Are men more emotional than women?

We all know that women are emotional beings – they are fuelled by it. This is even intensified during their time of the month. But what about their male counterparts? Are men as emotional as women, but they just mask it with testosterone?

“Boys should not cry. Only little girls cry”. I’ve heard that shit so often being drilled into little boys’ ears. Is it wrong for a male to be emotional?

Society dictates that our young men be tough. As a result males try to avoid certain behaviour like crying or being overly mushy because it will go against societal norms. Because most men try to hide their true emotions, when men love, they love deeply and conversely, when we’re hurt, it cuts real deep.

Let me hear you. Do you think men are more emotional than women?


33 thoughts on “Are men more emotional than women?

    • True. Why do women show it more though. Could it be that men and women have specific roles. During a crisis, the man should be the stronger one in the relationship. The one that his woman can lean on for support.

      I’ve never watched that show before, but I went and watched a snippet of the final home run on Youtube and I got goose pimples all over πŸ™‚

      • That is a great clip. But it ends about 45 seconds too soon.
        The ball keeps going. I’m not kidding, rent the flick, watch the whole thing and see where the ball lands.
        Totally worth it!

  1. And I say the same. But of course – not as briefly πŸ™„ Person to person you can be more or less emotional but it is not a line drawn along the sexes…That males are not emotional is hooey bunk, males just have to find different ways to deal with it. Women love deeply and are hurt just as much. We are free to express these things tho. I say have to loosely and it isn’t so much a personal choice as a conditioned response. Left to our own devices without the societal pressure – I think we would all be emotionally expressive. It has to do with strength I think – the appearance of being strong, stoic, capable. Hysterical weeping appears weak because …you are technically at a disadvantage not aware of your surroundings and open to …I dunno being hit by a pie because you didn’t see it coming? A weeping hysterical woman has to be protected by someone and a weeping hysterical man sitting beside her doesn’t invoke confidence – yet why is it a man woman thing? Sigh….I myself appreciate a man that can express his emotions and I think the stunting of men’s emotional growth when they are boys is part of the reason there are a lot of screwed up assholeos – (yes i know women can be too don’t get excited) but I know a few men who are the biggest pricks in the world and it’s all because they were told and told and told again that it wan’t right to cry. True story…..
    πŸ™‚ Peace

    • I agree with you and I think I hinted at your point in my response to El Guapo. It’s all about appearance! A weeping, overly emotional man doesn’t at all invoke confidence in a woman. It’s bigger than society. Its evolutionary. Evolution shows that women prefer men that are confident because they would make a better mate. They are less likely to get certain illnesses. Men that appear to be wusses would be cast out because it would be assumed that their genes are weak and they would be more prone to illnesses. This is all assumed of course because there is no scientific proof that men that are overly emotional are less of a man or, are more likely to catch certain illness than men that are stoic.

      Sighs. We are weird creatures!

      • And does emotion rule out confidence? I suppose show of some emotions doesn’t lend to it – crying for example but why is it perceived as weak – why is it not as accepted as Laughter? Because our eyes leak. I mean damn! Anger is acceptable in men but not so much in women – It is an emotion that is expressed – well when let go it can be frightening – so men can be angry but an angry woman is a biaatch? As women we are raised to swallow it. It isn’t ladylike. OUR ANGER is not justifiable.? I see that changing in girls these days – swinging to the other extreme which is how it usually goes no? I guess it is a matter of what emotions are deemed feminine / or worthy of balls. – and really it isn’t necessarily the emotion – it is the acceptable expression of it. Emotion is emotion – we all feel., How we express is what is really the issue. Um….not of your post cause I mean you are talking about whether men are more emotional than women and I don’t want to change the subject. And if you asked are men more expressive than women well….duh! Not much to write a mini post in your comments about. Oh why do I do this to you…..? Why do I do it to myself? πŸ™„ Cheers !

      • Once you choose to become apart of a society, you have to abide by the rules of that society. Society dictates that certain actions that are performed by men (e.g. Expression of Anger) would be frowned upon if expressed by a woman. This biased behavior goes all the way back to biblical days. People who think that an expressive man is a wuss, (in my opinion) is as smart as a doornail.

        On another note, you said “And if you asked are men more expressive than women well….duh!”. You think that men are more expressive than women?

  2. Depends on the emotion being displayed, doesn’t it? We’re kinda raised to not let our emotions show because this equates to being in control and, well, being seen as out of control – emotional – isn’t a good thing, not even when the emotion men understand the most, anger, is displayed. I think I read somewhere recently that men think and women feel and probably because these are the roles we get foisted upon us. Kinda makes sense… because some of us want men who can feel and women who can think, huh?

    Okay, biochemistry. Testosterone makes us aggressive… and we have a shitload of it but not so much estrogen, that hormone that drives women bat shit physically and emotionally. However, our ability to be emotional isn’t masked by testosterone – it’s driven by it… all depends on, again, what emotion in particular you’re talking about and the mental disciplines of the person displaying the emotion – or not. If we’re talking about love, well, I know it doesn’t make me less manly to openly express the emotion; if I’m sad enough or moved enough to cry, ditto – it’s just the way I feel and that has nothing to do with my being a man in action, thought, and/or deed. But, Amor, I’m assuming that you’re talking about the softer emotions here? Love, compassion, empathy are the “soft” ones; anger, lust, fear are the stronger ones (to list a few of both sides).

    We’re just conditioned to not let our emotions show… like that really works, huh? It’s been proven that the suppression of emotion is a bad thing and something that has little or nothing to do with our masculinity… except, read the beginning of this paragraph again. It is this conditioning that gets us into so much trouble with women, ain’t it, because the only emotion we ever really show them is lust and not much else… but that’s the testosterone talking (in case y’all didn’t really know this).

    • yea! what he said! Sorry I didn’t read it before I added my $1 worth. testosterone, estrogen, conditioning and lust. I couldn’t say it better. Which is apparent because I mucked it up into an emotional garble. Bravo!
      for real.
      πŸ™‚ Peace

      • lol…no you didn’t. I understood perfectly what you were saying. The world is just one big biased blob, and since we’re apart of it, we just have to live with it until it gets better … If it ever gets better.

    • Yes, I’m talking about the “softer” emotions. Most men are masters at displaying the stronger emotions. “We’re kinda raised to not let our emotions show because this equates to being in control.” That’s true. We become pressure cookers of emotions and when the pressure in the pot is too much, some men get physical. But that’s another story. If males are designed with a 80:20 ratio of testosterone to estrogen, I wonder if males take on a particular behavior if the balance will be disrupted, say 50:50?

      • well, now you’re getting into nature vs. nurture.
        I think that the chemical balance is important, but also how a thinking person chooses to use it.
        I don’t yell at my wife seriously. If I raise my voice to her, she knows that we’re playing.
        When something is wrong, we talk to each other. there may be the occasional sarcastic crack during the conversation. but after seeing my parents relationship, I made a deliberate decision to treat my relationship differently.
        Not that there aren’t times i wouldn’t like to yell, but I really can’t see how either of us gains from that…
        Really hope I haven’t wandered too far off topic here…

      • I agree. Yelling solves nothing – When you become an adult, you ought to put away childish things. (wait … does that mean I have to stop watching my anime?? :() Anyways, the discussion is quite provocative and I’m enjoying it πŸ™‚

        Do elaborate on your nature vs. nurture theory.

      • Well, it’s an old argument. Do you have your personality because you inherited it (nature) or because you learned it (nurture)?
        As you’ve said above, there are societal roles. How much of those roles are arbitrary, and how much have a basis in, say, mankinds history as hunters? If women stayed home and tended the young while men hunted food/other men, is the stoicness a trait that was evolutionarily preferrable to whiny men?
        Or are men just more stoic becasue that is what is expected?
        I vaguely recall “men getting in touch with their feminine side” was a big deal a while back. The expectation of society can change. We see it now in the role of women in the workplace. While admittedly a slow change, it is becoming more commonplace to see women higher up the corporate food chain.
        So, is that an evolutionary shift, or an attitudinal one?
        Also, which comes first – the attitude in people or the societal expectation?

      • I think we inherit our personality and over time it’s nurtured. If a woman were to do a comparison between a stoic man and a whiny man, chances are she would choose the stoic one. So stoicness is a evolutionary trait that has been passed down to males. And because it is an “evolutionary trait” then it is expected. For expectations to change, I believe that you first need to change your attitude.

        I feel like I’m having a debate on the topic of morals – there is no right answer πŸ™‚

      • Well, it is about nature versus nurturing. Our nature has us full of aggression-inducing testosterone; the nurturing teaches us how to not let it get out of control. Our personalities are a result of that mixing of genetic material, nurturing, and experiences as we grow and, yes, our societal norms dictate how men are supposed to behave… and we’re not supposed to cry or express any other “feminine” emotions, which is bullshit and why gay men in particular always catches a bad break for being unmanly in their emotional displays.

      • You know I was gonna touch on that in one of my responses but I just avoided it. It’s true though. Deviation from societal norms is the reason why gay people are ostracized.

      • @ El Guapo, you’re right – it is more acceptable at the society level; still, don’t some men look at gay men and flip out on them for being unmanly?

        @ Amor, I don’t think it is; it kinda defeats that whole thing about sovereignty. The issue is about human rights and then whose idea of human rights we’re talking about. We – the US – are big on human rights even though we don’t practice what we preach so while we could tell a country to lighten up on their homosexuals or you don’t get any money from us, it doesn’t make it right and more so when we vilify homosexuals here despite the growing acceptance.

      • A colleague raised that same point about sovereignty. The US has historically proven how much of a bully they are. The US and UK wants Jamaica to reform its buggery law, failure to do so will result in a withdrawal of financial support. Without repeating what you said, there are people in those countries that are against same-sex unions, so instead of proposing such draconian ultimatums, said countries should clean there own houses first before they attempt to clean others.

      • @Amor, yep, that’s the push here lately… but what I don’t understand is why the push exists to begin with. As far as societies go, ours hasn’t been around as long as some of the others, societies that have always had a ban about such behavior between men. So, it begs the question of whether or not we can threaten to withhold financial support to and for a people who, according to their beliefs and cultures, ain’t about allowing men to have sex with each other.

        We’re demanding other countries to allow an act that we ourselves don’t really and officially approve of? I’ve heard and read that Jamaica is about as homophobic as a country can be and I can’t honestly say that I know any Jamaicans that would throw down like that – maybe there are but the country’s stance is simply, “Oh, hell naw!” So we’re gonna punish them for sticking to their beliefs in this by withholding vital economic aid… to a country with 26%+ unemployment… because they – Jamaica – don’t like men expressing their lust with each other.

      • I fully believe that. Let me pick both you and kdaddy’s brain a little. If you lived in an extremely homophobic country, would it be right for another country to tell your government that if buggery laws are not revised, then your country will be cut off financially?

      • Hard to say. If I lived in that country, I probably wouldn’t have the “Who cares?” attitude towards homosexuality that I have in the US.
        So from their point of view, yeah, I would probably be against it. From my point of view, I have no problem with cutting off funds for that reason.
        Trying to look at it objectively, I don’t think I have a problem with it anyway. Human rights, trade policies, all that stuff is legitimate fodder for nations to bargain over. I do expect that a few flags would be burned in effigy though. Oh, and rhetoric. There would be rhetoric from the cut-off nation too. And their citizens would probably have a “go screw yourself” attitude towards the first country.
        History is full of nations leaning on each other like that. so maybe not right, but it is the norm…

        Not sure that I’m interpreting your question correctly…

      • Homophobic nations threatens homosexuals. That is a human rights issue. If the grounds for negotiating trade or support is legitimate, then there is no problem with the repercussions that may follow. I guess the only thing for Country B (the homophobic country) to do is to cease trading with Country A.

    • True. You made a good point about you not seeing the point in arguing with your wife, and I have a post coming shortly that briefly touches on that. Whenever the Mrs and I argue, we quickly make up πŸ™‚

  3. Amor – I meant duh as in the answer to the question being obvious – so no I don’t think men are more expressive as a whole – but on a emotion by emotion basis i dunno I guess its a toss up and depends on the person really. You’d think I am bipolar or something by my ability to tell you where I stand so clearly.

    You GUYS are the ones who expressed opinions – having and expressing an opinion comes from some sort of emotion – so I am humbly retreating although I enjoyed it immensely

  4. Amor24 – I agree with you that countries should have their houses in order. I don’t know that I would consider restricting financial aid as Draconian. Most countries do still provide humanitarian aid in cases of national disaster or massive tragedy – We (U.S.) even send emergency aid to countries like Iran when they have earthquakes.
    But for smaller countries like Jamaica, the aid is probably a bigger deal to them than the trade, so it is a more effective tool for a threat.
    In the end though, legislation is only a small part of the solution towards getting people to accept the differences of others. Like in this country, there needs to be a constant agitation for change and acceptance.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s