Today I’d like to address an emotional topic: Are women more emotional than men at work?
I was having a conversation with a male colleague about why sexism is so hard to overcome, and since we are both leaders of large organizations, I asked him if he thought it was different working with men vs. working with women. He said he found women to be more emotional than men, which I thought was pretty rich given that I knew the people on his team very well, and I can only say that the one man on his team was (by my reckoning) the most emotional one of all. I asked my husband that night if he agreed with my male colleague, and he said yes, although he hastened to add, “I’m talking about women. Not you.” Point taken.
What differences do I find between working with men & women? I find that most women undervalue themselves or are uncomfortable placing a monetary value on their work (asking for a raise). They talk more about being happy to contribute to the team. The men I work with are almost universally more demanding and entitled. More men than women unabashedly ask for more pay, whether their contributions merit it or not. I consider both men & women to be more or less equally emotional at work, but they manifest those emotions differently.
I think there’s got to be an explanation for this male perception that women are more emotional than men in the workplace. Here are some theories I’ve come up with:
- Women are more emotional. As my husband pointed out, not all women, certainly not me. But according to MBTI results, 55% of women make decisions based on their feelings (personal values and impacts to people) vs. on logic (giving more weight to impartial factors), whereas only 45% of men make feelings-based decisions. That’s not a huge difference, but it’s enough to be noticeable and even foster a stereotype.
- Social skills. Women are taught from girlhood to get along with people, to have social skills. Some of those skills are positive (building a support network, listening with empathy, noticing subtle cues when someone is unhappy) and others can be negative (manipulation, gossip, peer pressure that causes eating disorders). Because women are often more attuned to subtle social cues, this could be translated by men as women being “more emotional.”
- Minority or underclass frustration. Women still experience a glass ceiling – less representation at the highest levels of most corporations – that could result in an inferiority complex in how they communicate their needs to the organization. Frustration over being disenfranchised or feeling dismissed or powerless can translate into emotional behavior due to insecurity.
- Male workplace conditioning. What constitutes professionalism are norms that are decidedly male: don’t raise your voice (or show enthusiasm), don’t share too much information, don’t talk about feelings, it’s not personal it’s business, etc. Men have been setting the standards in the workplace since well before women were, ahem, allowed to work.
- Industry specific norms. Some jobs are viewed as “women’s work” (generally speaking the low paid jobs), and they are coincidentally, more emotional or nurturing jobs: nurse, teacher. Women may gravitate to roles that use their social skills more, essentially jobs with an emotional appeal to them. Men (who are taught from birth to repress emotions “Boys don’t cry“) may shy away from these types of roles.
- Differences in expression. Both sexes are prone to insecurity (which is what I assume is meant by “emotional”), but women often use their social network to bolster their security (through friendship and gossip) whereas men will often brood, retreat, or become demanding and confrontational. Both of those are emotional behaviors in response to insecurity. Women are generally more enthusiastic in their speech and mannerisms (to convey their feelings and ideas to others), whereas men generally use a less varied pitch (to hide their feelings from others).
What do you think? Let’s poll to find out!
[poll id=”24″]
[poll id=”25″]
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
It is a matter of power dynamics. Women without power are more emotional than men with power.
Not otherwise.
I think men are more emotional than is generally recognized. But I definitely believe women are generally more emotional-meaning they seem to me to feel intense emotion more frequently.
I think it’s a mistake to equate insecurity with being emotional. Completely different spheres.
In my workplace, women express far less emotion than men. Men express their emotion through anger mostly.
I work for a large manufacturing firm, and many who “grew up” in the company learned a culture of top-down anger / intimidation. Though that has changed in the last ten years because of senior management changes, I still see virtually no “emotional” outbursts by my female colleagues, but men are still likely to become obviously angry from time to time.
I suspect our corporate culture has taught women not to show emotion and has rewarded (or not punished) men for outbursts of anger that produce results. Learned behaviors.
I would agree with Stephan on this. People in lower level jobs tend to be more personally emotional, meaning sadness, crying, etc. Where higher level people manifest their emotions with anger, frustration, bad language, etc. I suppose some higher level people cry from time to time, but it is rarer, men or women.
The other part of emotion which can be masked is the retribution that is sometimes exhibited as a result of some incident. Emotional are not displayed but there is revenge and passive aggressive behavior.
Given the level of equality that has been achieved in my workplace, it can come from both males and females.
Jeff:
Are you intimating that those reactions from executives/higher level employees are not emotions? Anger is as much a personal emotion as crying. My male bosses have almost uniformly had bad tempers and expressed their emotions through anger, yelling, political games, etc. Its just emotion masquerading under a different name.
when it is said that women are more emotional, I think it means that women cry more. men are likely to yell, get angry, but this isn’t recognized as being emotional. it is emotional however, just deemed more socially acceptable than crying.
I agree with mh. The question should be “Who shows more affect (the display of emotion)?” Most people are equally “emotional” in that most of us feel. Men and women in general though have often been raised to deal with their feelings in different ways… also, I think anger is more socially acceptable because displaying sadness through crying is vulnerable, and some people get REALLY uncomfortable with others being vulnerable. REALLY REALLY REALLY uncomfortable. Showing anger on the other hand, generally pulls people to be reactionary and become angry back, or submit to the anger, which makes it effective.
I cried once at work. I was pregnant. I’m not saying all pregnant women cry, but being pregnant made me cry.
My husband gets emotional at work. He gets angry. I would guess he gets quiet, he gives people “looks” and he moves in an angry way. Also, he probably gets angry when dealing with others who are screwing up and his voice probably gets sterner, language changes, showing his emotion.
I don’t think anyone would call this behaving “emotionally” because he isn’t crying and he isn’t talking about his “feelings.”
The very fact that your husband is willing to say women get emotional but not YOU, means that he views it as an insult and stereotype as a negative thing that is out of place in professional or other settings and he thinks women are more likely to go out of bounds.
But what is wrong with it? We need to treat others with respect and we need to do our jobs and be capable. But writing people off as an insulting “emotional” just for having feminine emotions acted in a feminine way is sexism that I don’t agree with.
Continued from above:
In other words, if a man walks into your office and is angry and stern he is acting professionally. If a woman walks into your office and is frustrated and upset she is emotional.
Both are unhappy with a situation. Both have changed their tone of voice, but the way the woman’s voice has changed flags “emotional” that makes people discount it, be annoyed by it, call it unprofessional, etc.
It seems to me that some men call women “emotional” because these men are emotionally stunted and can’t regulate their own emotions, so they label and dismiss those who are “emotional.”
That has come up in therapy as well. I know if a man calls his wife “emotional” it’s probable that he has a difficult time with emotion, and was probably not taught much about the world of emotion growing up.
If this blog is any indication, Dan is by far the most emotional in his responses; and Hawkgrrl is one of the more consistent. Just my observation.
George,
“Are you intimating that those reactions from executives/higher level employees are not emotions?”
I said exactly what you said.
I agree with MH and Shenpa, the display of emotion is what I think can be compared. I think most people have emotions, but mask them for various reasons, or control them if you want to put it that way.
I wonder what the results would be comparing age instead of gender.
Company culture also does play into how people react.
Jeff:
Actually…you said you agreed with Stephen, whose comment is at odds with what I stated.
I think the first step is to define what you mean by “emotional.” I think one definition is “subject to or influenced by emotion.” Under that definition, it is my understanding that women are significantly more emotional than men (in just about any environment) due to biological differences relating to how the right and left hemispheres of the brain interact with each other.
I think the problem creeps in because men are taught to repress certain emotions from a young age, so there is shame associated with displays of some kinds of emotion. As a result, when women display those emotions, men are unskilled and uncomfortable and don’t know how to react. They recoil from those types of emotional displays because of the shame they were given as a child if they displayed them. In my case, I was raised in a very unemotional household, too. It has made navigating the workplace much easier since one skill of negotiation is emotional repression.
Jesus wept. He wept because his friend had died. He wept because his friend’s sisters, Mary and Martha were grieving. It was appropriate — an appropriate time and place. I can’t think of a business setting where crying is appropriate. Some emotions need to be kept in check. Business decisions need to be as objective as possible. Crying detracts from a professional environment. It needs to stay out of the work place.
I would add that anger, likewise, needs to stay out of the workplace. However, according to your western civilization, crying is seen as “detract[ing] from a professional environment” whereas anger/yelling is rarely seen in the same light. In fact, in certain situations, it’s encouraged and seen as passion and commitment. Getting angry is the workplace’s version of “righteous indignation” in too many instances.
George – I would add that verbal humiliation and anger is clearly a tool used in Asian business practices as well, but only by those in power (including customers) to intimidate others through authority. However, responses to these verbal outbursts are expected to be very repressed to show humility. Crying is losing face and not acceptable. Screaming your head off is somehow not losing face, but to my western colleagues it looks infantile and undermines the request. If anything, I would say many western cultures have lower tolerance for outbursts of anger than the Asian cultures I work with.
Shoot me for saying it, but I do agree with Will that (short of incidents related to national grief) there’s no real room for crying in a business workplace. Decisions can factor in personal values or impacts to people as part of an array of factors without resorting to emotional displays that can make communication and persuasion difficult. There’s also no place for verbal intimidation and uncontrolled angry outbursts, IMO.
The key to expressing emotions in the workplace is whether those emotions are shared and convincing to others or if they are just personal. If they are personal, no one wants to see that. If they are a call to action (without intimidating which is never effective in more than just the short term) then others will rally to the same emotion – it will turn them on (motivation-wise), not off.
I disagree with both of you. Christ got angry, very angry at the merchants at the temple. Likewise, Joesph Smith was verbally assaulted for several hours by an angel of God. I don’t recall the exact term, but he described it as a fairly dramatic experience. Finally, Alma the younger was chastised to the point he couldn’t speak. Sometimes we need to get verbally shaken to understand the gravity if the situation.
Will:
How exactly is merchandizing the temple even remotely comparable to a business/employment setting/transaction [the context of the OP]?
Irony,
There is a time a place for anger. The story of the Savior illustrates this. The merchants got the message loud and clear. Joesph Smith got the message loud and clear. It wouldn’t have had the same impact if it would have been communicated calmly. Alma needed a good old fashion butt chewing. Likewise, sometimes employees need a good old fashion butt chewing to get the point. Grammatically speaking anger is the exclaimation point.
Dan,
Thanks for illustrating my point. Going through a post and marking thumbs down on all my comments regardless of what is said is the perfect example of someone acting on pure emotion. And yes, I know it was you.
Will, being chastised by an angel or the Lord himself is not the same as being the brunt of anger from another person.
The principles of leadership outlined in Section 121 apply well in the workplace as in the family or church. Anger is not a necessary emotion for motivation in the workplace.
Hawk,
“I think the problem creeps in because men are taught to repress certain emotions from a young age, so there is shame associated with displays of some kinds of emotion.”
Really, Hawk, is it necessary to perpetuate a stereotype that really does not exist? I’ve seen plenty of men cry in my life and I do not remember being told not to cry.
My Dad was a good example. I saw him cry more than my Mom. he was more emotional of the two. I see plenty of men cry at Church all the time.
I think it is time to stop this stereotype thinking. Even if it were true at one point, I do not see it as true now. I have four boys. We never said to them not to cry.
Paul,
First off, let me point out my bias. I am a yeller, so some of what I am saying is plain justification. Rationalization. I accept the 121st section of the D&C. It is the best way, especially with young impressionable kids to motivate and teach.
I have not had good success motivating adults with gentleness and meekness in the work place. From a practical standpoint, the threat of termination is the best motivator.
Will, the threat of termination need not be delivered in anger. If an employee fails to do his job and that is grounds for termination, it’s grounds for termination. Yelling that message makes no difference, except to add stress to your workplace, make your workers less productive, and ruin your own life.
D&C 121 is not just a lesson for parents. It’s a lesson for leadership in all areas of our lives. The only exception I can think of is in a hostile military or law enforcement situation.
Jeff, I’m with you. No one ever told me not to cry. And I have never sent that message to my sons, either.
I daresay the social pressure not to cry from peers is probably common among boys and girls in the middle school years (maybe earlier).
Honestly, I am hard pressed to think of a time when I’ve seen a woman cry in the workplace. Aside from intense moments of grief such as being let go or disciplined, I can’t think of any. In those situations, I have seen more women than men cry, though.
I’m glad if men are no longer being given the message that “boys don’t cry.” I have definitely had male friends at work who’ve told me they were raised on that notion, though. I don’t think it’s right, but it is common, especially in previous generations. In my case, as I’ve said, my parents felt all emotional displays were weakness. In the words of my mother: “What’s wrong with you?” But Jeff, the examples you cite are not in the workplace. Does your experience in the workplace differ from those settings or do you see men & women crying in the workplace?
I also think it likely that LDS men are more apt feel positive about emotional displays because it’s a common way Mormons express spirituality. Many men cry or get choked up emotionally at church.
“Will, the threat of termination need not be delivered in anger”
Agreed.
Crying in the workplace for anyone just seems unprofessional to me. I’ve seen it done twice by women in my office, both times when I was disciplining them (one was being let go). I have never seen a man cry in my workplace. However, on TV, there are times when emotional responses seem advantageous to a person in a specific situation (politician wanting to show how strongly he feels), and other times it happens but still looks silly (an athlete like Tim Tebow blubbering about a silly game).
In church, I think crying is endeared, as associated with spirituality (pet peeve), and then to see men cry openly seems respected.
The workplace, at church, a movie, or at a funeral … the situation does really impact what seems accepted by society.
I was endlessly teased while growing up by older brothers to “not be a cry baby”. But I think I more just learned as I got older that I don’t enjoy looking weak publicly. Crying and kissing are two things we do as humans that I really don’t understand why we do them??? Who started these strange acts??
Hawk,
“But Jeff, the examples you cite are not in the workplace. Does your experience in the workplace differ from those settings or do you see men & women crying in the workplace?”
Your statement was a generalized stereotype, not specific to the workplace. In my workplace, I can only remember a single incident where I saw someone cry and i was the cause.
I was talking to my secretary, who was a single Mom in an abusive relationship and I was asking her what I could do to help here because it was affecting her work and attendance. I am sure there might have been others, but I don’t really remember and so I do not place a huge importance on those. At one time the company I work for was a very supportive environment and I do not think there would have been stigma attached to crying, men or women.
I have attended many workplace violence meetings at various employers. lest we think that anger is acceptable in the workplace, let me remind everyone that ‘going postal’ is overwhelmingly done by male workers. this is an emotional response that is completely unacceptable and shows that men are more emotional than women, especially when it concerns workplace violence.
>>this is an emotional response that is completely unacceptable and shows that men are more emotional than women, especially when it concerns workplace violence.<<
mh,
I would have to disagree that a few workers "going postal" does not show that men are more emotional than women in any way. It shows that those few men (and there were only a few) were more prone to drastic action, not necessarily more influenced by emotion generally. It has been scientifically proven that women have larger deep limbic systems and therefore are more subject to emotion in any context, including the workplace. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it isn't helpful to ignore it.
ryan, I think we don’t really disagree, we are framing the conversation differently. part of it comes down to definitions. men call women emotional because women cry. women call men emotional because men get angry. both are true. crying and anger are both emotional reactions. is one more emotional than another? well it’s a bit of an apples-oranges comparison.
if you look at crying, then women are more emotional. if you look at violence, men are more emotional. it simply depends on definitions. men don’t cry (but there are exceptions) and women don’t kill (but there are exceptions.)
Will:
Are you the type of person who prides themselves on being 100% honest and to the point with everyone but don’t like it when people are honest with them? This girl at my job was very proud of how honest she was so I was honest with her. She never bothered me ever again.
Henry,
Not quite sure what you are asking or what your motivation is, but I appreciate it when people are honest and direct with me as this is the way I am with them.
mh,
I agree that anger is an emotion. And I would agree that women are more likely to cry than men. (Sidenote: my father made fun of me (not too badly) when I cried as a kid.) However, I don’t agree that because a few men “went postal” it necessarily follows that men are more emotional than women. I think that women are inherently, and biologically, more “emotional” (as defined by being subject to or influenced by emotion) than men are.
Also, I’d be curious about whether men or women show more anger in the workplace. I’ve seen a whole lot of angry women in the workplace so I’m not sure about that one.
I guess my response to the original post is that women are more emotional (as defined above) than men in and out of the workplace. I think it really comes down to biology and limbic systems, etc., which I have discussed but can’t say I fully understand. I’d be interested in the argument supporting the opposing side. But I think this is a case that would definitely be decided by expert witnesses.
Will:
Just saying you can’t always be direct and to the point. Sometimes it’s best not to say a darn thing. Usually it’s best to let people save face, especially with terminations. Human emotions are like fire and it’s always best to HANDLE WITH CARE.
Henry,
Terminations, layoffs and resolving personal issues are always a challenge and need to be handled with care. I agree fully.
Hopefully, I didn’t insinuate another course of action. With that said, prior to termination it is always best to let people know where they stand. Following the Golden Rule, I would rather be fired after I was warned (even by an angry boss) than to show up one day and realize I didn’t have a job without any feedback or warning. The latter is the gutless approach.
Will:
My last job before being self employed was one where I worked the job for an entire year without any negative feedback. Some positive feedback during that first year, but nothing negative at all. Review time came and it was all negative, excessively so in my mind. 3 weeks later I was let go with the excuse “it just isn’t working out”, with my boss stating a few other unkind things about my work. I literally had 3 weeks to fix work that I didn’t know needed fixing before I lost my job.
It definitely left a sour taste in my mouth…
Jeff, I didn’t intend to stereotype. I was just saying the same thing Adam had already said about some men (he cited those he met in therapy) being emotionally repressed. I still believe this is accurate, and many are not diagnosed – in fact, it is an asset in business to be more cool-headed than others. Some women are also emotionally repressed, but society has historically (this century anyway) expected women to behave emotionally (irrationally even) and expected men to be stoic. It takes time to change societal norms. I agree with you that this one is changing, and as with all stereotypes it is not true of all.
Ryan – cite a scientific study that supports the idea that women are more emotional, if you can. I am not buying it. I think men & women are roughly equal in terms of feeling emotions but they express themselves differently based on culture.
I should add also that while it is an asset in business to appear cool-headed, those who are emotionally intelligent and not just repressed (iow they have more ability to regulate their emotions) tend to be the most successful.
Ryan, I needed to re-take the SLCC Workplace Violence online course. You can read it here. Page 4 says, “Men outnumber women 99-1 as perpetrators of fatal workplace
violence incidents.”
Perhaps SLCC is overstating it’s case. I checked the Bureau of Labor Statistics website. Here is a table of workplace fatalities by men and women. It’s not 99-1, but rather 80-20 between the years 1997-2009. Still, men far outnumber women in these incidents. (I hope this formats ok. It shows % and raw numbers for the assailants in these categories.) See http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/work_hom.pdf
gender total coworker customer
men 84.53% 79.90% 78.87%
men 2722 1105 657
women 498 278 176
women 15.47% 20.10% 21.13%
#42,
Digging up an actual study is too much work. Google it and you’ll see what I’m talking about. Apparently women have larger deep limbic systems and much better and faster communication between the left and right hemispheres of their brains. Apparently the right hemisphere has more to do with feelings and emotions and women are much more capable of receiving input from the right hemisphere into the left hemisphere, meaning that feelings and emotion will play a much greater role in decision making. One scientist described the communication between the hemispheres as being an old country road for men and a superhighway for women. I know feminism is uncomfortable with differences between the sexes but in this case it’s biological and there’s really no way to pass it off as “socialization.”
mh,
Men might outnumber women 99-1 in terms of workplace violence. I don’t see how that’s relevant. Men are probably more prone to drastic action in a lot of other areas as well (e.g., suicide and violence generally) But that isn’t really relevant to the question of which gender is more subject to emotions generally. In other words, yes some men react more violently to emotion than women but women are still more “emotional” on a day to day basis, even though they don’t react to that emotion by killing coworkers.
#46 Ryan, I just can’t get my own observation out of my head — men act far more often out of anger than women do (as evidenced by the high rate of violence). Unless you don’t consider anger to be an emotion…
I did what you said and googled the subject. One of the first hits was this link:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2008/0403-men_are_from_mars.htm
It is a report of a 2008 Univ. of Pennsylvania study from Science Daily in which MRI scans shows — under stress — increased limbic activity in women, and increased right prefrontal cortex activity in men (note the first paragraph says left, but the video and later in the article it clearly specifies right). But it does not state or suggest one is more driven by emotion than the other.
In fact, in men, the left frontal cortex signals the fight or flight response which is closely linked to anger in men.
In fact, the point of the study is not to suggest more or less emotion in one than another, but to influence future treatment for mood disorders.
A second link:
http://www.mastersofhealthcare.com/blog/2009/10-big-differences-between-mens-and-womens-brains/
Makes clear that because of larger deep limbic area, women are more capable of being in touch with and dealing with their emotions (rather than being subject to them all the time). It says the larger deep limbic system “allows [women] to be more in touch with their feelings and better able to express them.”
So checking the top google returns says you’re right that the deep limbic system is different, but doesn’t validate your claim that women are more emotional than men.
Paul,
Thanks for doing the work I’m too lazy to do. I think it comes down to interpreting the data but it is my understanding that “being in touch with and dealing with their emotions” fits squarely within the definition of “emotional.” If someone is “in touch” with and dealing with their emotions, that would constitute emotional behavior. I think the article you cite clearly states that women are better at that. Again, a lot of it comes down to definitions and interpretations but I think it’s pretty clear that women are more subject to, in touch with, and consequently deal with, emotions more than men, in and out of the work place. It may not be the case that they’re subject to them all the time. But if you’re in touch with emotions, those emotions are going to have an effect on how you view the world, decisions you make, etc., which is what being “emotional” means.
I think this is one of those differences feminism does not like to acknowledge for fear that if women are deemed more “emotional” they’ll be thought less capable of positions of leadership and responsibility. I saw some of that when Hillary Clinton was running for president – some people, even democrats, seemed to suggest that maybe she wouldn’t be a good fit for the job because she’s a woman. And then there was the incident where she lashed out, in anger, at the Congo student (after the election) and the media made quite a fuss over the issue. On the one hand it seemed that she was being targeted for the display of emotion because she was a woman. On the other hand, could you really see Bill reacting that way? And is it a good idea to have someone in charge who’s going to let her emotions get out of control like that?
Also, the anger issue. I think that is an emotion, and men and women express it differently. But in my observation women get angry quite often(see Hillary Clinton, supra). Whether it’s more or less than men I don’t know. I’d like to see some type of study on that.
once again ryan, I am not disputing what you are saying. I don’t think hawkgrrrl clearly defined what she meant by ’emotional.’ as such, I think both of our points are valid ways to address hawkgrrrl’s topic.
Ryan – I think you are talking in circles. All people have emotions. The studies that were linked indicated that women were better at being in touch with and dealing with their emotions (another stereotype, albeit a positive one for women). That would mean that women have more emotional intelligence than men do, and emotional intelligence is far more strongly linked to success in business leadership than is intelligence or education. Women would not want to distance themselves from this; they would want to play up that advantage. And I have heard many women executives being prized for that.
However, I’m not convinced it’s enough of a trend to be a given. In Jeff’s words, it’s just another stereotype. Not all women have high emotional intelligence, and not all men are stunted in emotional intelligence. People have to be evaluated for individual skill and merit.
50,
I’m not talking in circles, I’m making assertions based on scientific evidence. Those assertions have not been disproven, and in fact the articles cited prove that there is scientific evidence supporting those assertions. I don’t know where you’re getting the link between “emotional intelligence” (another undefined term) and success in business. Also your original question had nothing to do with “emotional intelligence.” I think that you need to define the terms you’re using and then center the analysis around one topic or the other. Your original question was whether women are more emotional than men at work. While I’m sure there are exceptions, the scientific evidence suggests that women are more emotional than men in all aspects of life due to innate biological differences. If you’ve got scientific evidence to the contrary, I’d be interested to see it.
Ryan: Emotional intelligence is very well documented. Daniel Goleman’s book is the staple of both a psychometric instrument that is widely accepted in business and a book that sits on most executives’ bookshelves. Here are some links: http://www.businessballs.com/eq.htm
http://www.byronstock.com/ei/eioverview.html
There are far too many links to do this topic justice, so if you are interested, google “emotional intelligence” or “emotional intelligence business success.”
You said: “your original question had nothing to do with “emotional intelligence.”” Absolutely true. I did not qualify the term “emotional,” which is one reason that I think men are inclined to call women “more emotional” without qualification. Most commenters here seem to feel anger and sadness are both emotional expressions, and that men are prone to expressing one while women are more prone to expressing the other. I usually think of being emotional at work as linked to insecurity, which can be manifest either through angry outbursts or crying. It can also just be expressed by neediness and gossiping. In my 20 years of experience in the business world, both men & women are emotional, but they do tend to express themselves differently. I also believe crying specifically is linked to women feeling dismissed or powerless, whereas men express these feelings through anger.
You are right in your criticism that my OP was not more clear in defining “emotional.” When I say you are talking in circles, what I referred to was the fact that you described a positive differentiator for women based on the studies you’d read (that women are more in touch with their emotions – a hallmark of emotional intelligence), and that feminists wanted to distance themselves from that. I’m simply stating that it’s illogical and not my experience. Female executives are only too happy to take credit for higher levels of emotional intelligence because those skills are an asset in the business world.
I would say that since men (Martians) and Women (Venusians) express their emotions differently, it’d be difficult to say which gender is “more” emotional. Men tend to profane and get pissed off (anger), women tend to cry and/or whine (but not always, beware the SILENT one…), and generally we tolerate emotional outbursts of that nature from the respective genders.
Women usually get away with being “emotional” to a far greater degree than men do, but it’s those that crack the “glass ceiling” that are accused of being proverbially “a man with breasts”, or “check for a penis”.
And don’t even get me started on, “A man is forthright, a woman is bitchy, a man is ambitious, a woman is push, etc etc etc”
A quote attributed to Voltaire: “C’est une diffrence fra les hommes et les femmes, mais, Vive la difference!”