Do you feel one group is more emotional? And is the belief that women are more emotional spread by men?
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2025
268 points (100.0% liked)
WomensStuff
371 readers
183 users here now
Women only trans inclusive This is an inclusive community for all things women. Whether you're here for make up tips, feminism or just friendly chit chat, we've got you covered.
Rules…
- Women only… trans women are women, and transphobic or gender critical talk isn’t allowed. Anyone under the trans umbrella (e.g. non-binary, bigender, agender) is free to decide whether a women's community is a good fit for them.
- Don’t be a dick. No personal attacks, no aggression, play nice.
- Don’t hate on groups, hatefilled talk about groups is not allowed. Ever.
- No governmental politics, so no talk of Trump actions etc. We recommend Feminism@beehaw.org for that, but here is an escape from it.
- New accounts or users with few comments may have their posts removed to prevent spam and bad-faith participation.
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think the difference is actually between how each sex biologically regulates emotion.
We're essentially the same, the only difference being a tweak of brain chemistry and hormones.
Most of those differences affect mostly how and when we feel emotions.
So while there certainly are differences, we both feel the same feelings. It's just when we feel them, and the frequency in which we feel them, that differs.
For example: Men biologically produce more testosterone. So its much more likely they'll have quick tempers, constant arousal, and aggresive competition as a result. While these emotions are difficult to regulate, which is very commonly seen in young males, the persistent exposure to testosterone does eventually lead to better control over the emotions it amplifies. (Assuming these males are aging in a healthy environment).
Women, unquestionably, can have these same exact emotions. However, due to the lower levels of testosterone, the frequency in which these emotions are experienced are far less than men. Which means over time, these emotions are less likely to be easily regulated, simply because the chemicals that produce them aren't as persistently experienced.
That is, an older male in a frustrating situation is less likely to get angry simply because they've been getting angry their whole life and know how to better bury their anger because of it. While older females may not have experienced anger / testosterone as much, so in frustrating situations don't have the experience needed to know how to regulate their temper better.
Imo, this is why we have the term "Karen" with no male equivalent.
For biological women, they produce more estrogen (and some other cool shit) which is why they tend to have more friends (it's the social hormone), express sadness easier, and also nest-build / want to have children.
Likewise they become experts at these emotions as they age, but get tortured as young teens who have to feel these extreme things for the first time.
Men, likewise feel these emotions, but since it's far less frequent, also have issues controlling them. That's why men have less friends, fear crying in front of people, and take so long to know if they want kids.
They feel the same emotions, but far less frequently so they have no idea how to regulate them. Men treat their sadness like anger, bury it, then want their GF to also be their psychiatrist since they have no clue what to do with those feelings they bury.
Imo, that's why the trope of the insecure male seeking lover / therapist exists as well.
That's all to say, we feel the same things. Just in different amounts at different times. Depending on when you look, either sex could be viewed as "more emotional. "
By the same token, some women are very influenced by their cycles - or at least like to blame a bad attitude on such - which is often used to play up the "unpredictable/emotional narrative".
Downplaying or excusing bad behaviour as "just that time of month" also puts women in a bag light overall. For a semi-predictable event, knowing how to manage the influence of ones own biochemical factors should be part of personal responsibility, not an excuse. From the side of male partners in that equation, providing some comfort - whether it be prepping a hot water bottle, picking up stuff to help regulate cycle pain - and maybe expecting to pick up a bit of extra slack on chores a few days a month can also be part of a healthy relationship, but walking on eggshells for several days a months is not.
It's not so much managing the influence of one's own biochemical factors, but their consequences.
We absolutley have no control over these hormones releasing in our body, and by what amount (unless prescribed as an Rx).
All we can do is tolerate the feelings we get from them, and eventually, through exposure, understand that we're being controlled by them.
The example you provided is valid, but I would debate the conclusion you are drawing from it.
Woman absolutley have an increase in certain sex hormones hitting them once a month, but they have no control over the amount or frequency. All they can do is bear with it, including cramps, and grow to understand their behaviour is being influenced by the chemically enhanced emotions they're now experiencing.
I'm not a fan of being in constant pain, so having to experience intense amounts of it in my lower abdomen once a month would certainly make me irratable at that time. Hormones or otherwise.
The ability one has to identify WHEN their emotions are being influenced by these chemicals is what gives us any power over them. Regardless of sex, our worst behaviors often happen when we haven't realized we're currently emotionally compromised by these chemicals.
I've seen a man get pissed off at a small rock he stumbled over, then kick it, break his toe, and proceed to harrass the strangers trying to help him. All because he was hungry, which can trigger the release of testosterone.
He didn't know he was emotionally compromised. And lacked the ability to recognize it in time before breaking his toe.
Very similar anecdotes certainly exist between both sexes.
Which to me implies a universal struggle for us to understand our bodies well enough to know when we're being emotionally influenced by them regardless of our sex.
I've never heard of the hungry=testosterone thing before but that's really interesting. It kinda puts a new spin on those old "you're not yourself when you're ~~hungry~~ full of triggering hormones" commercials.
Also, totally agree that it's not about "controlling" the chemicals as recognising and mitigating their influence over decisions (easier said than done, I know) or possibly preparing for them ahead of time to the extent that's possible. Maybe Snickers really did have it right... at least for guys :-)
That's hilarious about Snickers, and very well said! :)
There's been a lot of very interesting studies that have been done in the last 5 years or so about how our bodies more essential functions have odd ties to our hormone levels. Imo, It's fascinating to say the least.
For example: one of the more interesting ones I've looked at involved a study of young men that proved a strong correlation between low testosterone and eating disorders.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32643144/
Overall, these scientists further studies are now somewhat suggesting there's a "sweet spot" for the amount of testosterone flowing in males that would make it easier for them to regulate good eating habits.
In turn, this implies some new opportunities to explore treating eating disorders with low dose hormones. (At least in males).
Which is a very long way for me to make the joke that scientifically, you COULD make the argument that "Snickers satisfies" the hunger Testosterone creates. ;)