No, it isn't. Do not use the fucking "it's biology" argument. The whole "women are more emotional than men" thing has always been rooted more in misogyny, not science. Hell, most of the research on this topic is poor in quality and WEIRD (refers to research that mainly comes from Western Educated Industrialized Rich Democratic countries). That's not even getting into the difficulties of proving such a statement due to how multiple parts of the brain are involved in emotions, potential cross-cultural differences, and the ways in which pressure to adhere to social norms may lead to things, such as participants lying and downplaying how strongly they feel their emotions in self-reports.
Even when taking into consideration differences between the female and male brains, said differences are generally more apparent in certain parts of the brain over others. Only Some structures in the brain seem to be sexually dimorphic. The degree to which female and male brains differ is actually a hotly debated topic in neuroscience, with issues, such as neurosexism, usually having to be brought up when discussing stuff like this.
Ignoring all of this, you could also use the biology argument to make the case for the other way around. For example, in regards to hormones, you could make an argument in the opposite direction. "Men must be more emotional since they are more likely to act out in aggression due to them producing higher levels of testosterone on average, with testosterone being linked to aggression".
That doesn't mean anything. How do you know that your supposed increase in emotions couldn't be due to other factors, such as changes in societal expectations or due to the fact that being "emotional" rarely tends to apply to emotions that are considered to be more acceptable for men to express, such as anger and aggression, leading to you potentially being less likely to label yourself as such prior?
i believe that misogyny can play apart in this argument, but science still a major factor . i do not think it makes sense to ignore this argument and the research simply because you personally dislike the implication, at least this is what it appears to me. maybe instead of getting so defensive when this point is brought up, you could examine why you think women being more sensitive and emotional is such a bad thing? because, unfortunately, your upset cannot change reality.
yes it is true that multiple parts of the brain are involved in emotions. however, it is not just one part of our brains that are different. i recall reading a study where a husband and wife ( i believe ) were given electric shocks. afterword's, the same shock was administered to their partner. it was found that MULTIPLE areas of the women's brain were lite up, showing she felt the same way as when she herself was shocked. this did not happen to the husband. while i brought up being emotional as a negative, i do not think it is WHOLLY negative, but partly negative. i for one. would consider instances like this to be a STRENGTH of women. would you not agree? sometimes, the heightened sensitivity is a good thing, and we do have more of it. for better and for worse. and there was no lying during a self report during this study, their brains were hooked up.
it is true that cultural and social factors play a role, i agree with that, but i do not thing they create this difference, rather, they amplify it. i think this is evident in the fact that, in the vast majority of cultures, women are more sensitive. if this were fully a social thing, it would be more 50/50 across different cultures in different parts of the world.
i do agree that there is much debate over the exact severity of the difference, and that it is only in some parts of the brain. however, i do not think this discredits the point that women are more sensitive, as, although 'sensitive' and 'emotional' are quite broad terms, this is still something that is found to be true to at least SOME degree. i believe that the debate should not be over whether or not these differences exist, but over how major they exactly are.
men and women tend to react differently to emotions such as anger. this is not because men are more emotional, but because of our brain structure. this makes sense in terms of evolution. the area in womens brains that is responsible for these feelings develops closer to the area that is responsible for language/ speech ( if i am recalling correctly, forgive me if i am not. i can double check in a future reply if you wish). men are quicker to physical violence, but not to anger itself. womens anger is simply expressed differently, more indirectly. to expand on that evolution bit, would it not make sense for the less physically able sex to refrain from attacking a person twice their strength? this difference makes sense for that reason. and because we tend to be around kids more. it would be bad for a woman to get angry and hurt her child. so, the anger is expressed in a different way.
and on horomons, men go through far less major hormonal changes. these happen when they start puberty, when they have a baby, as they age, and in response to outside factors, such as stress. while women have these changes, they also have many more. the 4 phases of the menstrual cycle all cause severe changes in hormones.
again, i agree that societal factors CAN play a part. our differences in opinion seem to be because your belief is that this is the whole reason (please correct me if i am getting this wrong about you ), i believe it only serves to exacerbate an already existing difference.
