doctorate. it's like you require the ability of everyone around you to be capable of complex, theoretical physics, and yet you're having trouble adding... and it's because _you're_ reacting from emotion--you just don't realize it (and even if "the reason" isn't from a traumatic experience that caused you to prove your own testosterone-levels to yourself, by arguing personal issues with a bunch of "emotional females"--it's from ego-stroking, which relies just as much on feelings, albeit immature ones on the low end).


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

Arclight said:


> Regardless.. Putting all subjectivity aside.. Bran scans reveal that in general the emotional center in the female is active at all times and it is not so in the male brain.
> Again I will reiterate that this does not mean women are inferior or that men are inferior or that either is superior..
> I am also one of the voices on this forum that is at constant odds with "science" .. However in this case the evidence seems irrefutable and not corrupted by misinterpretation . To deny that men and women's brains work differently is simply a case of political wishful thinking.
> You just need to look around you..
> As I also said.. If it becomes a case "logic" then logic would dictate that emotion is an integral part of the equation.


How do they know it's the emotional part of the brain? Can you find me some academic papers? 
I mean, I do agree with men and women being different in a load of ways (we have different chemical balances etc) but I wont accept scientists saying something without questioning it a whole lot (seriously, professors encourage that because they say 9/10 times the scientist will be wrong in some way).


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

Wonszu said:


> Let's add that men have estrogen too as much as women have testosteron. Ovaries and testicles produce both hormones, the only difference is that they produce much less of respective secondary hormones.


Well, not to rain on the parade, but enough testosterone in a system blocks the receptors from absorbing much if any of the estrogen produced by the body naturally. Buuuut that's me nitpicking details. *whistles*


----------



## Wonszu (Sep 25, 2013)

Signify said:


> Well, not to rain on the parade, but enough testosterone in a system blocks the receptors from absorbing much if any of the estrogen produced by the body naturally. Buuuut that's me nitpicking details. *whistles*


They can't block ALL estrogen or else it can cause imbalance in hormonal system. Men become sterile if there is to much or to little estrogen in their blood + in both cases (to much, to little) can lead to heart failure. *whistles back* 

But it's true the biggest concern is when men have to much of estrogen. It causes prostate cancer, gaining fat, shorten memory and so on. Everything needs to be in balance. 

Are we still talking about hormones? :|


----------



## Quinault NDN (Jan 22, 2011)

Okay, I will say that I only got to page like 9 before I stopped reading everything. Apologies if I'm off track.

To the original OP question...why are you called a misogynist....it is probably rooted in historical context. People naturally relate historical significance to such opinions. As someone pointed out, there was extensive use of the "emotional" nature of women to forestall economic and social parity between the sexes.

I mean honestly, it's like burning a cross and saying "but I didn't mean that as a racist statement toward black people". The discussion itself has been tainted by historical context whereas women were denied rights based on the supposed argument of the "hysterical" female or the "lesser sex" or even the biblical implications of being "made to service Adam". It is a hot button topic with a known fuse...calling women "emotional". Although not rooted in any type of "logical" reasoning based on science, it doesn't negate the impact of the known association of such a statement.

A lot of times when dealing with the fractious human nature, right or wrong have no meaning when positioned against "what is believed".


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

and i as far as i know, it's the amygdala that deals with our emotional response. and "studies show" that this part of our brain can change in relation to our daily exercises, meaning that yogis and other meditator-types have that portion of their brain in, let's say, a better working order. they actually have more emotional resilience against upsets throughout their day. but this is due to training, and not gender. 

... i think our sex does of course play a role, with our main sex hormones making certain outcomes more likely--a body filled with estrogen might also contain a mind that has a softer disposition, while the opposite being true for testosterone. 

it was actually put forth by another poster on this thread--ironically enough, arguing against gender stereotypes while supplying information that basically enforces said gender "phenomena" (basically cited behavior that supports estrogen as a source of relational bonding, while testosterone being something that drove people towards aggression). 

to say that something is culturally ingrained...? well, yeah, but where did that culture come from? and why does it create dynamics that are seen throughout the entire animal kingdom--parallels that exist on the same basis of hormone difference between sexes (admittedly more complex, but still there's a pattern). 


as usual, the truth is probably a combination of, or lies in the middle of, each sides social ideology.


----------



## mariarenaesmith (Apr 2, 2014)

Your intended meaning could also be severely misconstrued if you word it "too emotional" vs. "more emotional." Plus, the fact that some men are more emotional than some women yet they have become socially adept at hiding it is also an important consideration.


----------



## Nightchill (Oct 19, 2013)

Quality said:


> 100% of birth females have vaginas. 100% of birth males have penises. The male hormone 'testosterone' and the female hormone 'estrogen' are responsible for for this. They are also responsible for much of your body's appearance (secondary sex characteristics) and influence brain development. If men and women are chemically different, why do you find it unacceptable to point out individual group characteristics?


uhm, because:
1. Men and women, contrary to the popular belief, share most secondary sex characteristics such as body hair. Though society insist that women hide/remove them; men to emphasize.
Others are determined largely by genes such as eye size, cheekbones and jaw prominence. 

2. life experience shows us that having a vagina doesn't equal being EMOtional in quantity or quality. 

Rather if people's alleged natural tendencies were so strong and natural, society wouldn't have for countless ages insisted so much on social learning (read: training) to ensure boys don't not cry, all girls love pink and are allowed to shed tears in public etc.

3. Your inner chemical life is no longer valid excuse for your behavior.

I've met men who are aggressive f*cks, now I should say all men are to be put in cages because of their testosterone. Yeah, right.

4. Behind pointing it out, in experience, is a manipulative/malicious rather than scientific intent. To foster hatred and alienation between men and women.


----------

