carefreewannabe:

Very good points.

First, we should ask ourselves what emotions are.

Secondly, running a family requires management skills too.

Third, it is no secret that female CEOs are very effective leaders, which contradicts stereotype 2 and 3 that men are naturally more logical and better leaders.

"A recent article in TheAtlantic.com pointed out that hedge funds run by women make three times as much money as hedge funds run by men, and that companies with female CEOs outperform companies with male CEOs by nearly 50%.

The data is so compelling that, according to The Wall Street Journal, Barclay's Bank has set up a stock fund that invests in companies with a female CEO or a board of directors that is at least 25% female."

http://www.inc.com/geoffrey-james/admit-it-women-are-smarter-than-men.html

Women outperforming men in hedge funds has absolutely nothing to do with their decision-making prowess. But more to do with women naturally being better marketers than men. I'd even wager that women are also more business inclined than men, and tend to perform better in businesses. I'll give you that.

However, when it comes to decision-making at any level - women just lack that "it-factor" due to their emotional tendencies. And when you're innately in that space, it's always difficult to make logical decisions in crunch-time.

SirShymex:


In as much as the article you quoted isn't a scientific research, and it has a lot of inconsistencies, with the use of terms, it's self-explanatory. This is why I always tell you to make use of your cognitive and analytical reasoning when you're posting to me. And with that, you have to always read carefully, with a perfect understanding of what you're reading.

That said - I'll break it further down for by explaining certain excerpts from the same article:

- "their physiological reactions were measured using skin conductance electrodes."

- "An accompanying questionnaire found that even though the men reported feeling less emotion than the women."

Note: whatever was measured was done based on physiological reactions NOT psychological reactions.

Basically, why the skin conductance electrodes were able to show a higher reaction from men is because men are more likely to be passionate about anything they're interested in. And being passionate is different from being emotional, though stronger. With passion, you'd have full control over your brain, hence the answer on the questionnaire about the men feeling less emotion than the women. Furthermore, being passionate has more to with beliefs/interests - and I'd wager that the reason why the men showed passion in this case had more to do with the fact that the study was based on Father's Day card.

However, when you're emotional, it's an internal feeling which subconsciously takes over your body and brain. And it prevents rational/logical decision-making. Also, it's a feminine trait synonymous with women, due to higher estrogen levels. Just take time out to learn/understand the nuances between passionate and emotional.

Anyway, Royal Mail is going straight to hell for wasting tax payers money on this trash. Now, I see why my letters always come late.

Passion is defined as a very strong emotion.

passion

noun
1.
any powerful or compelling emotion or feeling, as love or hate.
2.
strong amorous feeling or desire; love; ardor.

(...)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/passion

passion

1 [countable, uncountable] a very strong feeling of love, hatred, anger, enthusiasm, etc
He's a man of violent passions.

(...)

http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/passion

passionate

: having, showing, or expressing strong emotions or beliefs

(...)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/passionate

Passion versus emotion, do you know the difference?

"The Merriam Webster online dictionary lists emotion as "a disturbance, excitement, feeling, a conscious mental reaction subjectively experienced as strong feeling usually directed toward a specific object and typically accompanied by physiological and behavioral changes in the body." Passion is closely defined as: "the state or capacity of being acted on by external agents or forces, an emotion, intense, driving, or overmastering feeling or conviction, a strong liking or desire for or devotion to some activity, object, or concept, and an object of desire or deep interest." The biggest difference in these definitions is that emotion is a mental reaction and passion is the action resulting from strong emotion (often liking and desire)."

http://blog.projectconnections.com/project_practitioners/2011/03/passion-vs-emotion.html

Having said that, you have just proven that men are more emotional.

Another study that supports my first source that you disqualified as not being scientific enough.

"Men and women experience the same level of sadness while watching tearjerkers like Titanic - but women are more likely to reach for a box of tissues. That is the conclusion of Vanderbilt University psychologist Ann Kring, whose findings on sex differences in emotion have appeared in the American Psychological Association's Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

"It is incorrect to make a blanket statement that women are more emotional than men," she says. "It is correct to say that women show their emotions more than men."

Kring conducted two studies - one to determine whether women are "more emotional" or just "more expressive", and the other to explore whether gender roles account for expressive differences between women and men. In both, women were shown to be more facially expressive of both positive and negative emotions."

(...)

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980520132438data_trunc_sys.shtml

You are welcome.

SirShymex:


Women outperforming men in hedge funds has absolutely nothing to do with their decision-making prowess. But more to do with women naturally being better marketers than men. I'd even wager that women are also more business inclined than men, and tend to perform better in businesses. I'll give you that.



However, when it comes to decision-making at any level - women just lack that "it-factor" due to their emotional tendencies. And when you're innately in that space, it's always difficult to make logical decisions in crunch-time.

This is your subjective view.

Men are stereotypically more aggressive. Aggression is an emotion. Emotions, according to you, hinder people from sound decision making, which means that men are not good decision makers either.

Note: This is not my personal view, just a logical continuation of your reasoning.

Nonso23:


At least this blog post had the decency to quote an authority in psychology. Although it is still as vague as the other two it still highlighted the differences between men and women and how they deal with emotions. The problem with all of them still lies with the simple question: Why is this so?

I emboldened two portions of the post. Care to expatiate further in that direction??

This is a very good question.

I believe that we teach boys not to express their emotions, which is actually sad and has severe consequences for all of us but most of all for men.
There are studies that support my view on this.

Men are taught that big boys don't cry and that it is weak to show emotions.
Bottling up emotions leads to aggressiveness and to violence.

I also believe that this is one of the reasons why men are much more likely to commit suicide.

Nonso23:


Thank God you used the phrase 'i believe'
It simply means that it your opinion.

The reasons you gave are akin to saying ' i believe that men are stronger because boys are taught that you must be stronger than girls' or 'i believe our men are better weightlifters because boys are taught that they must carry more weight than girls'.
The problem with the above is the overt simplicity employed for whatever reasons.

Let's see those studies please.

I chose my words carefully. I said I believe to indicate that this is my opinion so there was absolutely no need to tell me what "I believe" means.

Your example of men being, in general, physically stronger has NOTHING to do with "I believe". Everyone knows it. It is visible and can be easily proven. That was a very illogical comparison.

Nonso23:

I just felt the need to emphasize on that phrase. Nothing to get worked up about.

No, that analogy is just the best for this debate.
Pray tell, can teach a cat how to speak german?
Or an ant how to operate a computer? Or better still a pawpaw leaf how to fold into a fist?

Not everything can be learned. There must be a predisposition of some sort before learning a behaviour or action is possible. Do you disagree?

That is the logic you failed to see.

The studies?

How does teaching children to control, bottle up or hide their emotions equal to teaching a cat German or an ant to operate a computer?


"Boys and Girls: Not As Different As We Thought
By JOHN M. GROHOL, PSY.D.

For decades, psychologists and researchers have been telling us the same old thing — boys and girls are fundamentally different. Their brains are different, their childhood development is different, their perceptions of the world around them are different. It’s the old nature versus nurture debate, with many parents unmistakably believing that nature is the primary force in a child’s development and that all parents can do is hang on for the ride.

But a new book by Lise Eliot, PhD, suggests that many of these differences are what we, the adults, make of them. She’s done the equivalent of a meta-analysis on the research foundation for gender differences between boys and girls, and put into a consumer-digestible format. The results are summarized in her new book, Pink Brain, Blue Brain: How Small Differences Grow Into Troublesome Gaps — And What We Can Do About It. As Newsweek summarized:

How we perceive children — sociable or remote, physically bold or reticent — shapes how we treat them and therefore what experiences we give them. Since life leaves footprints on the very structure and function of the brain, these various experiences produce sex differences in adult behavior and brains — the result not of innate and inborn nature but of nurture.

The gist of her findings is that many of the differences that parents believe are innate or nature-led are not. Motor skills? The same. Ability to have deep emotional feelings? The same. Aggressiveness? The same. Why do we observe such differences in little boys and girls? Because parents often unconsciously reinforce the gender stereotypes within their children(...)"

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2009/09/05/boys-and-girls-not-as-different-as-we-thought/


"Male and female ability differences down to socialisation, not genetics
Behavioural differences between the sexes are not hard-wired at birth but are the result of society's expectations, say scientists


(...)

In fact, there are no major neurological differences between the sexes, says Cordelia Fine in her book Delusions of Gender, which will be published by Icon next month. There may be slight variations in the brains of women and men, added Fine, a researcher at Melbourne University, but the wiring is soft, not hard. "It is flexible, malleable and changeable," she said.

In short, our intellects are not prisoners of our genders or our genes and those who claim otherwise are merely coating old-fashioned stereotypes with a veneer of scientific credibility. It is a case backed by Lise Eliot, an associate professor based at the Chicago Medical School. "All the mounting evidence indicates these ideas about hard-wired differences between male and female brains are wrong," she told the Observer.

"Yes, there are basic behavioural differences between the sexes, but we should note that [b]these differences increase with age because our children's intellectual biases are being exaggerated and intensified by our gendered culture. [/b]Children don't inherit intellectual differences. They learn them. They are a result of what we expect a boy or a girl to be."

(...)

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/15/girls-boys-think-same-way

Nonso23:


At least this blog post had the decency to quote an authority in psychology. Although it is still as vague as the other two it still highlighted the differences between men and women and how they deal with emotions. The problem with all of them still lies with the simple question: Why is this so?

I emboldened two portions of the post. Care to expatiate further in that direction??

Will you shut it? Why don't you find your own article to counter it if you think it isn't logical?
@carefreewannable, you're just wasting your time with these ignoramus.
@thread, I would even say men shows emotion than their women counterparts because they often throw tantrums when things don't go their way. They tends to be childish, stubborn, aggressive and these are ways of expressing one's emotion. Infact, female have better heads on their shoulder than their male counterpart in the sense that they are more matured in character, reasoning, intelligence e.t.c. What women lack in the physical aspect, they compensate it with their brain!

carefreewannabe:

The biggest difference in these definitions is that emotion is a mental reaction and passion is the action resulting from strong emotion (often liking and desire)."

http://blog.projectconnections.com/project_practitioners/2011/03/passion-vs-emotion.html

I never alluded to "emotion" in my post to you because I know both men and women have emotions. We all have emotions and that's what makes us human. But it ends there. It diverges when it comes to control. With men, there's an innate ability to be able to channel emotions in form of control, into beliefs/interests, hence it's always more physiological with men. And that's where the passion/passionate comes in. However, with women, the emotions more time always tend to take over the brain. Emphasis: emotional. Hence both the psychological and physiological effects. .

Where being passionate is more of a physiological thing, being emotional has both psychological and physiological effects. Blame it on estrogen once puberty kicks in.

Since you have got time on your hands. Go get an academic research paper about the differences between passionate and emotional, with extensive studies. I think that will explain it better. The bit from your post in which I quoted did explain a little bit.

I'm off to the gym to get my muscle up - might check the thread later.

Shirley07:

Will you shut it? Why don't you find your own article to counter it if you think it isn't logical?
@carefreewannable, you're just wasting your time with these ignoramus.
@thread, I would even say men shows emotion than their women counterparts because they often throw tantrums when things don't go their way. They tends to be childish, stubborn, aggressive and these are ways of expressing one's emotion. Infact, female have better heads on their shoulder than their male counterpart in the sense that they are more matured in character, reasoning, intelligence e.t.c. What women lack in the physical aspect, they compensate it with their brain!

Agreed.

Although as an observer on the fence, the only intelligent opposition to carefreewannabe at this point is Shymexx.

Interesting stuff but pls, let there be no snide comments. All past differences, gripes, and so on should be parked outside this thread.

Ride on guys

Anyway, you and Shirley Bassey can twerk to this nice tune about emotions while I'm way.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWKdMmH0B-E

Shirley07:

Will you shut it? Why don't you find your own article to counter it if you think it isn't logical?
@carefreewannable, you're just wasting your time with these ignoramus.
@thread, I would even say men shows emotion than their women counterparts because they often throw tantrums when things don't go their way. They tends to be childish, stubborn, aggressive and these are ways of expressing one's emotion. Infact, female have better heads on their shoulder than their male counterpart in the sense that they are more matured in character, reasoning, intelligence e.t.c. What women lack in the physical aspect, they compensate it with their brain!

Shirley, Nonso has been a friendly person so I will debate with him in a friendly way. He is very capable of learning and maybe he will teach me something too.

Well, your stand is very categorical but there are studies that could be seen as supportive to what you have said.
I don't think that women or men are more intelligent or better reasoning.
I believe that intelligence and other soft and interpersonal skills must be assessed individually.

However, your response leads me to stereotype number 2, men are more logical.

The results of the following study contradict the assertion that men are more logical by nature.
People used to believe that men were more logical because they outperformed girls in maths and science (and also because women were falsely believed to be more emotional and therefore rationally beclouded).

Recent studies show that men are NOT naturally better at maths and natural sciences, which require logical thinking, which men, I repeat, were believed to be more capable of.

"Boys not better than girls at maths, study finds

According to new research published in the journal Science, the "gender gap" in maths, long perceived to exist between girls and boys, disappears in societies that treat both sexes equally. When girls have equal access to education and other opportunities they do just as well as boys in maths tests.

The research, led by Prof Paola Sapienza of Northwestern University in the US, investigated whether a global gender gap exists and whether it was the result of social engineering rather than intrinsic aptitude for the subject.

"The so-called gender gap in math skills seems to be at least partially correlated to environmental factors," Sapienza said. "The gap doesn't exist in countries in which men and women have access to similar resources and opportunities."

Researchers analysed data from more than 276,000 children in 40 countries who took the 2003 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa) - the internationally standardised test of maths, reading, science and problem-solving ability.

Globally, boys tend to outperform girls in maths (on average girls score 10.5 points lower than boys) but in more "gender equal societies" such as Iceland, Sweden and Norway, girls scored as well as boys or better.

For example, the maths gender gap almost disappeared in Sweden, while in Turkey girls scored 23 points below boys in maths.

Average girls' scores improved as equality improved and the number of girls reaching the highest levels of performance also increased, the researchers found. In Britain, girls fared only slightly less well than male classmates, with female pupils scoring an average of 0.7% less."

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2008/may/30/schools.uk1

EfemenaXY:


Agreed.

Although as an observer on the fence, the only intelligent opposition to carefreewannabe at this point is Shymexx.

Interesting stuff but pls, let there be no snide comments. All past differences, gripes, and so on should be parked outside this thread.

Ride on guys

Which opposition? I am curious.

Nonso23, please modify your last post directed at me. You haven't quoted properly so I cannot reply.

carefreewannabe:


Which opposition? I am curious.

He doesn't agree with your points. That's what I'm referring to.

Nonso23:


Madam/sir don't get worked up already.
She stated that she had researches. I'm only making sure that they aren't the usual feminist jargon that litter the internet. Rest assured when i eventually bring up articles it'll not just be speculative hearsay.

Here we go again...

This has got nothing to do with feminism.

Sigh...

EfemenaXY:


He doesn't agree with your points. That's what I'm referring to.

Ok, I thought you supported one particular argument in his contribution to the topic and I was curious which one.

Er, this is a research journal for you, if you're interested.

But it's in PDF format.

PASSIONATE MEN, EMOTIONAL WOMEN:
Psychology Constructs Gender Difference in the
Late 19th Century

http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/hop-1093-4510-10-2-92.pdf

EfemenaXY:


Agreed.

Although as an observer on the fence, the only intelligent opposition to carefreewannabe at this point is Shymexx.

Interesting stuff but pls, let there be no snide comments. All past differences, gripes, and so on should be parked outside this thread.

Ride on guys

You should know that's my ish.. But I'll try not to because of you and carefree.

carefreewannabe:


Ok, I thought you supported one particular argument in his contribution to the topic and I was curious which one.

Noooo...

On the contrary, there is a particular paragraph of his that got my hackles rising, but let's see if anyone will pick up on it.

EfemenaXY:


Noooo...

On the contrary, there is a particular paragraph of his that got my hackles rising, but let's see if anyone will pick up on it.

You are a patient woman.

Shirley07:

You should know that's my ish.. But I'll try not to because of you and carefree.

Shirley07:

Will you shut it? Why don't you find your own article to counter it if you think it isn't logical?
@carefreewannable, you're just wasting your time with these ignoramus.
@thread, I would even say men shows emotion than their women counterparts because they often throw tantrums when things don't go their way. They tends to be childish, stubborn, aggressive and these are ways of expressing one's emotion. Infact, female have better heads on their shoulder than their male counterpart in the sense that they are more matured in character, reasoning, intelligence e.t.c. What women lack in the physical aspect, they compensate it with their brain!

Hey genius, the text in bold is referred to as an 'emotional response'. Class act!

Them things you listed: being childish, stubborn, aggressive, are exactly what you expressed in the bits I put in bold for you.

As for women being more matured in character and reasoning, lady dream on - millions of Mother-in-law vs. Daughter-in-law conflicts is enough to tell you how much of a delusion that statement is.
Same thing with wives vs. sister-in-laws.

If you're going to reply me, I suggest you do so without your typical diatribe. State your points and counter my argument devoid of any vile, caustic, or derogatory words - if it comes easy to you that is.

carefreewannabe:


You are a patient woman.

Lol!

Lazybones more like. On mobile at the moment. The thought of logging onto my laptop...spending all that energy...

Maybe later though...

SirShymex:
Er, this is a research journal for you, if you're interested.

But it's in PDF format.

PASSIONATE MEN, EMOTIONAL WOMEN:
Psychology Constructs Gender Difference in the
Late 19th Century

http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/hop-1093-4510-10-2-92.pdf

It would have been nice, if you had referred to a particular point or at least a particular paragraph in the journal to give the discussion a direction.

Anyway.

I have read the introduction and I will quote it in order not to exceed the tolerable capacity of a post and possible discussions to follow on NL.

"The author examines British and American scientific psychology’s portrayal of natural and ideal masculinity and femininity in the late 19th century to show how purported differences in emotion and reason were critical to explaining the evolu- tionary foundation of existing social hierarchies. Strong emotion was identified with heterosexual manliness and men’s purportedly better capacity to harness the power of emotion in the service of reason. “Feminine” emotion was portrayed as a comparatively ineffectual emotionality, a by-product of female reproductive phys- iology and evolutionary need to be attractive to men. The author argues that constructions of emotion by psychology served an important power maintenance function. A concluding section addresses the relevance of this history to the politics of emotion in everyday life, especially assertions of emotional legitimacy."

The basis of this article are studies conducted in the 19th century and many of them have been long proven to be wrong. It makes more sense to concentrate on recent research that is not only up to date but also advanced with regard to scientific methods.

By the way, the introduction informs that the author of this same journal of this article disagrees with the portrayal of gender differences in the 19th century by saying that (bold) the perception of gender differences was constructed by psychologists and served to maintain power.

Having said it, I decided to read on. I will skip the middle part and read the conclusion (efficient and effective reading skills ).

At the end of the article, the author says that

"The paradoxical construal of emotion as simultaneously embodied and inef- fable is central to understanding how the politics of emotion operate in everyday life. Two points should be made explicit. First, constructions of emotion out-of- control are used to disempower people. In this article, I focused on the way in which the portrayal of women’s emotion was paradoxically described as weak emotionality and as dangerously unregulated."

You have quoted a journal that perfectly supports my view that our perception of gender is based on longstanding stereotypes.

Regarding this topic, it's surprising that from the very first page and first article, the answer to this debate has been made very clear - yet for some reason it still eludes you.
I honestly was expecting someone to have made the distinction by now.

Here goes:
The stereotype that women are more emotional than men is not based on feeling emotions, feeling is a normal human thing regardless of gender.
The stereotype is based on how differently and uniquely we respond to these emotions - It is all about the reaction/response, that's the difference between the genders.

A woman will more than likely respond to strong emotional stimulus without pause for rational thought (thinking it through), while a man is likely to hold back.
The argument that men pretend not to show emotion is redundant - that thing you call pretense is actually a deep-seated logical rationalization which subconsciously kicks in when a man is exposed to emotional stimulus.

It is not about teaching boys not to show emotion and all them bla bla yada yada argument being thrown around here which is actually totally false (no parent tells/teaches their sons not to cry when he wants), it is a biologically natural thing - Hormones and Brain activity/processing.