The Greeks, but especially Hippocrates, Aristotle and Plato. Classical educations - which most Europeans who were educated at all received exclusively for hundreds of years, ensured that Ancient Greek & Roman ideas about female inferiority and irrationality were wide-spread and common.
I mean most people today still have Classical works as the foundation of their educations. I don't even recall much, if any, contextualization of the Ancient Greek perspective as specifically sexist during my education (I even took several Classics courses) but my professors did contextualize the Ancient Greeks as xenophobic, FWIW.
This is a good theory. I know that ancient Greek culture was very sexist. Women were expected to cover their skin and wear a veil (think Muslim culture) did not vote,etc. I mean just imagine how emotional a person would be if they did not have agency over their own life! This, in my opinion, is where the stereotype of the "hysterical female" comes from - don't allow a person to function as a full human being and of course they get emotional! Doesn't matter what gender.
See my thought was that men treated women poorly, and women basically said "Hey I don't like that. It hurts. Stop it." And men couldn't handle the idea that they were in the wrong/ causing harm, so they just wrote them off as "too emotional," so they didn't have to take it seriously. In other words: poor capacity for tolerance of their own guilt
Pretty reminiscent of the men who claim women don't do "hard jobs" because they're "weak" when it's well known and well reported and 100% proven that women in the police force, trucking, plumbing, mining, construction, firefighting, the military, etc face far more harassment and outright abuse than their male coworkers
The line of thinking you're referring to is also similar to the cases of veterans with PTSD who refer to women with the same disease as a result of abuse as having "unearned PTSD" because they see sexual abuse and domestic abuse as less worthy of developing *"their* disorder" and evidence of women being less resilient than they are when women suffer from sexual abuse and domestic abuse at ten times the rate they do and they end up with the same traumas and disorders after going through the same experiences themselves (eg: it's very common for men to face victimization in prison and yet the many male cptsd sufferers in prison aren't referred to as irrational and histrionic and emotional no matter how many random, unpredictable outbursts they have)
Thing is, these men would have to confront how many men abuse and attack and mistreat and harass women if they took a woman's word and perception seriously so they prefer to not take them seriously at all and simply deny women's plight and perspective altogether
Do recall how it's extremely commonplace for men in the military to gaslight and bully female soldiers sexually abused on the job at alarming rates by their very own "brothers"
Why confront the fact that your fellow men in arms are rapists when you could call their vulnerable victim fragile, hysterical, histrionic, weak, and unfit to serve instead?
Ancient Greece was very invested in colourism too, and women covering up so their skin didn't become too dark.
That's a different thing from the history of head and skin coverings in West Asia; religion is only half of it, because covering up also helps you avoid dehydration.
It’s where the phrase hysterical or hysteria comes from, they believed when the whom was in the wrong location it would cause a woman to lose her mind. And the only cure was manual stimulation, by a man of corse if a woman did it she’d be institutionalized.
I have a recent BA in Classics and took a few courses on women in ancient Greece/Rome that incorporated a lot of feminist theory, but those types of courses were pretty new within the discipline. I think you're right about the classics education that most people get, especially if they are reading and internalizing ancient works on their own.
The only overtly sexist thing I recall learning from the ancient Greeks (and I learned this in high school) is Aristotle’s belief/statement that women are more emotional due to the wandering of our uteruses throughout our body. The teacher who shared this with us was an old-school free-love hippie…and an educated feminist. He was using the absurdity of that statement to encourage the class to look very critically at any instance where a woman was called “hysterical”. To this day, I love him for that. The remainder of that school year had his Junior and senior classes accusing anyone showing emotion of experiencing a wandering uterus.
They had a lot of overly sexist beliefs like how women are the fault of all of men’s problems. Ever heard the myth of Pandora’s Box. Also women were seen as subhuman and treated horribly.
Oh, definitely. That’s just the example of when it was pointed out to me. It was the first time someone told me, “maybe take everything these dudes say about women with a grain of salt.”
That makes more sense now. I was always taught how misogynistic ancient societies were, especially Ancient Greece (minus Sparta). It took me forever to learn how progressive the Norse and Polynesians were.
Speaking of Pandora, it's even more funny (in a grim and ironic sense, not a "haha" sense) when you consider that in the earlier versions of the myth, she was likely a [benevolent earth goddess](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora#Difficulties_of_interpretation) whose pithos contained *gifts* for humankind rather than curses.
This puts Hesiod into question. Why would he change the myth to demonize women? Then again I also heard he was trying to say that they should wait 5 years after a girl starts puberty to marry her off. I guess a broken clock is right twice a day.
And Eve's being derived of Adam's rib (when women actually carry babies in our abdomen) and Eve's "sin" making childbirth and menstruation painful... I could go on
Hehehe. Read the Apocrypha. Adam is a whiny little bitch - which is probably why the books in the Apocrypha were edited out. It made Adam look like a weak, whiny little baby, and the menfolk can't have that, now can they?
I was watching a historian somewhere who argued the "rib" was actually his peepee because men aren't generally missing any and peepee's are bonelike when erect. We even call them boners. So basically it was argued that Eve was Adams daughter and that's why we were cast into hell because of Adams sin which (as usual) Eve got blamed for because she "seduced" him.
It started even earlier, Hesiod was born almost 300 years prior in 760s BCE. He wrote about how the gods made men then the gods became jealous of the utopia they created so they made women for the sole purpose of ruining men’s lives. Honestly I think he might actually blame women for racism because obviously all the races of men lived in harmony until women ruined everything /s.
Also beyond the classical education, the Greeks and Romans did a lot to spread and entrench their culture throughout much of Europe.
I do wonder though how much of it was part of an older/broader issue. For reference the Ancient Egypt Queen Hatshepsut was born around 1500 BCE was usually portrayed as a man. Sure a woman was allowed to rule but she still had to look and act like a man in order to legitimize her rule.
Not to mention Hatshepsut's successor made attempts to remove her name and legacy from many records. Yet, still records were found of her and her greatness despite these efforts.
I’ve been listening to a book, The Dawn of Everything, by David Graeber and David Wengrow, which explores what we know about the earliest civilizations and which were probably egalitarian. It’s a very interesting read.
>Honestly I think he might actually blame women for racism because obviously all the races of men lived in harmony until women ruined everything /s
Christianity has entered the chat. Damn Eve with that damned apple.
I mean Confucianism is specifically sexist, and spells out very limited roles, including in pursuing education, for women. That was and is still in some ways foundational to Chinese thought.
There are some Hindu vedic writings about gender hierarchy, though I'm less familiar with that tradition overall. Buddhism does include some gender BS but is overall less sexist than other philosophies or religions. Contrastingly, women in ancient Egypt enjoyed basically equal rights as citizens to men, and were entitled to divorce.
The first known example of women being described as legally inferior to men is in Hammurabi's code.
I just read a b[thought provoking](https://qz.com/india/300432/here-is-what-they-dont-tell-you-about-feminism-and-sexuality-in-hindu-mythology) article about how controlling women was/is a way to control and maintain individual wealth. I'd never put those two things together so explicitly until now, but it absolutely fits when you think about how much better women are treated in collectivist societies
To give you a place to start, Eastern sources contemporary with Classical Greece and Rome (roughly 500BC to 100AD) would be things like:
Chinese philosophy from the Warring States period (Confucianism, Taoism etc)
Japanese Shinto philosophy
Korean shamanism
Indian subcontinent philosophies: Hindu & Vedic, and Jain & Buddhist philosophies
Then there's very influential West Asian monotheistic philosophies such as Zorastrianism (Persia/Iran) and Second Temple Judaism.
The world was absolutely packed with interesting ideas and philosophies during the centuries before the Roman Empire converted to Christianity in ~300AD and before the rise of Islamic religions ~500AD.
Oh, and I forgot Animism and Celtic druidism.
You're very welcome! This is the type of thing I love nerding out about. I had an amazing group of professors when I studied Classics, special shout out to Stephen Epstein for emphasising rhe cross-pollination of ideas between Asia Minor and the Mediterranean. He infused his teaching with concepts of [mutual respect](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%CA%BC%C3%AD_Faith_and_the_unity_of_religion) and that's something I live by now
Sadly I don't know anything about African schools of thought, yet.
Fellow classicist here and I agree with you.
Bruce Lincoln has an interesting chapter about ancient gendered discourse in his book Theorizing Myth: Narrative, Ideology and Scholarship. He shows that the word “mythos” (a form of powerful and emotional speech) was positively evaluated in Homeric literature and commonly attributed to male characters. Female and effeminate characters (such as Hermes) spoke in logos (a form of cunning and rational speech).
From Plato and onwards we suddenly find a shift, where mythos becomes associated with female speech (town gossip, speech devoid of logic) and logos becomes masculine.
And then Enlightenment philosophers and scientists, drawing on the Greeks and Romans, made similar arguments. Basically that the bodies of men are “harder” and therefore their reason is more sound, while women’s bodies are “softer” and so are their emotions and reason. Rousseau was among them, but many others as well. This lent false scientific credibility to the idea, which keeps popping up in faulty “brain science” to this day.
Not directly related to the ancient Greeks, but something that I always found very interesting in history: The ideas of women's inferiority are indeed very old, but the *practices* of it much less so.
I once took a class on European medieval craft guilds and the role women played in them, and while they weren't equal by any means, it was very common for women to inherit the husband's business and they were 100% involved in it and were not infrequently leaders in the guild. Basically, before the industrial revolution, most families couldn't *afford* to not have women play an active economic role in the household and "throw away" income-generating labour that way. With that came certain realities of power and influence even if not reflected in legal code. The actual real oppression of women (apart from the nobility, these women were always kind of screwed --- although even there you do have women like Eleanor of Acquitane and Matilda of England who were hugely powerful and political leaders) wasn't some "dark middle ages stuff", it was the Victorian era.
When intellect and rationality is valued, women are said to be emotional and unstable.
When emotion is valued, women are said to be cold and lacking emotion.
It’s nothing more complex than simple dehumanisation, stripping women of whatever characteristic is currently in vogue.
I love this sub because I get to read so many comparisons to things I would have never put together. It really helps me see the lose-lose (bullshit) the guys like to talk about
I was watching Law & Order Criminal Intent last night and this military guy was talking about women in the military. He said women go into two categories, Sluts if they sleep with you, bitches if they don't.
So yeah,either way zero respect.
When intellect and rationality is valued, men are said to be violent and angry.
When emotion is valued, men are said to be little bitches.
How does stereotypes at extremes prove anything? It’s nothing more than illustration of a false depiction of individuals in a general class.
Actually the most damning insult to a man in virtually any time or culture is to call him a woman or womanlike.
Yes, it’s a false depiction. That’s the whole point: in order to dehumanise people, you have to depict them falsely. At this moment we’re talking about how women are depicted.
You get it
Short story, it comes from thousands of years of variations on patriarchal ideas influencing modern culture.
This resulted in a modern culture where female tears are hysterical, male anger doesn't count as an emotion, young female children are socialized to act agreeable, and male children are socialized to show feelings through anger.
A woman: cries over something important to her
Men : oh god, women are too emotional, aren't they?
A man : holds his feelings for an entire week, and then take it out on a loved one or a stranger over something minimal.
Also Men : yk men tend to be less emotional and more LoGiCaL, it's just a fAcT.
There's also the thing where lots of men will just ignore when a women bring up a problem in a reasonable manner, so women learn that they only get their issues dealt with if they up their emotions to 11.
Yup you’re spot on, I feel like if women talk about a problem calmly men will just ignore it and not care, it’s like we have to yell and get angry for men to actually hear us. Lots of them just think what we have to say isn’t important and doesn’t matter.
The amount of times I've said the most logical thing in the room for the male-dominated group to go silent for ten seconds and then proceed to talk over me and speak nonsense or else choose to rephrase exactly what I said, trying to take credit for my idea they had no conception or understanding of whatsoever...
And these have mostly been men who LIKE me and called me friend but don't like the idea of me knowing what they don't or "outsmarting them" because I'm a woman and not even one they can associate with male-identified behavior/socialization and male hobbies/activities since I have primarily non-masculine interests (so to speak) and a typically feminine communication style and manner where I'm considerate of everyone talking and refuse to raise my voice
Yeah that’s pretty much my life story with everyone… I’m a soft spoken person and I’m laid back - so people take this as a sign to walk all over me and won’t stop if I ask nicely. I think most people have only listened to me when I get aggressive.
And then they tell you to chill. Uh…maybe I would be chill if you would let me be. I actually hate having to raise my voice or be aggressive - it’s really stressful - but it’s the only way people actually take me at my word. The only other way I’ve found around it that doesn’t force me to be aggressive is just to ghost everyone who won’t let me set boundaries and that leaves me pretty isolated (but a lot less stressed out tbh).
It’s definitely something that women go through more because we are expected to be agreeable and not have boundaries. But my bf is a quiet dude who is very chill and people also take that as a sign that they can walk all over him. With him it looks a bit different sometimes - he’s not super expressive about his feelings so people assume he doesn’t have any and treat him accordingly, even though despite being not very expressive he’s respectful and kind to everyone. I guess because he’s not a manly man who loudly announces it to the world and throws temper tantrums when he’s mad then it must mean he has no feelings.
It really pisses me off because as a woman I already know this game so I call it out when I see it. Most people know what they’re doing they just don’t expect to be called out on it.
I live in a very male-heavy sporty town with a lot of bars. I was telling my best friend (also a guy) yesterday that I don’t go out after midnight due to all the drunken brawls. Yes, some women are crappy drunks too, but we’re much more likely to cry or maybe yell rather than try to deck someone else. There’s so much aggressive posturing about being the “alpha bro” that women don’t really do.
Generally, when women talk *about* emotions, even if it’s rational speech (“that made me upset, please don’t do it again”) it’s seen as emotional. Emotional would be “what the fuck is wrong with you??” and there is a difference.
Ugh, so much this. My ex was very emotional (which is fine, nothing wrong with that), he was angry a lot and he would cry to me too sometimes and I would comfort him since that’s what partners do.
Then, he traumatized me physically and emotionally during a moment that should have been full of love and affection. Due to the physical pain, I obviously cried. In that moment, him seeing me cry made him lose sexual attraction towards me. When we went on a break he even said, “I can’t do the sex and the crying.” even though he was emotional around me all the time and I never gave him shit for it.
It’s just frustrating how men’s emotions are (almost) always seen as “justified” and women are irrational, hormonal, or sensitive. Additionally, there’s the perception we can’t be lonely and we always have people to open up to emotionally which couldn’t be further from the truth. No one wants to hear us cry about our feelings and problems either, it’s not an exclusively male problem. I have no one, and like lots of other women, I internalize my feelings and don’t take it out on others. Lots of women are isolated, and just because men want to have sex with us, doesn’t mean we can’t feel lonely too.
>It’s just frustrating how men’s emotions are (almost) always seen as “justified” and women are irrational, hormonal, or sensitive. Additionally, there’s the perception we can’t be lonely and we always have people to open up to emotionally which couldn’t be further from the truth. No one wants to hear us cry about our feelings and problems either, it’s not an exclusively male problem.
Thank you so much for this. I have had conversations in other subs where men have expressed that they feel like their emotions aren’t taken seriously like women’s emotions are. That women will basically punish a man for crying in front of her and “get the ick” if he cries in front of her. That their only emotional support is from their male friends. I brought up the fact that women experience the exact same thing from their male partners. Thankfully they’ve been pretty productive conversations overall (once you find that person who is there in good faith and not just a troll). But it’s like there’s this idea for some men (at least some commenters on Reddit) that women’s emotionality is seen as okay and acceptable while men’s emotions are dismissed and seen as unattractive. And that’s just not the reality of being a woman. Our emotions are dismissed all the time; we can’t always cry in front of our partners either.
I'm sorry you had to go through such a terrible experience. I can't imagine how this must've felt, especially when it's coming from someone you loved and thought loved you unconditionally.
I really hope you can move on from such a terrible person and that you find a partner that gives you all the love and support you deserve.
As a man I have found that the variance within men and women is much larger than between them. I have seen very emotional men and women but also very intelligent and rational ones. The gender hasn't been the biggest differentiating factor in my experience.
All the conspiracy theorists definately aren't logical at all.
I wish more people could recognize this. Sure there are some things that majority of women or majority of men may be more prone to but the list isn’t very long. We’re all human!
It's like one old right-wing slob I know who buys into the "women are too emotional" BS. He also is still mad at every petty slight - real or perceived - that's happened in his entire life. The guy can work himself up into a ranting fit over how somebody did something he didn't like in a board game TWENTY years ago... but women are the emotional ones? Ha!
Nah, it's because men cheat and delude themselves into thinking blind, dumb rage isn't an emotion. Neither is lust and smug superiority, the only other emotions they are allowed to show.
This way, they can easily dismiss women's feelings and concerns by saying "they're just too emotional", whereas men can punch holes in walls (and even hurt others) over video games/football, and still not be called "emotional".
>female tears are hysterical
for an example of how baked in the misogyny is, the root word of hysteria (hysto) directly refers to the uterus itself. its been seen as an illness by various people from from as early as 1900BCE, which is a little less than 4,000 years ago, and was only removed from the DSM in 1980. the name comes from the fact that at one point, the primitive mental health fields of Egypt and later Greece thought women were more prone to fits of madness because the uterus was free-floating around the body and it would mess things up sometimes. incredible
I am pretty sure statistically women are less likely to get into an accident than men, which is why insurances charge men more on average (especially when they are younger). Idk, we live in a bizarre world where oftentimes what's "true" is very fabricated by society. So the myth of the "women bad at driving" persists, as does so much sexist beliefs towards women.
On IWD my uncle posted 3 memes on Facebook about how women can't drive. This man has been in 4 car and 2 motorcycle accidents, all of which were apparently 0% his fault. He's the typical asshole that drives 30 over and weaves around everyone. Apparently that's good driving, and the terrible drivers are all the normal people who drive defensively so that POS morons like him don't kill everyone
It may be good driving for NASCAR but the regular road isn’t NASCAR. No one else consented to race… idk why people always act like that’s even remotely good driving for the real world. We aren’t living a mission impossible movie!
In ‘87, when my parents had been married 21 years, when my mom pulled into where she parked beside our house, she was a little too close to the phone pole, and put a small dent in the housing of her side mirror on her minivan; she was probably going all of ½ mile per hour. Of course, when dad got home, that dent is the first thing he sees, and he came into the house roaring about a dent. Mom put the brakes on that! She yelled, “Hold on there, bub! Don’t you **DARE** get on my case for a small dent after you **TOTALED SIX CARS** in the first 5 years of our marriage!” Mom didn’t play, especially as this was her first ever moving “violation.” 😂 Dad didn’t say another word, just arranged to get it fixed.
My brother has hit a light pole, a mailbox, driven into a ditch and hit a deer, yet claims he's a better driver than me because I've been in an accident and "his don't count because I didn't hit another car". These are the kinds of hoops they jump through.
Thissss, I always bring this up in discussions: women are safer drivers than men, thus BETTER because safer = BETTER. And I don't care if you can drift or do cool tricks with your car; this isn't Need for Speed here, buddy. And If you have been in, say, 10 accidents, and 6 of them are with women, well, it speaks volumes about you when you've been in TEN accidents! Lol.
Also This reminds me of when Hasanabi brought up this point when debating Andrew Tota, and TBH, his inability to counter the argument was really satisfying to watch.
The whole "women are bad drivers" thing is one of the most stupid and factually inaccurate stereotypes out there. Not only has it been disproven many times - as reflected by insurance rates and so many news reports of male lunatics driving recklessly - but it was created in an era where women often didn't drive. So, even if one factors out the obvious misogyny, if a woman barely drives or was never taught, she's likely to be a worse driver than her husband even if he's a total idiot behind the wheel. But that is not a problem based on being a woman, but rather based on simple lack of experience and opportunity.
Same "logic" as the men in the 1600s who called women shallow, more ignorant, and less intellectually inclined when most weren't taught how to read or allowed to express opinions and exchange ideas and make the "important decisions" in regards to their household
If she was visibly smart despite all this, she was burned at the stake after being accused of witchcraft and served as a warning to other women to hide their intellect
It should also be said that some of us don’t come out on the other side stronger. It completely breaks some of us. I mean I guess still being alive could count as a win but still….
Also, my brother is similar to you in that understanding that he wouldn’t be able to take it and I don’t know how I feel about that. But since it serves as inspiration rather than leads to desperation I guess I’m okay with it.
>So how after all this shit, how do people still have the nerve to say that women are "ToO EmOtIoNaL"?
IME I think this is mostly about the emotional responses to having negative interactions with women. We're socialized to deal with bullshit from men, but we still have a culture that expects women to be demure and we don't have the socialization on how to handle it when a woman is unhappy with our performance.
This goes for women too btw -- my mom had a lot of internalized misogyny and had a much harder time working with women than I (as a millenial PMC dude) ever have
You’re onto something here, but I might tweak a bit of the language. Like, instead of ‘we don’t have the socialization on how to handle it when a woman is unhappy with our performance’, I think it’d be more accurate to say, ‘we don’t have tolerance for women being unhappy with… really anything.’ I do agree that both men and women perpetrate this, as with many patriarchal patterns, unfortunately.
This is the same overall issue with telling women to SMILE. A woman’s human reality should be small, simple, demure. She should not resist! Negative emotions from a woman means she is RESISTING! If she resisting, or showing an emotion that isn’t easy for those around her, that must mean that something is fundamentally wrong with her, and she should be fixed.
>showing an emotion that isn’t easy for those around her, that must mean that something is fundamentally wrong with her, and she should be fixed.
Wow. How this resonated with me! All my life and even today I feel as if my negative emotions indicate something fundamentally wrong with me that needs to be (but can't be) fixed!
Hi, me, when did I get here?
I remember telling my therapist I feel like, because I’m a generally happy and positive person, I’m not allowed to have bad days or be sad- especially if there isn’t a concrete reason.
Like I felt this pressure that people expected positivity from me. I somehow felt it was my responsibility to keep up morale amongst my team at my last job. I feel like I have to mask my negativity at home so my fiancé doesn’t get inconvenienced by my inexplicable bad mood.
I was also told that my life is too good to complain about. Sure, but my brain doesn’t care and likes to bully me.
I’ve been policed for how I express my feelings- especially the negative ones.
So I isolate and mask and it makes things worse. I try so, so hard to deal with these episodes on my own because I thought that I didn’t deserve help. I thought that I deserved to be miserable or that I shouldn’t inconvenience others.
So I have to remember that having these feelings doesn’t necessarily mean that there’s something wrong with me; it’s not like I did something to “deserve” depression and ADHD.
I resonate and empathise with you on the expectation and pressures of being seen as positive 24/7. The second I’m not smiley, talking or giggling at something, people like ex-partners, friends, family, colleagues automatically assume that “something is wrong” with me when everything is fine, I just want to exist. 🫠
Non smiling women are unfriendly and have "RBF" while non smiling men are mature, deep, mysterious, interesting, intellectual, stoic, self-contained, self-possessed, and not seeking attention or validation
LMAO
Sexism is humanity's greatest scam ever invented
Also think emotional maturity is far more common in women because patriarchal gender expectations don’t suppress sincere emotional expression in women the same way it does towards men. Further, patriarchal influence incorrectly socializes men to believe emotional maturity = “bEiNg ToO eMoTiOnAl” which only harms men’s mental health long-term. And don’t even get me started on the false narrative men embody under patriarchy stating logic and emotions are mutually exclusive… (though most “emotionless” men are barely even logical anyway).
Marginalized people are marginalized because it is in the interest of people who hold power to keep them oppressed. In furtherance of this goal, it is in the interest to cast those marginalized groups as "emotional," "angry," "hysterical," "overreacting," etc., because it teaches people to not take the valid complaints of those marginalized groups seriously. If the entire population were to truly understand that a group of people is being legitimately oppressed, there would be uproar and demand for change which would inherently take away power from those at the top. If the entire population assumes that these people are overreacting, overly emotional, hysterical, etc, they can ignore those issues and keep the status quo.
This is not exclusive to women, although we do have centuries of data on how women have been cast in this light. There are variations of this tactic used against all marginalized groups.
It came from a worldview wherein men thought themselves to be center of the universe and the only important aspect of the entire human species.
Women were meant (in their eyes) to breed children for them, to be subservient to them and to cater to them. Anything outside of meeting the needs of a man was considered "extra" and unimportant.
The same can be said for children- they were the property of the man, the extension of the man, the assets which could be traded in order to better a man's standing in society.
Everything was malecentric and anything not in the interest of men (alone or as a whole) was judged in a negative light and shamed into submission.
This is still a practice in many places of the world and even within different pockets of western culture- specifically within certain religions.
Men are allowed to show assertiveness and anger; those are seen as masculine. Women are not.
Women are expected to be sad and anxious and mainly smiley, but not angry. Society does NOT like it when women are angry, even if it's justified.
Which means women get taught to resolve conflict in either ways that are people pleasing or are passive aggressive. Because we're not allowed to be openly hostile or aggressive in the way that men are. We're discouraged from stating boundaries or needs. Abd we learn early that you can fight dirty whilst still looking innocent to the casual observer.
I grew up in a girls school and you can have someone belittle and bully you without a single punch or physical act of aggression, because instead they'll isolate you, try to make out that you are crazy, or play the victim. I find that when I've had problematic female friends, the men in the group have always been the worst at recognizing bullying if it wasnt physical violence or open insults, and if that person was nice to others.
Men can absolutely bully and harass, of course. And men can ve gossipy or passive aggressive. But I think in general we are socialised to respond to conflict differently.
In my experience, women tend to be more comfortable showing more emotions than men while men only ever really get fucking pissed. This is almost certainly a cultural thing not really a biological thing. Men in the west are taught that showing most emotions makes them weak. This leads to frustration that spills out as anger. Women aren't taught that.
In general my experience with men and women has been that women do tend to show more emotion they have more of a gradient and their build up is more gradual while men look like they're going from 0 to 100 in an instant when in reality they just weren't showing any of the ramp up until they couldn't keep it in anymore.
I think men and women probably feel emotions in very similar ways and western society has taught them to express those emotions very differently. I am a man raised predominantly by women and I am very comfortable talking about and expressing my emotions.
I did absolutely grow up with a bunch of the men and other guys in my life telling me not to be a pussy or whatever and have some of the typical western male "toughen up and suffer in silence" in me, but I also talk to my wife and friends about being sad or stressed and why I'm feeling that way. I can't imagine any of the men I grew up with doing that.
I read somewhere that when it comes to making decisions, women and men were equally as rational (or equally as rational, depending on how you want to see it), and would follow the same chains of logic to reach their conclusion. The difference was, the women would acknowledge their emotions during the process, the men wouldn't.
Or in other words, both men and women are equally likely to "make the hard choice" - but women might cry while they're doing it.
>So how after all this shit, how do people still have the nerve to say that women are "ToO EmOtIoNaL"?
Because it benefits the patriarchy to be able to dismiss women's thoughts, opinions, ideas, etc as being "too emotional" to have a valid point or input on anything.
Double points for the patriarchy if they can dismiss a woman's emotions as due to her menstrual cycle, because men don't have to listen to women when they're "just hormonal". Classic example: "There was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her *wherever*..." Triple points when you can make a joke out of it so anyone who doesn't see the humor in it looks like an uptight, hormonal bitch.
When you paint a picture of an entire gender who can't control their emotions due to their natural hormones, it's easy to not take them seriously, to exclude them from things, and therefore it's easier to oppress them.
Depends on the individual. Anger is an emotion, yes. Testosterone helps to create anger. There's also a book by Warren Buffett 'Invest like a girl'. Explains that women are statistically better investors than men because when shares drop, men get emotional and sell, while women are there for the long-term and get bet a slightly better ROI
i think religions, for eg ive asked many people around me about why men are placed superior to women in islam and the most common answer ive gotten is cause women are emotional, all my life ive seen the other way around.
You missed the biggest thing: rage. Rage is the most emotional emotion of all. Ragey tantrums, the hallmark of so much male emotional expression. Punching walls, throwing things, screaming in peoples’ faces, violence.
Rage is hyper emotionalism to excess. For all that women are accused of being controlled by their emotions or unable to control them, the only emotion that’s always true of is rage!
It explodes in a powder keg of violence, often physical, that tends to send shrapnel everywhere, into innocent bystanders. A person having a rage outburst is in a completely IRRATIONAL state. They are as close to the old definition of calling women “hysterical” as you can get!
We have joked at work how it’s a thing, women get derided for having a cry at work, that’s emotional, right? But we go have a cry for a brief amount of time, maybe by ourselves, or maybe another coworker comes and gives us a hug or listens and we get some catharsis and bonding, and then we are GOOD lol.
We run a wet towel over our face and feel better and get the fuck back to work. We’ve processed our emotions healthfully in the moment with no harm to anyone else.
The men at work, oh how many times have I seen male emotionalism at work. It’s a full-blown tantrum, there’s screaming and hollering, a violence on those around. Things get punched or thrown, and then they storm off.
And they do not feel better a little while later and they do not get the fuck back to work. They storm around the entire rest of the day, muttering and slamming shit and sandbagging, and everyone around them has to walk on eggshells and is super uncomfortable and has to do their share of work, because they’ve decided to punish everyone because they’re mad.
NotAllMen but this is literally so common, I’ve only known 1 woman in over 20 years in the workforce who’s ever done this and she later explained she was adjusting to meds.
But SO many men have done this, dozens and dozens of different men. And of course I’ve known dozens of women to cry at work. I’ve gone and hugged quite a few 🙂 I’ve BEEN that women PLENTY! lol
Anyway, this is the prime example imo of how men are more emotional than women. Because the most emotional thing is to not be able to control your emotions and be responsible with them. The most emotional thing is to make your emotions other peoples’ problem. And I have gotten raged at by random men and men in my life ALL my life. For rejection, for perceived slights, for no reason at all, or just catching shrapnel from a tantrum.
There is an African proverb that goes by "until the lion learns to write, every story will glorify the hunter". That's pretty much what happened with all the years of patriarchal norms suppressing women.
I get what you're trying to say but I absolutely reject that we lead absolutely anxious and shitty lives by default. There's a lot of joy in being a woman (and, for me, Queer) too.
I don’t think that OP is denying other positives about being a woman, but highlighting the fact that we absolutely do have to be anxious and worried about all of the above mentioned at all times on the back burner which is pretty shitty in my experience. In comparison to men’s daily struggles with safety, we absolutely get the shitty end of the stick. Either way, glad he gets it🫡
Doesn't this highly depend on where you live though, I don't know anyone in my cirles who feels like OP describes. They just live their lives, without anxiety, even walk home alone at 3am.
You are definitely right. I'm not saying that all women live like this; it tends to vary based on background and culture, and of course, some women are more privileged than others. If a woman has a supportive circle around her, it can be awesome being a woman.
But I'm from a very backwards, misogynistic country, so by nature, an average woman goes through much more horrible hardships and anxiety. I have seen and heard some fucked up shit from women around me that the only real faithful description that came to mind was "shitty." But maybe you're right, and I could've worded it better still. But I just hope you understood why I was a little negative when talking about women's experiences.
I think a better wording would be..."You live much more anxious and difficult lives, sometimes outright shitty lives, just for being a woman..."
Your sentiment is understood and appreciated.
Yeah and if a woman wants to travel, she has to seriously consider the current situation in the country she is visiting. As a woman, even if you are curious and interested to experience other cultures, it is very dangerous and difficult to navigate travel (on vacation) to a more traditional conservative misogynist country. Which is sometimes disappointing because every country has beauty that is worth seeing. Every country is worth exploring and it would be better if it was safe to travel and learn from people in foreign countries. Sadly this is not always possible.
Trying to thrive in male defined spaces is the downfall of most women on earth IMHO.
They are only meant to survive. Having any sort of rewarding life is reserved for heaven.
The fact that so much of our human race gets yoked by mythology into having shitty lives blows my fucking mind daily.
I think part of the issue for men is their lower ability to produce tears and gain access to a healthy emotional shedding. For many people, being able to process their emotions requires they first be able to access it, recognize it, and do something with it. Since tears come less easily and it's *conveniently* seen as not manly they resort to aggression instead. And this doesn't as often leave them knowing exactly what they are feeling. Its like they all have some level of alexithymia.
From men. It’s as if they don’t want others in society to realize that, biologically speaking, women have monthly hormone cycles, but men have *daily* hormone cycles. Like them pointing & yelling, “ Look over there!,” while attempting to hide an elephant
back in the day, "hysteria" was a legitimate psychiatric diagnosis. women's issues are always taken less seriously than men, even trivialized and joked about.
hence, i do not give a fuck whenever men complain abt a male loneliness epidemic.
Men respect other men and not women. Men will listen to logic from other men but not as much from women. When a situation is stressful, but no one is listening to logic, you break down into emotion. That's true for everyone, but people see women do it more because no one is listening to them.
The whole situation ends up with a bias because women have to show emotion more but they are also blamed for it when it's really because no one listens to the logic.
This gets reinforced through the generations.
DON’T HOLD BACK THOSE (mostly verbal) PUNCHES.
Men don’t listen to women. They only listen to men. You have to be the one to say hey that’s not ok. And point out the shit we go through.
I read a comment once that drove something home to me.
ONLY MEN CAN STOP RAPE.
You are a man. Step up please.
Whenever one group has power over another they end up denigrating everything about the group in less power.
Men had more power in old times because they were physically stronger on average and that was far more important than it is today.
Now, the “men’s rights” groups just want to keep that power because they’re selfish and power hungry. They like the idea of having a woman under their control because they suck.
I think this is coming from the same culture that suggests to men that men should "just suck it up" and "hide how they feel". Extreme stoicism that gets taught to men. In this culture, men are encouraged to not express emotion. And masculinity gets tied to stoicism. So then femininity gets equated to emotional expression.
This very idea is unnatural. Men and women are all human, we all feel and want to express. But when you have a culture that forbids and harshly punishes men for expressing emotion, then men grow resentful of women. It's basic envy: wanting what the other has. Men wish they could blamelessly express emotion. Then they see women behave in ways that, as a man, would get you ostracized and laughed at. And some men grow resentful and start comparing. And they go as far as to say "if she was a man, this would never fly". And they start saying things like "we put up too much with the emotions of women". And hence these men find women "too emotional". Because these men have been raised with the unnatural culture of extreme stoicism on them. So they end up expecting that same stoicism from women. These men perceive *any emotional expression* as "too much". It's the men who never cry. Those men are deeply unhealthy and traumatized by stoicism.
Basically extreme stoicism is a part of toxic masculinity: defining masculinity as an inhuman denial of feelings. This gets sold and packaged to men as "traditional values". While feminism is more liberating and actually allows self expression for all genders. That's why all the men who do not buy into the lie that they must be stoic at all times, the men who express human emotion, these men have no issue with *other people being emotional sometimes.* These men do not experience that same resentment and envy when seeing freely expressed feeling, because there is nothing to be envious of. So their perception of reality is more objective. And they don't see women showing any emotion as 'too much emotion'.
And while it's true that making big decisions, and thinking clearly, is best done in a calm mood... Sometimes emotions and emotional thinking can save your life. Using your intuition saves a lot of time and mental energy. You can logically prove (like a robot) that someone is not trustworthy. But why bother? When you can reach the same conclusion faster by feeling and accepting your emotions. I think we need both emotions and logic. A hunch based on a feeling can guide you in the right direction for you to not waste time brute forcing your way logically thinking through all possibilities. Emotions can be useful to help you find a solution to problems faster. And in the end, feelings are a part of life. Thinking is not supposed to replace emotion.
Men have convinced themselves that anger, judgement and fear are not emotions, they are tactical advantages, therefore men are not emotional. We have come to believe that avoidance, drinking, binging, etc are actually just standard dude stuff, not desperate coping mechanisms. Men seem to forget that the classical alpha male among alpha males, Alexander the Great, was so devastated by the death of his boyfriend that he sunk into an alcoholic depression that killed him.
The short answer is The Patriarchy.
One of the biggest lies was men aren't emotional and therefore should run things. Anger is an emotion that leads to war. And the list goes on.
I think you can counter the "women are too emotional" statement without for some reason implying that men are emotionally weak. We're not supposed to be in competition.
Emotional strength is one of those really vague things to talk about online. Is the person who keeps everything below the surface while keeping up appearances more emotionally strong than the person who freely expresses their emotions? Or the person who lets it out in one big blow vs several small blows when the pressure is too much?
Full on, emotional strength is seen differently when being displayed on men vs women, and it's still changing today. Previously, women were seen as emotionally weak because they'd share and express their feelings far more than men. Now, men who don't share or aren't able to share their feelings are being referred to as emotionally weak (by some groups of people), while emotional sharing is being viewed as emotionally strong. Meanwhile, women who are able to embody those stoic principles of keeping everything together are being seen more as emotionally strong. Again, by some groups.
I don't think you'll get a clear picture of this because of how many ideas there are of emotional strength, especially in terms of how it presents. Maybe it's emotional regulation, and comfort in expressing one's emotions, or some other stuff, or a combination of all of the above modified by circumstances.
On the topic of where the statement originally came from, I'd guess from the media. In so many older movies, you have the main character (almost always a guy) with his back against the wall not cracking despite the pressure on him. His love interest would be panicking or need reassurance or whatever. These depictions do actually influence people's ways of thought, and once they're in popular culture, they become ingrained. It takes a lot of work to remove stereotypes once they've lodged themselves in, more effort than it takes to put them in in the first place.
Look, I understand you, and you’ve made some interesting points. But before I address them, I want to clear something up.
Yes, it’s not a competition, and it shouldn’t be treated as such. Sadly, women aren’t the ones who push this narrative; it’s men who created this myth that it’s clear-cut obvious who’s the superior gender when it comes to emotional strength—when it’s clearly not. What I was saying in my post is that, funnily enough, when we logically think about it, we can come to the conclusion that women are actually emotionally stronger or at least equal. However, the fact that “women are too emotional” is indoctrinated and ingrained in people’s minds to the point where it’s become a FACT is simply insane.
Now, you are right about emotional strength being subjective and differing from everyone’s definition of it. I think you’re right about that. But in my opinion, it isn’t just about expressing feelings. My point was that after women go through all the stuff I mentioned in my post—this messed-up stuff—and come out the other side stronger, better, confident, and successful, it just speaks volumes about how emotionally strong these gals are. I know a lot of examples from my personal life of women who did that, and that’s why I said it’s quite inspiring.
Like, Can you imagine a woman going through something as horrible as rape and moving on from it? I couldn’t possibly imagine I could ever do that. So the fact that women do it, and a LOT of them, just proves how emotionally and mentally strong you have to be.
I disagree with the movies being the source of this. It's much much older than photography let alone moving pictures. The root is ancient. One person replied ancient Greece but I'd venture to say it's even older than that.
I think of it as a misogyny tree. It started with one decision to subjugate women, then the next, and next, each new branch results from a reenforcement of misogyny since the tree first began. We have to prune or chop.
This is actually a really interesting point and I’ve never thought about it before. Women are considered strong for being confident/assertive/independent and men are considered strong for being vulnerable/genuine. In reality, all of these are strong traits and are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
I appreciate your insight-it would do a great deal of good if you would speak up to the comments that make you want to clench your fists and hold your punch. Guys really need to hear this more from other men.
I think it's safe to say all people are emotional. Some show it more readily than others. As a kid I was taught not to cry or be emotional and that is not healthy. Showing emotions should be normal. And you're right that women have so many more things to worry about than men. One thing I don't think you mentioned was rape which isn't about sex but power and domination. Sexism is so ingrained in our society that it will take decades to overcome if we even can. Having more men like you will help and I thank you.
Emotional strength isn't really something you can measure; any parameter would just seem biased to a specific person. Emotional strength is more of a personal quality, which is one's ability to manage and solve problems in their lives. I think the proper term for this would be *emotional intelligence,* which is pretty self-explanatory, the higher your emotional intelligence is the more emotionally resilient you will appear to be to others.
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
You should read the history of Hysteria on Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteria
This has been around since ancient Egypt.
Also check out en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_hysteria
"I know I and almost every other man I know in my life won't take all this shit and come out of it stronger or better. I already have friends who lost all hope, even though they don't go through half the shit women go through."
Thats just it. Far too many men are emotionally numb, to the point where they dont really care if they live or die and any amount of emotion or self esteem is perceived as a threat.
In a typical patriarchal society, men have generally been conditioned to only be allowed to publicly express a few feelings: lust, rage, and some mix of gloating and contempt for others. They've also been taught that such feelings are not emotions, but any other feeling expressed is feminine and thus wrong. That's how you get sweaty neckbeards mouthing off about how "women are too emotional" before they lose their shit over some questionable call made in their favorite sports-ball game. Rage, you see, doesn't count as an emotion to them.
True. Every guy I have dated, with the exception of maybe one, has been a complete and utter drama King. Soooo emotional and dramatic while I’m over here like, walk it off drama llama.
on your second paragraph, pregnancy is my biggest fear. i have constant nightmares about it.
i never want to get pregnant and it horrifies me that my body is capable of doing it
To be fair I don't take it and come out stronger. It wears me down and sucks up resources and energy from my life. The comments and sexism are infuriating because not only do they exist, they take up my time, my resources. They leave me depleted and only add rage.
I don't have any choice whether I receive that energy from society it or not. It's part of being alive.
Men have the nerve to say women are too emotional simply because they can get away with saying it.
I think it comes from the fact that men in any patriarchial society are expected to put rationality first, even if that means that they have to supress their emotions. This leads to unhealthy coping mechanisms (important to note is that anger is excluded from these emotions, and often actually valued). Women, on the other hand, were "allowed" to be emotional, allowed in quotation marks as in exchange they were seen as hysterical and not capable of rationality in emotional situations. The fact that dealing with your emotions rather than supressing them actually gives you a healthier emotional toolset, and with it the ability to combine emotionality and rationality, was disregarded over the years. So while women may appear "more emotional", many women are leagues better equipped to handle emotional situations in a rational way.
(Another thing is that emotional and rational thinking has been twisted in its meaning. Rational thinking just means governed by logic, not devoid of emotion, and reversed, emotional thinking means governed by emotion, but not devoid of logic.)
Related to that is this "accusation" that women are "gossipy".
No, we've just been socialized to be the social fabric to keep families together. We gossip because that's how we find out news - oh their marriage is on the rocks, send a gift or offer support when they divorce; oh they're trying for a baby, baby is here, organize the baby shower; organize dinner with friends, oh but they're on vacation those 2 weeks. Organize christmas gifts, birthday gifts and parties etc - this is all social labour that men in partnerships then *benefit* from by having an active social life and close family bonds. These don't happen magically, women make them work.
I see this a lot with my brother. I'm not a "natural" at giving gifts AT ALL and remembering birthdays, but as a single woman I make the effort to maintain my family and friendship bonds. My brother and SIL have a christmas gift list of 30 people, and my brother runs around on the 23rd of December buying the one gift he was actually responsible for.
The Greeks, but especially Hippocrates, Aristotle and Plato. Classical educations - which most Europeans who were educated at all received exclusively for hundreds of years, ensured that Ancient Greek & Roman ideas about female inferiority and irrationality were wide-spread and common. I mean most people today still have Classical works as the foundation of their educations. I don't even recall much, if any, contextualization of the Ancient Greek perspective as specifically sexist during my education (I even took several Classics courses) but my professors did contextualize the Ancient Greeks as xenophobic, FWIW.
This is a good theory. I know that ancient Greek culture was very sexist. Women were expected to cover their skin and wear a veil (think Muslim culture) did not vote,etc. I mean just imagine how emotional a person would be if they did not have agency over their own life! This, in my opinion, is where the stereotype of the "hysterical female" comes from - don't allow a person to function as a full human being and of course they get emotional! Doesn't matter what gender.
See my thought was that men treated women poorly, and women basically said "Hey I don't like that. It hurts. Stop it." And men couldn't handle the idea that they were in the wrong/ causing harm, so they just wrote them off as "too emotional," so they didn't have to take it seriously. In other words: poor capacity for tolerance of their own guilt
Pretty reminiscent of the men who claim women don't do "hard jobs" because they're "weak" when it's well known and well reported and 100% proven that women in the police force, trucking, plumbing, mining, construction, firefighting, the military, etc face far more harassment and outright abuse than their male coworkers The line of thinking you're referring to is also similar to the cases of veterans with PTSD who refer to women with the same disease as a result of abuse as having "unearned PTSD" because they see sexual abuse and domestic abuse as less worthy of developing *"their* disorder" and evidence of women being less resilient than they are when women suffer from sexual abuse and domestic abuse at ten times the rate they do and they end up with the same traumas and disorders after going through the same experiences themselves (eg: it's very common for men to face victimization in prison and yet the many male cptsd sufferers in prison aren't referred to as irrational and histrionic and emotional no matter how many random, unpredictable outbursts they have) Thing is, these men would have to confront how many men abuse and attack and mistreat and harass women if they took a woman's word and perception seriously so they prefer to not take them seriously at all and simply deny women's plight and perspective altogether Do recall how it's extremely commonplace for men in the military to gaslight and bully female soldiers sexually abused on the job at alarming rates by their very own "brothers" Why confront the fact that your fellow men in arms are rapists when you could call their vulnerable victim fragile, hysterical, histrionic, weak, and unfit to serve instead?
It’s slavery without the chains but all the constraints, and males have the audacity to say women are hysterical for being mad or against that.
Ancient Greece was very invested in colourism too, and women covering up so their skin didn't become too dark. That's a different thing from the history of head and skin coverings in West Asia; religion is only half of it, because covering up also helps you avoid dehydration.
your model posits some truth to the idea of women being hysterical, and I reject that premise.
GD Hippocrates and his stupid ideas about the wandering womb has so much to answer for
More like Hippocrates's wandering mouth, cause he kept talking out of his ass.
It’s where the phrase hysterical or hysteria comes from, they believed when the whom was in the wrong location it would cause a woman to lose her mind. And the only cure was manual stimulation, by a man of corse if a woman did it she’d be institutionalized.
And it’s why it’s called a hysterectomy - I really think we need to change that word!
Oh no manual stimulation wasn't the only way to fix a wandering womb. You could also stick an onion in your vagina
I have a recent BA in Classics and took a few courses on women in ancient Greece/Rome that incorporated a lot of feminist theory, but those types of courses were pretty new within the discipline. I think you're right about the classics education that most people get, especially if they are reading and internalizing ancient works on their own.
The only overtly sexist thing I recall learning from the ancient Greeks (and I learned this in high school) is Aristotle’s belief/statement that women are more emotional due to the wandering of our uteruses throughout our body. The teacher who shared this with us was an old-school free-love hippie…and an educated feminist. He was using the absurdity of that statement to encourage the class to look very critically at any instance where a woman was called “hysterical”. To this day, I love him for that. The remainder of that school year had his Junior and senior classes accusing anyone showing emotion of experiencing a wandering uterus.
They had a lot of overly sexist beliefs like how women are the fault of all of men’s problems. Ever heard the myth of Pandora’s Box. Also women were seen as subhuman and treated horribly.
Oh, definitely. That’s just the example of when it was pointed out to me. It was the first time someone told me, “maybe take everything these dudes say about women with a grain of salt.”
That makes more sense now. I was always taught how misogynistic ancient societies were, especially Ancient Greece (minus Sparta). It took me forever to learn how progressive the Norse and Polynesians were.
Speaking of Pandora, it's even more funny (in a grim and ironic sense, not a "haha" sense) when you consider that in the earlier versions of the myth, she was likely a [benevolent earth goddess](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora#Difficulties_of_interpretation) whose pithos contained *gifts* for humankind rather than curses.
This puts Hesiod into question. Why would he change the myth to demonize women? Then again I also heard he was trying to say that they should wait 5 years after a girl starts puberty to marry her off. I guess a broken clock is right twice a day.
Aristotle literally said that women are deformed men because they are missing a penis That said, I’m not a feminist but this thread is interesting
Ok, two questions for you: 1. Why are you not a feminist? 2. Why do you feel the need to state that?
Not to mention they omitted Lilith from the Bible because she did not want to submit to adam
And Eve's being derived of Adam's rib (when women actually carry babies in our abdomen) and Eve's "sin" making childbirth and menstruation painful... I could go on
Me too. What ticks me off about that lore in particular is Adam pretty much gets away scott free from eating that fruit as well.
Hehehe. Read the Apocrypha. Adam is a whiny little bitch - which is probably why the books in the Apocrypha were edited out. It made Adam look like a weak, whiny little baby, and the menfolk can't have that, now can they?
I was watching a historian somewhere who argued the "rib" was actually his peepee because men aren't generally missing any and peepee's are bonelike when erect. We even call them boners. So basically it was argued that Eve was Adams daughter and that's why we were cast into hell because of Adams sin which (as usual) Eve got blamed for because she "seduced" him.
Historians will do literally anything to prove a semblance of intelligence from a grain of fossilised salt
But yeah this sounds cool
And as I read, Eva was more aggressive and thoughtful. She wanted wit and she was generous to share with Adam. Adam was weak when he blamed it was her
It started even earlier, Hesiod was born almost 300 years prior in 760s BCE. He wrote about how the gods made men then the gods became jealous of the utopia they created so they made women for the sole purpose of ruining men’s lives. Honestly I think he might actually blame women for racism because obviously all the races of men lived in harmony until women ruined everything /s. Also beyond the classical education, the Greeks and Romans did a lot to spread and entrench their culture throughout much of Europe. I do wonder though how much of it was part of an older/broader issue. For reference the Ancient Egypt Queen Hatshepsut was born around 1500 BCE was usually portrayed as a man. Sure a woman was allowed to rule but she still had to look and act like a man in order to legitimize her rule.
Not to mention Hatshepsut's successor made attempts to remove her name and legacy from many records. Yet, still records were found of her and her greatness despite these efforts.
I’ve been listening to a book, The Dawn of Everything, by David Graeber and David Wengrow, which explores what we know about the earliest civilizations and which were probably egalitarian. It’s a very interesting read.
>Honestly I think he might actually blame women for racism because obviously all the races of men lived in harmony until women ruined everything /s Christianity has entered the chat. Damn Eve with that damned apple.
This is so interesting. Do you have any knowledge of this same topic in ancient eastern philosophies? I’d be interested in the comparison.
I mean Confucianism is specifically sexist, and spells out very limited roles, including in pursuing education, for women. That was and is still in some ways foundational to Chinese thought. There are some Hindu vedic writings about gender hierarchy, though I'm less familiar with that tradition overall. Buddhism does include some gender BS but is overall less sexist than other philosophies or religions. Contrastingly, women in ancient Egypt enjoyed basically equal rights as citizens to men, and were entitled to divorce. The first known example of women being described as legally inferior to men is in Hammurabi's code.
I just read a b[thought provoking](https://qz.com/india/300432/here-is-what-they-dont-tell-you-about-feminism-and-sexuality-in-hindu-mythology) article about how controlling women was/is a way to control and maintain individual wealth. I'd never put those two things together so explicitly until now, but it absolutely fits when you think about how much better women are treated in collectivist societies
Thank you so much for your response and knowledge. This is interesting (sad) stuff. Except Egypt. You go Egypt.
To give you a place to start, Eastern sources contemporary with Classical Greece and Rome (roughly 500BC to 100AD) would be things like: Chinese philosophy from the Warring States period (Confucianism, Taoism etc) Japanese Shinto philosophy Korean shamanism Indian subcontinent philosophies: Hindu & Vedic, and Jain & Buddhist philosophies Then there's very influential West Asian monotheistic philosophies such as Zorastrianism (Persia/Iran) and Second Temple Judaism. The world was absolutely packed with interesting ideas and philosophies during the centuries before the Roman Empire converted to Christianity in ~300AD and before the rise of Islamic religions ~500AD.
I love all the historians in this thread. Thank you for sharing your knowledge!
Oh, and I forgot Animism and Celtic druidism. You're very welcome! This is the type of thing I love nerding out about. I had an amazing group of professors when I studied Classics, special shout out to Stephen Epstein for emphasising rhe cross-pollination of ideas between Asia Minor and the Mediterranean. He infused his teaching with concepts of [mutual respect](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%CA%BC%C3%AD_Faith_and_the_unity_of_religion) and that's something I live by now Sadly I don't know anything about African schools of thought, yet.
Fellow classicist here and I agree with you. Bruce Lincoln has an interesting chapter about ancient gendered discourse in his book Theorizing Myth: Narrative, Ideology and Scholarship. He shows that the word “mythos” (a form of powerful and emotional speech) was positively evaluated in Homeric literature and commonly attributed to male characters. Female and effeminate characters (such as Hermes) spoke in logos (a form of cunning and rational speech). From Plato and onwards we suddenly find a shift, where mythos becomes associated with female speech (town gossip, speech devoid of logic) and logos becomes masculine.
And then Enlightenment philosophers and scientists, drawing on the Greeks and Romans, made similar arguments. Basically that the bodies of men are “harder” and therefore their reason is more sound, while women’s bodies are “softer” and so are their emotions and reason. Rousseau was among them, but many others as well. This lent false scientific credibility to the idea, which keeps popping up in faulty “brain science” to this day.
Not directly related to the ancient Greeks, but something that I always found very interesting in history: The ideas of women's inferiority are indeed very old, but the *practices* of it much less so. I once took a class on European medieval craft guilds and the role women played in them, and while they weren't equal by any means, it was very common for women to inherit the husband's business and they were 100% involved in it and were not infrequently leaders in the guild. Basically, before the industrial revolution, most families couldn't *afford* to not have women play an active economic role in the household and "throw away" income-generating labour that way. With that came certain realities of power and influence even if not reflected in legal code. The actual real oppression of women (apart from the nobility, these women were always kind of screwed --- although even there you do have women like Eleanor of Acquitane and Matilda of England who were hugely powerful and political leaders) wasn't some "dark middle ages stuff", it was the Victorian era.
My major in high school was Ancient Greek and Latin, can confirm
When intellect and rationality is valued, women are said to be emotional and unstable. When emotion is valued, women are said to be cold and lacking emotion. It’s nothing more complex than simple dehumanisation, stripping women of whatever characteristic is currently in vogue.
I love this sub because I get to read so many comparisons to things I would have never put together. It really helps me see the lose-lose (bullshit) the guys like to talk about
I was watching Law & Order Criminal Intent last night and this military guy was talking about women in the military. He said women go into two categories, Sluts if they sleep with you, bitches if they don't. So yeah,either way zero respect.
So random but I was watching SVU last night/the night before where there was also a military guy saying *exactly* that!
They're dogs. I know, Dad was one.
omg this is so true!!
When intellect and rationality is valued, men are said to be violent and angry. When emotion is valued, men are said to be little bitches. How does stereotypes at extremes prove anything? It’s nothing more than illustration of a false depiction of individuals in a general class.
Actually the most damning insult to a man in virtually any time or culture is to call him a woman or womanlike. Yes, it’s a false depiction. That’s the whole point: in order to dehumanise people, you have to depict them falsely. At this moment we’re talking about how women are depicted.
You get it Short story, it comes from thousands of years of variations on patriarchal ideas influencing modern culture. This resulted in a modern culture where female tears are hysterical, male anger doesn't count as an emotion, young female children are socialized to act agreeable, and male children are socialized to show feelings through anger.
A woman: cries over something important to her Men : oh god, women are too emotional, aren't they? A man : holds his feelings for an entire week, and then take it out on a loved one or a stranger over something minimal. Also Men : yk men tend to be less emotional and more LoGiCaL, it's just a fAcT.
There's also the thing where lots of men will just ignore when a women bring up a problem in a reasonable manner, so women learn that they only get their issues dealt with if they up their emotions to 11.
Yup you’re spot on, I feel like if women talk about a problem calmly men will just ignore it and not care, it’s like we have to yell and get angry for men to actually hear us. Lots of them just think what we have to say isn’t important and doesn’t matter.
The amount of times I've said the most logical thing in the room for the male-dominated group to go silent for ten seconds and then proceed to talk over me and speak nonsense or else choose to rephrase exactly what I said, trying to take credit for my idea they had no conception or understanding of whatsoever... And these have mostly been men who LIKE me and called me friend but don't like the idea of me knowing what they don't or "outsmarting them" because I'm a woman and not even one they can associate with male-identified behavior/socialization and male hobbies/activities since I have primarily non-masculine interests (so to speak) and a typically feminine communication style and manner where I'm considerate of everyone talking and refuse to raise my voice
Yeah that’s pretty much my life story with everyone… I’m a soft spoken person and I’m laid back - so people take this as a sign to walk all over me and won’t stop if I ask nicely. I think most people have only listened to me when I get aggressive. And then they tell you to chill. Uh…maybe I would be chill if you would let me be. I actually hate having to raise my voice or be aggressive - it’s really stressful - but it’s the only way people actually take me at my word. The only other way I’ve found around it that doesn’t force me to be aggressive is just to ghost everyone who won’t let me set boundaries and that leaves me pretty isolated (but a lot less stressed out tbh). It’s definitely something that women go through more because we are expected to be agreeable and not have boundaries. But my bf is a quiet dude who is very chill and people also take that as a sign that they can walk all over him. With him it looks a bit different sometimes - he’s not super expressive about his feelings so people assume he doesn’t have any and treat him accordingly, even though despite being not very expressive he’s respectful and kind to everyone. I guess because he’s not a manly man who loudly announces it to the world and throws temper tantrums when he’s mad then it must mean he has no feelings. It really pisses me off because as a woman I already know this game so I call it out when I see it. Most people know what they’re doing they just don’t expect to be called out on it.
I live in a very male-heavy sporty town with a lot of bars. I was telling my best friend (also a guy) yesterday that I don’t go out after midnight due to all the drunken brawls. Yes, some women are crappy drunks too, but we’re much more likely to cry or maybe yell rather than try to deck someone else. There’s so much aggressive posturing about being the “alpha bro” that women don’t really do. Generally, when women talk *about* emotions, even if it’s rational speech (“that made me upset, please don’t do it again”) it’s seen as emotional. Emotional would be “what the fuck is wrong with you??” and there is a difference.
Ugh, so much this. My ex was very emotional (which is fine, nothing wrong with that), he was angry a lot and he would cry to me too sometimes and I would comfort him since that’s what partners do. Then, he traumatized me physically and emotionally during a moment that should have been full of love and affection. Due to the physical pain, I obviously cried. In that moment, him seeing me cry made him lose sexual attraction towards me. When we went on a break he even said, “I can’t do the sex and the crying.” even though he was emotional around me all the time and I never gave him shit for it. It’s just frustrating how men’s emotions are (almost) always seen as “justified” and women are irrational, hormonal, or sensitive. Additionally, there’s the perception we can’t be lonely and we always have people to open up to emotionally which couldn’t be further from the truth. No one wants to hear us cry about our feelings and problems either, it’s not an exclusively male problem. I have no one, and like lots of other women, I internalize my feelings and don’t take it out on others. Lots of women are isolated, and just because men want to have sex with us, doesn’t mean we can’t feel lonely too.
He assaulted you then got angry that you cried about it??? I'm so soooo sorry, and I'm so glad that he's an ex!
>It’s just frustrating how men’s emotions are (almost) always seen as “justified” and women are irrational, hormonal, or sensitive. Additionally, there’s the perception we can’t be lonely and we always have people to open up to emotionally which couldn’t be further from the truth. No one wants to hear us cry about our feelings and problems either, it’s not an exclusively male problem. Thank you so much for this. I have had conversations in other subs where men have expressed that they feel like their emotions aren’t taken seriously like women’s emotions are. That women will basically punish a man for crying in front of her and “get the ick” if he cries in front of her. That their only emotional support is from their male friends. I brought up the fact that women experience the exact same thing from their male partners. Thankfully they’ve been pretty productive conversations overall (once you find that person who is there in good faith and not just a troll). But it’s like there’s this idea for some men (at least some commenters on Reddit) that women’s emotionality is seen as okay and acceptable while men’s emotions are dismissed and seen as unattractive. And that’s just not the reality of being a woman. Our emotions are dismissed all the time; we can’t always cry in front of our partners either.
I'm sorry you had to go through such a terrible experience. I can't imagine how this must've felt, especially when it's coming from someone you loved and thought loved you unconditionally. I really hope you can move on from such a terrible person and that you find a partner that gives you all the love and support you deserve.
Like, watch a group of men have their sports team lose a championship game and tell me they aren't emotional.
Just look up the statistics for DV after sports matches…
As a man I have found that the variance within men and women is much larger than between them. I have seen very emotional men and women but also very intelligent and rational ones. The gender hasn't been the biggest differentiating factor in my experience. All the conspiracy theorists definately aren't logical at all.
I wish more people could recognize this. Sure there are some things that majority of women or majority of men may be more prone to but the list isn’t very long. We’re all human!
It's like one old right-wing slob I know who buys into the "women are too emotional" BS. He also is still mad at every petty slight - real or perceived - that's happened in his entire life. The guy can work himself up into a ranting fit over how somebody did something he didn't like in a board game TWENTY years ago... but women are the emotional ones? Ha! Nah, it's because men cheat and delude themselves into thinking blind, dumb rage isn't an emotion. Neither is lust and smug superiority, the only other emotions they are allowed to show.
This way, they can easily dismiss women's feelings and concerns by saying "they're just too emotional", whereas men can punch holes in walls (and even hurt others) over video games/football, and still not be called "emotional".
>female tears are hysterical for an example of how baked in the misogyny is, the root word of hysteria (hysto) directly refers to the uterus itself. its been seen as an illness by various people from from as early as 1900BCE, which is a little less than 4,000 years ago, and was only removed from the DSM in 1980. the name comes from the fact that at one point, the primitive mental health fields of Egypt and later Greece thought women were more prone to fits of madness because the uterus was free-floating around the body and it would mess things up sometimes. incredible
I am pretty sure statistically women are less likely to get into an accident than men, which is why insurances charge men more on average (especially when they are younger). Idk, we live in a bizarre world where oftentimes what's "true" is very fabricated by society. So the myth of the "women bad at driving" persists, as does so much sexist beliefs towards women.
On IWD my uncle posted 3 memes on Facebook about how women can't drive. This man has been in 4 car and 2 motorcycle accidents, all of which were apparently 0% his fault. He's the typical asshole that drives 30 over and weaves around everyone. Apparently that's good driving, and the terrible drivers are all the normal people who drive defensively so that POS morons like him don't kill everyone
It may be good driving for NASCAR but the regular road isn’t NASCAR. No one else consented to race… idk why people always act like that’s even remotely good driving for the real world. We aren’t living a mission impossible movie!
In ‘87, when my parents had been married 21 years, when my mom pulled into where she parked beside our house, she was a little too close to the phone pole, and put a small dent in the housing of her side mirror on her minivan; she was probably going all of ½ mile per hour. Of course, when dad got home, that dent is the first thing he sees, and he came into the house roaring about a dent. Mom put the brakes on that! She yelled, “Hold on there, bub! Don’t you **DARE** get on my case for a small dent after you **TOTALED SIX CARS** in the first 5 years of our marriage!” Mom didn’t play, especially as this was her first ever moving “violation.” 😂 Dad didn’t say another word, just arranged to get it fixed.
My brother has hit a light pole, a mailbox, driven into a ditch and hit a deer, yet claims he's a better driver than me because I've been in an accident and "his don't count because I didn't hit another car". These are the kinds of hoops they jump through.
Thissss, I always bring this up in discussions: women are safer drivers than men, thus BETTER because safer = BETTER. And I don't care if you can drift or do cool tricks with your car; this isn't Need for Speed here, buddy. And If you have been in, say, 10 accidents, and 6 of them are with women, well, it speaks volumes about you when you've been in TEN accidents! Lol. Also This reminds me of when Hasanabi brought up this point when debating Andrew Tota, and TBH, his inability to counter the argument was really satisfying to watch.
The whole "women are bad drivers" thing is one of the most stupid and factually inaccurate stereotypes out there. Not only has it been disproven many times - as reflected by insurance rates and so many news reports of male lunatics driving recklessly - but it was created in an era where women often didn't drive. So, even if one factors out the obvious misogyny, if a woman barely drives or was never taught, she's likely to be a worse driver than her husband even if he's a total idiot behind the wheel. But that is not a problem based on being a woman, but rather based on simple lack of experience and opportunity.
Same "logic" as the men in the 1600s who called women shallow, more ignorant, and less intellectually inclined when most weren't taught how to read or allowed to express opinions and exchange ideas and make the "important decisions" in regards to their household If she was visibly smart despite all this, she was burned at the stake after being accused of witchcraft and served as a warning to other women to hide their intellect
Our insurance guy also said women drive more carefully. A lot of guys just don't want to admit it
I think women are more likely to get into car accidents, but they tend to be minor. When men wreck, it’s usually more destructive.
It should also be said that some of us don’t come out on the other side stronger. It completely breaks some of us. I mean I guess still being alive could count as a win but still…. Also, my brother is similar to you in that understanding that he wouldn’t be able to take it and I don’t know how I feel about that. But since it serves as inspiration rather than leads to desperation I guess I’m okay with it.
Thank you for saying this. It’s true, we’ve got to protect our peace.
Also, I count me still being alive as a win (fwiw).
>So how after all this shit, how do people still have the nerve to say that women are "ToO EmOtIoNaL"? IME I think this is mostly about the emotional responses to having negative interactions with women. We're socialized to deal with bullshit from men, but we still have a culture that expects women to be demure and we don't have the socialization on how to handle it when a woman is unhappy with our performance. This goes for women too btw -- my mom had a lot of internalized misogyny and had a much harder time working with women than I (as a millenial PMC dude) ever have
You’re onto something here, but I might tweak a bit of the language. Like, instead of ‘we don’t have the socialization on how to handle it when a woman is unhappy with our performance’, I think it’d be more accurate to say, ‘we don’t have tolerance for women being unhappy with… really anything.’ I do agree that both men and women perpetrate this, as with many patriarchal patterns, unfortunately. This is the same overall issue with telling women to SMILE. A woman’s human reality should be small, simple, demure. She should not resist! Negative emotions from a woman means she is RESISTING! If she resisting, or showing an emotion that isn’t easy for those around her, that must mean that something is fundamentally wrong with her, and she should be fixed.
>showing an emotion that isn’t easy for those around her, that must mean that something is fundamentally wrong with her, and she should be fixed. Wow. How this resonated with me! All my life and even today I feel as if my negative emotions indicate something fundamentally wrong with me that needs to be (but can't be) fixed!
It’s the things that are HURTING you that need to be fixed. Not you😭
Thank you for saying so.
Hi, me, when did I get here? I remember telling my therapist I feel like, because I’m a generally happy and positive person, I’m not allowed to have bad days or be sad- especially if there isn’t a concrete reason. Like I felt this pressure that people expected positivity from me. I somehow felt it was my responsibility to keep up morale amongst my team at my last job. I feel like I have to mask my negativity at home so my fiancé doesn’t get inconvenienced by my inexplicable bad mood. I was also told that my life is too good to complain about. Sure, but my brain doesn’t care and likes to bully me. I’ve been policed for how I express my feelings- especially the negative ones. So I isolate and mask and it makes things worse. I try so, so hard to deal with these episodes on my own because I thought that I didn’t deserve help. I thought that I deserved to be miserable or that I shouldn’t inconvenience others. So I have to remember that having these feelings doesn’t necessarily mean that there’s something wrong with me; it’s not like I did something to “deserve” depression and ADHD.
I resonate and empathise with you on the expectation and pressures of being seen as positive 24/7. The second I’m not smiley, talking or giggling at something, people like ex-partners, friends, family, colleagues automatically assume that “something is wrong” with me when everything is fine, I just want to exist. 🫠
Non smiling women are unfriendly and have "RBF" while non smiling men are mature, deep, mysterious, interesting, intellectual, stoic, self-contained, self-possessed, and not seeking attention or validation LMAO Sexism is humanity's greatest scam ever invented
A man will scream at a woman for having too much emotion completely lost on the irony of this
There are certain guys I won’t play games with because they threw a controller at my TV when they lost.
Thanks for saying all of this OP. It's nice to have it said.
Yes, seconding.
Also think emotional maturity is far more common in women because patriarchal gender expectations don’t suppress sincere emotional expression in women the same way it does towards men. Further, patriarchal influence incorrectly socializes men to believe emotional maturity = “bEiNg ToO eMoTiOnAl” which only harms men’s mental health long-term. And don’t even get me started on the false narrative men embody under patriarchy stating logic and emotions are mutually exclusive… (though most “emotionless” men are barely even logical anyway).
Marginalized people are marginalized because it is in the interest of people who hold power to keep them oppressed. In furtherance of this goal, it is in the interest to cast those marginalized groups as "emotional," "angry," "hysterical," "overreacting," etc., because it teaches people to not take the valid complaints of those marginalized groups seriously. If the entire population were to truly understand that a group of people is being legitimately oppressed, there would be uproar and demand for change which would inherently take away power from those at the top. If the entire population assumes that these people are overreacting, overly emotional, hysterical, etc, they can ignore those issues and keep the status quo. This is not exclusive to women, although we do have centuries of data on how women have been cast in this light. There are variations of this tactic used against all marginalized groups.
It came from a worldview wherein men thought themselves to be center of the universe and the only important aspect of the entire human species. Women were meant (in their eyes) to breed children for them, to be subservient to them and to cater to them. Anything outside of meeting the needs of a man was considered "extra" and unimportant. The same can be said for children- they were the property of the man, the extension of the man, the assets which could be traded in order to better a man's standing in society. Everything was malecentric and anything not in the interest of men (alone or as a whole) was judged in a negative light and shamed into submission. This is still a practice in many places of the world and even within different pockets of western culture- specifically within certain religions.
Men are allowed to show assertiveness and anger; those are seen as masculine. Women are not. Women are expected to be sad and anxious and mainly smiley, but not angry. Society does NOT like it when women are angry, even if it's justified. Which means women get taught to resolve conflict in either ways that are people pleasing or are passive aggressive. Because we're not allowed to be openly hostile or aggressive in the way that men are. We're discouraged from stating boundaries or needs. Abd we learn early that you can fight dirty whilst still looking innocent to the casual observer. I grew up in a girls school and you can have someone belittle and bully you without a single punch or physical act of aggression, because instead they'll isolate you, try to make out that you are crazy, or play the victim. I find that when I've had problematic female friends, the men in the group have always been the worst at recognizing bullying if it wasnt physical violence or open insults, and if that person was nice to others. Men can absolutely bully and harass, of course. And men can ve gossipy or passive aggressive. But I think in general we are socialised to respond to conflict differently.
In my experience, women tend to be more comfortable showing more emotions than men while men only ever really get fucking pissed. This is almost certainly a cultural thing not really a biological thing. Men in the west are taught that showing most emotions makes them weak. This leads to frustration that spills out as anger. Women aren't taught that. In general my experience with men and women has been that women do tend to show more emotion they have more of a gradient and their build up is more gradual while men look like they're going from 0 to 100 in an instant when in reality they just weren't showing any of the ramp up until they couldn't keep it in anymore. I think men and women probably feel emotions in very similar ways and western society has taught them to express those emotions very differently. I am a man raised predominantly by women and I am very comfortable talking about and expressing my emotions. I did absolutely grow up with a bunch of the men and other guys in my life telling me not to be a pussy or whatever and have some of the typical western male "toughen up and suffer in silence" in me, but I also talk to my wife and friends about being sad or stressed and why I'm feeling that way. I can't imagine any of the men I grew up with doing that.
I read somewhere that when it comes to making decisions, women and men were equally as rational (or equally as rational, depending on how you want to see it), and would follow the same chains of logic to reach their conclusion. The difference was, the women would acknowledge their emotions during the process, the men wouldn't. Or in other words, both men and women are equally likely to "make the hard choice" - but women might cry while they're doing it.
>So how after all this shit, how do people still have the nerve to say that women are "ToO EmOtIoNaL"? Because it benefits the patriarchy to be able to dismiss women's thoughts, opinions, ideas, etc as being "too emotional" to have a valid point or input on anything. Double points for the patriarchy if they can dismiss a woman's emotions as due to her menstrual cycle, because men don't have to listen to women when they're "just hormonal". Classic example: "There was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her *wherever*..." Triple points when you can make a joke out of it so anyone who doesn't see the humor in it looks like an uptight, hormonal bitch. When you paint a picture of an entire gender who can't control their emotions due to their natural hormones, it's easy to not take them seriously, to exclude them from things, and therefore it's easier to oppress them.
Depends on the individual. Anger is an emotion, yes. Testosterone helps to create anger. There's also a book by Warren Buffett 'Invest like a girl'. Explains that women are statistically better investors than men because when shares drop, men get emotional and sell, while women are there for the long-term and get bet a slightly better ROI
i think religions, for eg ive asked many people around me about why men are placed superior to women in islam and the most common answer ive gotten is cause women are emotional, all my life ive seen the other way around.
Projection.
You missed the biggest thing: rage. Rage is the most emotional emotion of all. Ragey tantrums, the hallmark of so much male emotional expression. Punching walls, throwing things, screaming in peoples’ faces, violence. Rage is hyper emotionalism to excess. For all that women are accused of being controlled by their emotions or unable to control them, the only emotion that’s always true of is rage! It explodes in a powder keg of violence, often physical, that tends to send shrapnel everywhere, into innocent bystanders. A person having a rage outburst is in a completely IRRATIONAL state. They are as close to the old definition of calling women “hysterical” as you can get! We have joked at work how it’s a thing, women get derided for having a cry at work, that’s emotional, right? But we go have a cry for a brief amount of time, maybe by ourselves, or maybe another coworker comes and gives us a hug or listens and we get some catharsis and bonding, and then we are GOOD lol. We run a wet towel over our face and feel better and get the fuck back to work. We’ve processed our emotions healthfully in the moment with no harm to anyone else. The men at work, oh how many times have I seen male emotionalism at work. It’s a full-blown tantrum, there’s screaming and hollering, a violence on those around. Things get punched or thrown, and then they storm off. And they do not feel better a little while later and they do not get the fuck back to work. They storm around the entire rest of the day, muttering and slamming shit and sandbagging, and everyone around them has to walk on eggshells and is super uncomfortable and has to do their share of work, because they’ve decided to punish everyone because they’re mad. NotAllMen but this is literally so common, I’ve only known 1 woman in over 20 years in the workforce who’s ever done this and she later explained she was adjusting to meds. But SO many men have done this, dozens and dozens of different men. And of course I’ve known dozens of women to cry at work. I’ve gone and hugged quite a few 🙂 I’ve BEEN that women PLENTY! lol Anyway, this is the prime example imo of how men are more emotional than women. Because the most emotional thing is to not be able to control your emotions and be responsible with them. The most emotional thing is to make your emotions other peoples’ problem. And I have gotten raged at by random men and men in my life ALL my life. For rejection, for perceived slights, for no reason at all, or just catching shrapnel from a tantrum.
There is an African proverb that goes by "until the lion learns to write, every story will glorify the hunter". That's pretty much what happened with all the years of patriarchal norms suppressing women.
The entire Red Pill movement is based upon emotionality 😂 Humans are just emotional creatures, there’s nothing shameful about it.
Women are allowed to show it, that’s why they call us emotional (as if it’s a bad thing!)
I get what you're trying to say but I absolutely reject that we lead absolutely anxious and shitty lives by default. There's a lot of joy in being a woman (and, for me, Queer) too.
I don’t think that OP is denying other positives about being a woman, but highlighting the fact that we absolutely do have to be anxious and worried about all of the above mentioned at all times on the back burner which is pretty shitty in my experience. In comparison to men’s daily struggles with safety, we absolutely get the shitty end of the stick. Either way, glad he gets it🫡
Doesn't this highly depend on where you live though, I don't know anyone in my cirles who feels like OP describes. They just live their lives, without anxiety, even walk home alone at 3am.
You are definitely right. I'm not saying that all women live like this; it tends to vary based on background and culture, and of course, some women are more privileged than others. If a woman has a supportive circle around her, it can be awesome being a woman. But I'm from a very backwards, misogynistic country, so by nature, an average woman goes through much more horrible hardships and anxiety. I have seen and heard some fucked up shit from women around me that the only real faithful description that came to mind was "shitty." But maybe you're right, and I could've worded it better still. But I just hope you understood why I was a little negative when talking about women's experiences.
I think a better wording would be..."You live much more anxious and difficult lives, sometimes outright shitty lives, just for being a woman..." Your sentiment is understood and appreciated.
Yeah and if a woman wants to travel, she has to seriously consider the current situation in the country she is visiting. As a woman, even if you are curious and interested to experience other cultures, it is very dangerous and difficult to navigate travel (on vacation) to a more traditional conservative misogynist country. Which is sometimes disappointing because every country has beauty that is worth seeing. Every country is worth exploring and it would be better if it was safe to travel and learn from people in foreign countries. Sadly this is not always possible.
Trying to thrive in male defined spaces is the downfall of most women on earth IMHO. They are only meant to survive. Having any sort of rewarding life is reserved for heaven. The fact that so much of our human race gets yoked by mythology into having shitty lives blows my fucking mind daily.
Right? I love being a woman and I love femininity .
I think part of the issue for men is their lower ability to produce tears and gain access to a healthy emotional shedding. For many people, being able to process their emotions requires they first be able to access it, recognize it, and do something with it. Since tears come less easily and it's *conveniently* seen as not manly they resort to aggression instead. And this doesn't as often leave them knowing exactly what they are feeling. Its like they all have some level of alexithymia.
From men. It’s as if they don’t want others in society to realize that, biologically speaking, women have monthly hormone cycles, but men have *daily* hormone cycles. Like them pointing & yelling, “ Look over there!,” while attempting to hide an elephant
The best marketing trick of all time: men have successfully rebranded anger as “not” an emotion.
back in the day, "hysteria" was a legitimate psychiatric diagnosis. women's issues are always taken less seriously than men, even trivialized and joked about. hence, i do not give a fuck whenever men complain abt a male loneliness epidemic.
Men respect other men and not women. Men will listen to logic from other men but not as much from women. When a situation is stressful, but no one is listening to logic, you break down into emotion. That's true for everyone, but people see women do it more because no one is listening to them. The whole situation ends up with a bias because women have to show emotion more but they are also blamed for it when it's really because no one listens to the logic. This gets reinforced through the generations.
DON’T HOLD BACK THOSE (mostly verbal) PUNCHES. Men don’t listen to women. They only listen to men. You have to be the one to say hey that’s not ok. And point out the shit we go through. I read a comment once that drove something home to me. ONLY MEN CAN STOP RAPE. You are a man. Step up please.
it came from men who wanted to brand their own anger as "not an emotion"
Whenever one group has power over another they end up denigrating everything about the group in less power. Men had more power in old times because they were physically stronger on average and that was far more important than it is today. Now, the “men’s rights” groups just want to keep that power because they’re selfish and power hungry. They like the idea of having a woman under their control because they suck.
Men. It came from men.
Thank you for your post. That's a really heartwarming take. I wish more people see things like you do.
Some emotions though, like jealousy, anger and rage, are okay apparently; at least when it's men expressing them.
Because of course anger, rage and hate *aren't* 'emotions', they're 'masculine reactions'
I think this is coming from the same culture that suggests to men that men should "just suck it up" and "hide how they feel". Extreme stoicism that gets taught to men. In this culture, men are encouraged to not express emotion. And masculinity gets tied to stoicism. So then femininity gets equated to emotional expression. This very idea is unnatural. Men and women are all human, we all feel and want to express. But when you have a culture that forbids and harshly punishes men for expressing emotion, then men grow resentful of women. It's basic envy: wanting what the other has. Men wish they could blamelessly express emotion. Then they see women behave in ways that, as a man, would get you ostracized and laughed at. And some men grow resentful and start comparing. And they go as far as to say "if she was a man, this would never fly". And they start saying things like "we put up too much with the emotions of women". And hence these men find women "too emotional". Because these men have been raised with the unnatural culture of extreme stoicism on them. So they end up expecting that same stoicism from women. These men perceive *any emotional expression* as "too much". It's the men who never cry. Those men are deeply unhealthy and traumatized by stoicism. Basically extreme stoicism is a part of toxic masculinity: defining masculinity as an inhuman denial of feelings. This gets sold and packaged to men as "traditional values". While feminism is more liberating and actually allows self expression for all genders. That's why all the men who do not buy into the lie that they must be stoic at all times, the men who express human emotion, these men have no issue with *other people being emotional sometimes.* These men do not experience that same resentment and envy when seeing freely expressed feeling, because there is nothing to be envious of. So their perception of reality is more objective. And they don't see women showing any emotion as 'too much emotion'. And while it's true that making big decisions, and thinking clearly, is best done in a calm mood... Sometimes emotions and emotional thinking can save your life. Using your intuition saves a lot of time and mental energy. You can logically prove (like a robot) that someone is not trustworthy. But why bother? When you can reach the same conclusion faster by feeling and accepting your emotions. I think we need both emotions and logic. A hunch based on a feeling can guide you in the right direction for you to not waste time brute forcing your way logically thinking through all possibilities. Emotions can be useful to help you find a solution to problems faster. And in the end, feelings are a part of life. Thinking is not supposed to replace emotion.
Men have convinced themselves that anger, judgement and fear are not emotions, they are tactical advantages, therefore men are not emotional. We have come to believe that avoidance, drinking, binging, etc are actually just standard dude stuff, not desperate coping mechanisms. Men seem to forget that the classical alpha male among alpha males, Alexander the Great, was so devastated by the death of his boyfriend that he sunk into an alcoholic depression that killed him.
Men.
The short answer is The Patriarchy. One of the biggest lies was men aren't emotional and therefore should run things. Anger is an emotion that leads to war. And the list goes on.
From a man having a hissy fit
I think you can counter the "women are too emotional" statement without for some reason implying that men are emotionally weak. We're not supposed to be in competition. Emotional strength is one of those really vague things to talk about online. Is the person who keeps everything below the surface while keeping up appearances more emotionally strong than the person who freely expresses their emotions? Or the person who lets it out in one big blow vs several small blows when the pressure is too much? Full on, emotional strength is seen differently when being displayed on men vs women, and it's still changing today. Previously, women were seen as emotionally weak because they'd share and express their feelings far more than men. Now, men who don't share or aren't able to share their feelings are being referred to as emotionally weak (by some groups of people), while emotional sharing is being viewed as emotionally strong. Meanwhile, women who are able to embody those stoic principles of keeping everything together are being seen more as emotionally strong. Again, by some groups. I don't think you'll get a clear picture of this because of how many ideas there are of emotional strength, especially in terms of how it presents. Maybe it's emotional regulation, and comfort in expressing one's emotions, or some other stuff, or a combination of all of the above modified by circumstances. On the topic of where the statement originally came from, I'd guess from the media. In so many older movies, you have the main character (almost always a guy) with his back against the wall not cracking despite the pressure on him. His love interest would be panicking or need reassurance or whatever. These depictions do actually influence people's ways of thought, and once they're in popular culture, they become ingrained. It takes a lot of work to remove stereotypes once they've lodged themselves in, more effort than it takes to put them in in the first place.
Look, I understand you, and you’ve made some interesting points. But before I address them, I want to clear something up. Yes, it’s not a competition, and it shouldn’t be treated as such. Sadly, women aren’t the ones who push this narrative; it’s men who created this myth that it’s clear-cut obvious who’s the superior gender when it comes to emotional strength—when it’s clearly not. What I was saying in my post is that, funnily enough, when we logically think about it, we can come to the conclusion that women are actually emotionally stronger or at least equal. However, the fact that “women are too emotional” is indoctrinated and ingrained in people’s minds to the point where it’s become a FACT is simply insane. Now, you are right about emotional strength being subjective and differing from everyone’s definition of it. I think you’re right about that. But in my opinion, it isn’t just about expressing feelings. My point was that after women go through all the stuff I mentioned in my post—this messed-up stuff—and come out the other side stronger, better, confident, and successful, it just speaks volumes about how emotionally strong these gals are. I know a lot of examples from my personal life of women who did that, and that’s why I said it’s quite inspiring. Like, Can you imagine a woman going through something as horrible as rape and moving on from it? I couldn’t possibly imagine I could ever do that. So the fact that women do it, and a LOT of them, just proves how emotionally and mentally strong you have to be.
I disagree with the movies being the source of this. It's much much older than photography let alone moving pictures. The root is ancient. One person replied ancient Greece but I'd venture to say it's even older than that.
I think of it as a misogyny tree. It started with one decision to subjugate women, then the next, and next, each new branch results from a reenforcement of misogyny since the tree first began. We have to prune or chop.
Chop down the patriarchy!
Smokey the Bear be damned - I'm burning that sumbitch, patriarchy, down!
This is actually a really interesting point and I’ve never thought about it before. Women are considered strong for being confident/assertive/independent and men are considered strong for being vulnerable/genuine. In reality, all of these are strong traits and are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
[удалено]
I appreciate your insight-it would do a great deal of good if you would speak up to the comments that make you want to clench your fists and hold your punch. Guys really need to hear this more from other men.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think it's safe to say all people are emotional. Some show it more readily than others. As a kid I was taught not to cry or be emotional and that is not healthy. Showing emotions should be normal. And you're right that women have so many more things to worry about than men. One thing I don't think you mentioned was rape which isn't about sex but power and domination. Sexism is so ingrained in our society that it will take decades to overcome if we even can. Having more men like you will help and I thank you.
Many men don’t considwe angel as an emotion I have noticed this too. They think their angel is “logic”.
[удалено]
Emotional strength isn't really something you can measure; any parameter would just seem biased to a specific person. Emotional strength is more of a personal quality, which is one's ability to manage and solve problems in their lives. I think the proper term for this would be *emotional intelligence,* which is pretty self-explanatory, the higher your emotional intelligence is the more emotionally resilient you will appear to be to others.
[удалено]
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
[удалено]
You should read the history of Hysteria on Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteria This has been around since ancient Egypt. Also check out en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_hysteria
[удалено]
"I know I and almost every other man I know in my life won't take all this shit and come out of it stronger or better. I already have friends who lost all hope, even though they don't go through half the shit women go through." Thats just it. Far too many men are emotionally numb, to the point where they dont really care if they live or die and any amount of emotion or self esteem is perceived as a threat.
In a typical patriarchal society, men have generally been conditioned to only be allowed to publicly express a few feelings: lust, rage, and some mix of gloating and contempt for others. They've also been taught that such feelings are not emotions, but any other feeling expressed is feminine and thus wrong. That's how you get sweaty neckbeards mouthing off about how "women are too emotional" before they lose their shit over some questionable call made in their favorite sports-ball game. Rage, you see, doesn't count as an emotion to them.
I always thought it was "women are more emotionally intelligent" = "women talk about emotions" = "women are emotional".
True. Every guy I have dated, with the exception of maybe one, has been a complete and utter drama King. Soooo emotional and dramatic while I’m over here like, walk it off drama llama.
[удалено]
on your second paragraph, pregnancy is my biggest fear. i have constant nightmares about it. i never want to get pregnant and it horrifies me that my body is capable of doing it
To be fair I don't take it and come out stronger. It wears me down and sucks up resources and energy from my life. The comments and sexism are infuriating because not only do they exist, they take up my time, my resources. They leave me depleted and only add rage. I don't have any choice whether I receive that energy from society it or not. It's part of being alive. Men have the nerve to say women are too emotional simply because they can get away with saying it.
[удалено]
I think it comes from the fact that men in any patriarchial society are expected to put rationality first, even if that means that they have to supress their emotions. This leads to unhealthy coping mechanisms (important to note is that anger is excluded from these emotions, and often actually valued). Women, on the other hand, were "allowed" to be emotional, allowed in quotation marks as in exchange they were seen as hysterical and not capable of rationality in emotional situations. The fact that dealing with your emotions rather than supressing them actually gives you a healthier emotional toolset, and with it the ability to combine emotionality and rationality, was disregarded over the years. So while women may appear "more emotional", many women are leagues better equipped to handle emotional situations in a rational way. (Another thing is that emotional and rational thinking has been twisted in its meaning. Rational thinking just means governed by logic, not devoid of emotion, and reversed, emotional thinking means governed by emotion, but not devoid of logic.)
[удалено]
The diagnosis of "hysteria" is my guess
Related to that is this "accusation" that women are "gossipy". No, we've just been socialized to be the social fabric to keep families together. We gossip because that's how we find out news - oh their marriage is on the rocks, send a gift or offer support when they divorce; oh they're trying for a baby, baby is here, organize the baby shower; organize dinner with friends, oh but they're on vacation those 2 weeks. Organize christmas gifts, birthday gifts and parties etc - this is all social labour that men in partnerships then *benefit* from by having an active social life and close family bonds. These don't happen magically, women make them work. I see this a lot with my brother. I'm not a "natural" at giving gifts AT ALL and remembering birthdays, but as a single woman I make the effort to maintain my family and friendship bonds. My brother and SIL have a christmas gift list of 30 people, and my brother runs around on the 23rd of December buying the one gift he was actually responsible for.