Logic, Emotion, and Gender

[Wilhelm Scream]

Why is it that the terms "logic" and "reason" are associated with masculinity and the terms "emotion" and "irrationality" are often associated with femininity? This goes back to Plato's Socrates in the Republic (maybe further?) I understand the prevalence of misogyny in Plato's time but this association continues even today. Logic and reason still carry extremely masculine undertones. A common theme that I see often is the association of emotion and irrationality in reference to the Left. Why is emasculating an opponent viewed as some sort of victory strategy in a debate or any other competition? Why is there such a negative connotation associated with these feminized concepts? Why are they feminized to begin with?

Any thoughts?

[Souldire]

Lets take boxing as an example, the sweet science as its called. A person fighting on emotion is not thinking clearly and can be said to be throwing punches irrationally, a person in this state of mind is more likely going to lose to a person who is using logic and reason as in the stable fighter is going to be looking for certain openings like if a uppercut gets thrown at him it stands to reason that a cross is the logical choice to counter that punch. Also in a relationship i keep hearing that a woman is looking for more of a emotional attachment than the man as he is more after a physical attachment, so it is said that women are more emotional than men. So some men take advantage of this and can beat there woman and some kind of irrationality makes the woman want to stay with him even more. Now on the other hand I do not have any examples of logic and reason being solely a masculine feature. As there is no logic and reason behind the mans actions that he took on the woman. But another example that I can take from my experience is when something goes wrong like last week her car broke down. She started crying while I got on the phone(Since im not a mechanic.) and figured out a way to get her back up and running with a car. I had a van that was not running and it was cheaper to get the van fixed than her car, so I had the van repaired and she now has a vehicle she can use to get to work.

[Samm]

I think the Melvin character played by Jack Nicholson in "As good as it Gets" when asked: "How do you write women so well?"

"I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability."

;)

[Wilhelm Scream]

Yes, I've heard that one before. Pretty misogynistic.

Why are most people prone to thinking this way? Does this stem from our societal roots?
No one feels like musing intellectually with me on this one?

[jimjames418]

Why is it that the terms "logic" and "reason" are associated with masculinity and the terms "emotion" and "irrationality" are often associated with femininity?

Any thoughts?
Have you ever seem a woman whose children have been threatened?

Logic and reason have nothing to do with the emotion and irrationality displayed by such an encounter.

[StoneScratcher]

Think like an Ancient Egyptian...

[JediMindTrick]

I'll take a stab at a serious answer, though its merely my unexpert opinion.

Women are much more physiologically affected by hormones than men, especially during a certain time of the month. Even outside that time of the month though hormones in women tend to affect their moods more than men. Therefore its merely a reflection of reality to say that women are more emotional than men. Add to that the cultural mores that forbid men from expressing emotion while its accepted for women to show emotion.

[StoneScratcher]

Oh phooey on women and hormones and PMS'g and all that. If that angle is going to be used against women (hormones), then you better include the raging hormones that drive men into following their groin-area, rather than their gray-area.

Are we dogs that can't THINK beyond hormones? Or will there be fear another cigar-Oval Office incident will happen? Or if there EVER is a female president, she might get (gasp) PMS?

Think like an Ancient Egyptian.

[JediMindTrick]

Oh phooey on women and hormones and PMS'g and all that. If that angle is going to be used against women (hormones), then you better include the raging hormones that drive men into following their groin-area, rather than their gray-area.

Are we dogs that can't THINK beyond hormones? Or will there be fear another cigar-Oval Office incident will happen? Or if there EVER is a female president, she might get (gasp) PMS?

Think like an Ancient Egyptian.

It must be a unique world you live in to ignore the realities of human biology.

[StoneScratcher]

It must be a unique world you live in to ignore the realities of human biology.

Well I consider our minds are a reason why we don't need the government to treat us like animals that have to be taught as children in public schools why we must use a condom and not our brains to decide when to have sex.

That's the reality of my world.

[Wilhelm Scream]

I'll take a stab at a serious answer, though its merely my unexpert opinion.

Women are much more physiologically affected by hormones than men, especially during a certain time of the month. Even outside that time of the month though hormones in women tend to affect their moods more than men. Therefore its merely a reflection of reality to say that women are more emotional than men. Add to that the cultural mores that forbid men from expressing emotion while its accepted for women to show emotion.

Thanks for taking a genuine stab at it.
You raise some interesting points about the potential causes for the engendering of the word "emotional." But if this is the case, why is logic equated as being the opposite of emotion and - more importantly, why is this mostly accredited as being a male attribute? I conjecture that logic and emotion are not mutually exclusive. So, why then, is logic and reason held up to a higher level of argumentative stature than emotion? Logic, reason, and emotion all have their fallacies.

[Wilhelm Scream]

Oh phooey on women and hormones and PMS'g and all that. If that angle is going to be used against women (hormones), then you better include the raging hormones that drive men into following their groin-area, rather than their gray-area.

Are we dogs that can't THINK beyond hormones? Or will there be fear another cigar-Oval Office incident will happen? Or if there EVER is a female president, she might get (gasp) PMS?

Think like an Ancient Egyptian.

I agree that it seems that "emotion" has been unfairly associated with a feminine quality despite the obvious examples of "male irrationality" in modern society. I'm guilty of being quite irrational myself, sometimes. Even in argumentative discourse.

You also raise the fascinating argument of whether or not our extremely patriarchal society can handle a female president. My skeptical side says not a snowball's chance. Especially if the argumentative fallacy of engendering logic and emotion remains in play.

[MarkyS]

Thanks for taking a genuine stab at it.
You raise some interesting points about the potential causes for the engendering of the word "emotional." But if this is the case, why is logic equated as being the opposite of emotion and - more importantly, why is this mostly accredited as being a male attribute? I conjecture that logic and emotion are not mutually exclusive. So, why then, is logic and reason held up to a higher level of argumentative stature than emotion? Logic, reason, and emotion all have their fallacies.

Soldire said it well in his/her post. Emotion has its place, but in certain situations emotion can carry one to act without thinking and mearly acting as one feels they want to - often with undesirable outcome. Logic, or more correctly reason, is the opposite of emotion, when it comes to the basis for acting out. To reason actually takes some time to sort out the possible actions and their consequences, and in doing so possibly avoid them, but someone acting on emotion typically acts instantaneously, based on their immediate feeling. You certainly can temper your emotional response with reason, but that is hard to do when we are prone to act as we typically act.

Psychologists tell us that logic is more typically ascribed to men because we are problem solvers. When presented with a problem, we try to discern a solution. Women, on the other hand, often don't WANT a solution. They just want some empathy. That is an emotional response. These are generalities, of course, and all people cross thresholds to one degree or another, but I've seen exactly this matrix played out all my life, so I believe there is a great deal of truth in it.

It doesn't have to hold in all situations, of course, and one assumes that a woman leader would have had to use reasoning and logic even to attain a certain level of leadership status, unless granted the position by birthright, such as a queen. I cannot think of either Golda Meir or Maggie Thatcher as acting on any other basis than reasoning, for instance, and could not see them attaining those heights if they had simply been emotionally driven in their actions, because to do so would have led to far too many mistakes over their careers, IMHO.

M

[Samm]

Thanks for taking a genuine stab at it.
You raise some interesting points about the potential causes for the engendering of the word "emotional." But if this is the case, why is logic equated as being the opposite of emotion and - more importantly, why is this mostly accredited as being a male attribute? I conjecture that logic and emotion are not mutually exclusive. So, why then, is logic and reason held up to a higher level of argumentative stature than emotion? Logic, reason, and emotion all have their fallacies.

The reason that logic is generally attributed to males and emotion to females is that medical science confirms that to be the case. Those mental responses originate in opposite sides of the brain and are easily distinguishable from each other during a brain scan. That does not mean all men will react logically or that all women will react emotionally to a situation; it is a generality that weighs one way (toward logic) for mails and the other (toward emotion) for females.

[StoneScratcher]

I agree that it seems that "emotion" has been unfairly associated with a feminine quality despite the obvious examples of "male irrationality" in modern society. I'm guilty of being quite irrational myself, sometimes. Even in argumentative discourse.

You also raise the fascinating argument of whether or not our extremely patriarchal society can handle a female president. My skeptical side says not a snowball's chance. Especially if the argumentative fallacy of engendering logic and emotion remains in play.

There will be a homosexual male in the White House before a female.

Now what does that say about logic, emotion, and gender?

[Wilhelm Scream]

It doesn't have to hold in all situations, of course, and one assumes that a woman leader would have had to use reasoning and logic even to attain a certain level of leadership status, unless granted the position by birthright, such as a queen. I cannot think of either Golda Meir or Maggie Thatcher as acting on any other basis than reasoning, for instance, and could not see them attaining those heights if they had simply been emotionally driven in their actions, because to do so would have led to far too many mistakes over their careers, IMHO.

M

I'm not entirely sure that I agree with this. By this logic, in order for a woman to be a successful leader, she would essentially have to deny herself the very attributes that make up a woman (if we are going to follow the association of women with emotion). Essentially, she would have to become a man in a certain aspect (not literally, of course). Even then, a woman leader could never escape the criticism of her perceived emotional irrationality. At least, I don't think so. There is very little evidence to suggest that our nation has progressed towards a kind of gender equality. This is evident by the opposition's treatment of female figures - look at the way that Sarah Palin and Nancy Pelosi are treated by their respective opposition.

[JediMindTrick]

I'm not entirely sure that I agree with this. By this logic, in order for a woman to be a successful leader, she would essentially have to deny herself the very attributes that make up a woman (if we are going to follow the association of women with emotion). Essentially, she would have to become a man in a certain aspect (not literally, of course). Even then, a woman leader could never escape the criticism of her perceived emotional irrationality. At least, I don't think so. There is very little evidence to suggest that our nation has progressed towards a kind of gender equality. This is evident by the opposition's treatment of female figures - look at the way that Sarah Palin and Nancy Pelosi are treated by their respective opposition.

Your taking an all or nothing approach which is incorrect. Most men tend to be bigger and stronger than women but that doesn't mean its true all the time. Likewise most women tend to be more emotional than men but that doesn't mean its true all the time. And there is nothing to stop a woman from thinking logically just as there is nothing to stop a man from reacting emotionally. I and some of the others are just talking about overall tendencies across the whole population.

[MarkyS]

I'm not entirely sure that I agree with this. By this logic, in order for a woman to be a successful leader, she would essentially have to deny herself the very attributes that make up a woman (if we are going to follow the association of women with emotion). Essentially, she would have to become a man in a certain aspect (not literally, of course). Even then, a woman leader could never escape the criticism of her perceived emotional irrationality. At least, I don't think so. There is very little evidence to suggest that our nation has progressed towards a kind of gender equality. This is evident by the opposition's treatment of female figures - look at the way that Sarah Palin and Nancy Pelosi are treated by their respective opposition.

A female does not have to deny herself. She was probably already more on the logical side to begin with, which is why she has risen to such a high office. I'm speaking specifically of women leaders like both Meir and Thatcher here. Neither was ever accused of reacting with emotion. In fact, just the opposite. They were both often castigated for not being "human" enough - that was code word for "emotional."

Pelosi and Hillary Clinton have both had what could be called emotional displays in public. Palin much less so. But think of Condi Rice. Here was a woman who used logic and reason all her life. It was nearly impossible for anyone to catch her in an emotional moment, and the perception of her abilities as a leader and thinker are off-the-charts high compared to Pelosi as a result. I'd say that Clinton was also beset with a perception that she couldn't lead as well as Obama for the same reason. Nobody wants a president who can display the kind of pique she showed in Africa recently, when she thought she was being dissed with the question about her husband. She had a visceral, emotional response that looked terrible for a Sec of State - a position absolutely dependent upon careful and thoughtful reasoning. It was the sort of thing you'd never see from Condi Rice, even if you'd killed her mother right in front of her. If enough people see that kind of reaction from Clinton to other situations she will never rise to the presidency. People will be flat scared about what could set her off to an emotional reaction. They may not consciously THINK that, but they will innately be put off by that.

M

[Samm]

There will be a homosexual male in the White House before a female.

Really? Who do you have in mind? Barney Frank? :razz:

Now what does that say about logic, emotion, and gender?

It says nothing... it was nothing more than personal speculation... offered without either a logical or emotional basis. At least I presume it was not an emotional response... in spite of your gender. ;)

[Residential Bob]

Why is it that the terms "logic" and "reason" are associated with masculinity and the terms "emotion" and "irrationality" are often associated with femininity? This goes back to Plato's Socrates in the Republic (maybe further?) I understand the prevalence of misogyny in Plato's time but this association continues even today. Logic and reason still carry extremely masculine undertones. A common theme that I see often is the association of emotion and irrationality in reference to the Left. Why is emasculating an opponent viewed as some sort of victory strategy in a debate or any other competition? Why is there such a negative connotation associated with these feminized concepts? Why are they feminized to begin with?

Any thoughts?We don't emasculate people who rely on emotion and irrationality where logic and reason abide. We emasculate men who do that.

[Stardust]

Explain the word "emotion".

Most killings, physical assaults, rapes are done by men. (Where are the battered shelters for men, I wonder?) Men will explain that this is because of testosterone, of course - not because there is a lack of logic involved.

I believe women are more emotional because the human species would not survive without mothers who care for, nurture and bring up their children. Humanity would be in a tragic state of affairs if mothers, in particular, did not have a strong emotional nurturing side. This is not to say women aren't logical either.

[Samm]

We don't emasculate people who rely on emotion and irrationality where logic and reason abide. We emasculate men who do that.

Chicken and egg? Perhaps men who rely on emotion rather than logic are already emasculated. :think:

[Residential Bob]

I think it depends on what you mean by "emotion".

Most killings, physical assaults, rapes are done by men. (Where are the battered women shelters for men, I wonder?) Men will explain that this is because of testosterone, of course - not because there is a lack of logic involved.No one is immune to fits of passion. Patterns, however, such as of emotion or of logic, seem more gender-specific.

I believe women are more emotional because the human species would not survive without mothers who care for, nurture and bring up their children. Humanity would be in a tragic state of affairs if mothers, in particular, did not have a strong emotional nurturing side. This is not to say women aren't logical either.+1.

Some people are playing off emotion as if it's less valuable than logic. Women are better suited to governing the household while men are better suited to governing the country.

This rule, of course, is not without exceptions. Margaret Thatcher was a very capable world leader, and many men make ideal "stay-at-home mothers."

[Stardust]

Women are better suited to governing the household while men are better suited to governing the country.

Please, what century are you living in? In today's graduating classes, there are just about as many women who are lawyers and doctors. The reason why there hasn't been as many women in politics up til now is because many were denied the privilege.

[Samm]

Please, what century are you living in? In today's graduating classes, there are just about as many women who are lawyers and doctors. The reason why there hasn't been as many women in politics up til now is because many were denied the privilege.

Two words...

Nancy Pelosi

[Residential Bob]

Please, what century are you living in?The 21st. In today's graduating classes, there are just about as many women who are lawyers and doctors.Are women lawyers as logical as men lawyers?The reason why there hasn't been as many women in politics up til now is because many were denied the privilege.Denied by whom? Men? Why? Are men stronger?

[StoneScratcher]

[QUOTE]Really? Who do you have in mind? Barney Frank? :razz:

Oh, please...NO...no...NO...(blubbering)...(GASP)...No ooooo...(sniffle)....NOT HIM! :((


It says nothing... it was nothing more than personal speculation... offered without either a logical or emotional basis. At least I presume it was not an emotional response... in spite of your gender. ;)

(dabbing eyes) Moi?

[Stardust]

Are women lawyers as logical as men lawyers?

Yes they are as logical. Getting off the topic of lawyers and on my own personal experience....I work in the corporate world. I have worked for women Directors and Vice Presidents of different organizations. They were normally tougher to work for and harder workers than the men I worked for.

Denied by whom?

Societal norms.

Up until around the Victorian era, most women weren't allowed to even venture out of their houses without men. Most of their civil rights had been denied (and in many parts of the world it is still like this). It has only been since around 1920 that women were given societal privileges. Sandra Day O'Connor even mentions that when she graduated law school with top academic honors, most of the law firms she applied to, were unwilling to hire her as a lawyer, but was offered only a job as a legal secretary (and this was only in the 1950's).

[Residential Bob]

Yes they are as logical.How do you know? As we have been discussing, studies indicate that men tend toward the logical while women tend toward the emotional.

What makes the legal field the exception?



Societal norms.

Up until around the Victorian era, most women weren't allowed to even venture out of their houses without men. Most of their civil rights had been denied (and in many parts of the world it is still like this). It has only been since around 1920 that women were given societal privileges. Sandra Day O'Connor even mentions that when she graduated law school with top academic honors, most of the law firms she applied to, were unwilling to hire her as a lawyer, but was offered only a job as a legal secretary (and this was only in the 1950's).So, men are able to dictate societal norms and decide when women may have privileges. Why? Are they stronger than women?

[StoneScratcher]

Women are problem solvers. Not all women, but most, especially when they are mothers. Every mom knows hows to improvise. Need a hammer? Use a rock if you're outside and can't run in to get one. A guy, he'll need a hammer and spend time wondering where he last placed his tool box. He'll then remember it's in the back of the truck. But the truck is parked at the end of the driveway. He'll have to walk there, but his foot hurts from his skin rubbing on his boot tongue because he broke his boot lace and couldn't find another one (even though he could have tied the two pieces together for a temporary fix). He decides to take his boots off to walk to his truck to get the toolbox out from the back so he can get his hammer. Where's the nail? He thinks to himself... Crap! He cries out! He pulls the nail out from the bottom of his socked foot and limps into the house to ask his wife to drive him to the hospital for a tetanus shot.

[Stardust]

How do you know? As we have been discussing, studies indicate that men tend toward the logical while women tend toward the emotional.

What makes the legal field the exception?

If you are looking for black and white proof, perhaps it is because they have to pass exams that require extensive logic.

So, men are able to dictate societal norms and decide when women may have privileges. Why? Are they stronger than women?

First off, you keep asking "are men stronger than women"? I am not sure why.

Secondly, people - whether men or women - throughout history, have always been subjugated. (In other words, people(s) have always been made submissive or subserviant in many hundreds of different manners - through slavery, false religious practices, denial of religious practices, and in some cases, even denial of birth, by the state or society (i.e. China). Depending upon the time in history, it has happened in many forms - again, to men and women. Punishment for going against societal norms could lead to imprisonment, death, fines, etc. It is usually ended by enlightenment or strong leaders who come into power.

Frankly, Residential Bob, you should really look inwardly at your stance toward women rather than spewing such hatred on message boards. Your signature picture of an elderly woman who looks homeless and its caption indicate your little respect for women. You need not say anything more. I get where you are coming from. It is unfortunate.