An interesting difference between men and women

[Conner42]

I remember making a passing mention of a couple of things I don't quite fondly remember back in Middle School, and the person I was talking to replied with "Aw...poor Sean..."

Not that I was looking for a solution or even sympathy, but...she kind of pissed me off when she said that though.

I remember when I was hearing about the problems a friend of mine was going through, I was trying to make helpful comments(tried to bring in more understanding of what was going on) and she just said that she wasn't really looking for help or anymore comments, she just wanted somebody to hear the problems out.

It kind of doesn't make sense to me. Pretty much the only times I'll ever bring up anything in a conversation is when I'm looking for someone else's input.

I don't exactly talk to a lot of people about problems anyway. So, I'm not exactly that experienced with these generalizations, but I guess I do get kind of mad when the only thing someone has to say is "Aw...that's too bad...here, have a cookie!" except, they usually don't have a cookie D:<

 

[VanQ]

Don't like to generalize. I've met both men and women that fall into both categories. I did have a girl recently talking to me about a problem of hers for several months and from what information she gave me, I felt that the solution was rather obvious. But seeing as she was an intelligent type, I kinda just sympathized with her and didn't offer the solution. Given some time she came to the same conclusion herself and sorted it out then came to me to tell me how it had all been sorted out and she even thanked me for not "telling her what she should do" like apparently so many others had done.

It seems she likes and trusts me a bit more for having simply lent her a shoulder and showed that I cared while she figured things out for herself. Interesting experience but hardly a case study or representation of an entire group of people.

 

[Something Amyss]

Hey, come on now, the OP was only asking a question and even admitted it might be a generalisation.

And then said "but it makes sense to me."

The response was extra hostile, but the point remains this was not just asking a question. It was asking a question in the same way conspiracy theorists "just ask questions."

It reads as a normal "wimmin mi rite" sort of mindset.

More to the point, it's basically the mindset that men are problem solvers and women are problems to be solved. And that makes sense to him. That doesn't toss up a flag or two in your mind?

Or, but glibly put:

Guys you don't get it! Those womin are like little creatures that you have to look after. Like fucking tamagotchi. Only a fool would believe they are humans who lack a Y chromosome.

I really don't know. Something tells me that the OP might be somewhat true, but that could be my cognitive biases going off, of course.

I know I've whinged to get a bit of sympathy before, we all have. Would I have done it more often if I lacked a penis? Difficult to tell.

There, of course, have also been studies that show that women talk more than men:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2281891/Women-really-talk-men-13-000-words-day-precise.html

No idea of the accuracy of that either (loldailymail)*

Could be related, dunno.

*Edit: http://jezebel.com/5986026/the-whole-women-talk-more-than-men-thing-is-a-myth
Fuck it, I tried.

I think you just made the same mistake twice, TBH. You went from the Daily Fail to Jezebel. While I don't think the two are equivalent, I do think you're looking to news sources that will naturally filter findings. Jezebel is doing the same thing it's complaining about other sources doing, though maybe not as bad (because I'm only getting what they're complaining about through their own filter). The article's own link, for example, demonstrates exactly how someone might get the idea that "women talk more, here's why" from the study.

And indeed, Jezebel's talking about the study based on someone talking about the study. Indeed, Googling the study will give you a lot of reports with a lot of different spins.

Maybe looking at the science of it, rather than the reporting of it is the answer? I've got a couple PDFs downloading which will probably melt my brain due to the fact that they are not from a field in which I have any particular expertise. But already I've been looking at papers which demonstrate a lot of these studies actually seem to come from the notion that women talk more and explore whether or not there is a biological basis for it. So it's already sort of dodgy in my book. It's accepting a concept without any evidence they examined it first. So even this may not provide a clear answer, but I think it's probably better than looking at the Daily Fail trying to rationalise wimminz and Jezebel getting mad at soft reporting on soft journalism shows.

 

[Eggsnham]

My first reaction when seeing the thread title: "Genitals. The difference is genitals."

On a more serious note: I have to disagree with you, OP. I've met plenty of men who simply say or do things looking for sympathy as well as many women who would much rather find a solution than wallow in self pity.

I don't really think there's any correlation between gender and how willing you are to take hold of a situation.

 

[Phasmal]

I think the most interesting thing about men and women is the arbitrary lines we feel we have to draw to make them `different`.
If you just listen to stereotypes, you're gonna shoot yourself in the foot when it comes to actually interacting with people.
When someone who is talking to me basically goes `You must like [x] because you are female` in conversation... it just gets... awkward.

 

[Lobster9]

I have known plenty of men who fish for sympathy and become openly hostile at the suggestion of a solution. However I have known women to do it too. Sometimes people just don't want to be told that there is a fix for their problems, they just want to be told that their misery is justified.

 

[blackrave]

I was then fascinated by this, since I never noticed it before, and then tried to apply it to daily conversation, then was surprised to seem to get about 60/40 talk about feelings/just shut up and fix this ratio when talking to women. Well, teenagers/young adults. I don't entirely remember what I actually talked about with them, though. Or what they needed from the conversation. Or what archetypal group. Huh, maybe those should have been static variables. I just kind of said things to them.

Exactly my experience
I would say that for men proportion is reversed
So difference is so small you can't exactly rely on this stereotype.
But I noticed one thing though
If you make mistake and offer solution/advice instead of emphaty, men will accept it far better than women
Woman will stare at you as if you are moron who don't understand anything
(nod your head in solidarity and sigh if you have heard "Men just don't get it" phrase)

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

My personal experience is that females (in a non professional setting) rarely bring up problems with the hope of any sort of fix and indeed offering solutions generally results in. . . unpleasantness. This is especially true in cases where there exist obvious solutions to some problem but would require the complainer to acknowledge that they have done something incorrectly. By contrast, when I have similar discussions with males (which, in my own life, are relatively rare), it is usually an earnest attempt at discovering a solution to a problem.

I know that I personally will bring up complaints to foment discussion on possible solutions and the closest I generally come to it simply being an invitation for sympathy are instances where I believe I have a solution that I simply need to say out loud to someone before attempting.

While such anecdotal evidence is nearly worthless, I could say that my own (likely imperfect) recollection indicates that Women are far more likely to bring up a problem for the sake of sympathy alone than Men are. At least, the men and women who I associate with.

 

[Chemical Alia]

Oh yeah, I get random people on Steam who want to make money off making items for Dota 2 but have never opened 3ds Max before in their lives, messaging me for a solution to that problem. It usually consists of requesting me to explain years of learning and practice in a few short sentences, or doing all the work for them. They're usually guys.

Sorry to hear about all your annoying girlfriends, though. That must suck.

 

[Lieju]

In my experience both men and women usually want sympathy when sharing their issues with friends.

I've heard this before and I 100% agree and I'm only just now realizing it. Now I'm not in a relationship but I've talked with female co-workers plenty of times about a variety of issues (I'm feeling fat, my co-worker is a jerk, my Mom is pissing me off, etc.). When I start speaking and giving suggestions as to how to fix the situation (because why else would you want to talk about your problems if you don't want ways to fix the situation?), I have now become the insensitive jerk for telling you that you should stop eating cookies with lunch, talk to your co-worker about your problems, and maybe you're mom is onto something when she tells you that getting wasted every weekend is a waste of time

They presumably already know that, and being told things that are not helpful might be annoying. They might just want to vent. (I know plenty of guys who do that)
On the other hand, if they clearly came for you for advice, because they believed you had some expertise in it (like if you know a language they don't) then obviously you are expected to help them solve the issue, not just offer sympathy.

 

[Yuuki]

Seeking sympathy instead of solutions could be a minor off-shoot of women being generally more emotional creatures than men. It's not something that has become blatantly obvious to me, but it is definitely a more common trend among women.

Most women try to attach emotion to everything they do (or think about) and feel the impact of emotions more heavily. Some scientists think that this could be due to how the early pre-historic humans developed and socialized, women often tended to stay within the village/tribe and spent a large part their lives talking to each other, talking to children, socializing with each other, etc. Just theories obviously, before any feminist here loses their shit

Yes it's a generalization, of course there are women who are as cold-hearted and emotionally jaded as an asteroid.

E.g. whenever there is sad news about some little girl who goes missing for years, or a tragic natural disaster my partner gets a bit teary-eyed while I just glance at it and think "oh well, shit happens". Mind you, with the sheer media coverage these days and daily reports of how many people are dead/dying around the world (in increasingly crazy ways) I think she's getting over it

Emotional intelligence is one of the key traits that allowed humans to skyrocket ahead of all other species. Women on average have higher emotional ingelligence than men in whatever few tests have been conducted, they seem have a higher interest in grasping people's feelings.

 

[Decessa]

I generally have respect for the Escapist community, but I try to avoid these gender posts because they are generally a hotbed for natural law language, generalizations and false logic.
IF these generalizations hold true (at least in "westernized" countries because they certainly don't hold up globally), it has nothing to do with genetics or hormones, it is the way that our system is created (and continually recreated and reinforced as the system runs). Any first year sociology student could easily continue, bringing up the social construction of both masculine and feminine, and as such, men and women.
Stereotypes have no truth to them. They discount stigmatized groups real experiences in favor of some all-encompassing rule that holds up only to the slightest of scrutiny. They only make sense if you don't think about them.

 

[zhoominator]

I have known plenty of men who fish for sympathy and become openly hostile at the suggestion of a solution. However I have known women to do it too. Sometimes people just don't want to be told that there is a fix for their problems, they just want to be told that their misery is justified.

More than anything, its a situational thing. I don't think for me or many others, sympathy is the right word though. I recall being rejected about a year ago by someone I really liked and looked up to in a very mean-spirited way. When I was talking to a friend about it I wasn't looking for a solution nor sympathy from her, I just wanted somebody that could listen to me rant and who wouldn't think me less of a person for feeling how I did. Then afterwards, it's all out of my system and I can move on rather than internalising it, which is for some what can cause the self pity party to begin.

When, however, I was upset a few months ago because I was struggling to interpret the signals a young woman who I was interested in for months was giving and didn't know what to do, I was looking for my friend to understand and get advice on how I should go from there. It's not particularly fair to base it just on gender.

 

[cikame]

Women tend to stand directly in my way and drop absolutely everything to talk to their friend, who HAS to be there, about depressingly dull nonsense, whereas men notice i'm heading towards them ahead of time and stand aside accordingly.

As with original poster this is a generalisation, it just happens to me hundreds of times a day having worked in a public place for 5 years.

 

[cerebus23]

Its boils down to what biological and whats cultural?

Generally speaking i do not think it incorrect to say that men fish less for "poor you" or i "feel your pain" but in society in general doing so is considered "not being manly."

Men are more logic based however, women are more feelings based, that is a general fact, and is a biological fact, men handle immediate stresses better, but women handle long term stress better, women are better communicators than men. mean handle maths better than women in gereral (except me i utterly hate and fail at maths).

Yes we can dig up men friends that are more emo, we can find girls that are more logical.

As we move forward more and more science is discovering the very real, very biological, suprising difference between men and women. Men and women visually see things different even, men pick out patterns over colors, women pick out colors and not so much patterns. Men are more spatially aware and well natural about it, millions of years of hunting and gathering, women less so, they were more rearing children and taking care of the camp than out hunting mammoths or saber toothed tigers.

You are what you do, and to a lesser extent what we eat and drink. But yes nature shows you perform a task often enough and your generations perform the same tasks you will evolve and adapt to do those tasks more efficiently and better over time.

We lived through the bad old days of feminism people trying to convince people, that we should be gender neutral and erase the "cultural" biases between the sexes, except many biases are built in are programmed into us though millions of years of evolution and survival.

Stereotypes are so damn lazy though and overused i can see why alot of people kneejerk and just torpedo the thing out of general contempt for them.

Men and women are different. Neither is better than the other, each strategies works for them, its been tested and worked on by nature over 10 of millions of years, and without the other sex neither of us would get anywhere.

 

[Decessa]

As we move forward more and more science is discovering the very real, very biological, suprising difference between men and women. Men and women visually see things different even, men pick out patterns over colors, women pick out colors and not so much patterns. Men are more spatially aware and well natural about it, millions of years of hunting and gathering, women less so, they were more rearing children and taking care of the camp than out hunting mammoths or saber toothed tigers.

How about some citations there. The gendered division of labor is likely a more recent phenomena of our race than you are claiming (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061207-sex-humans.html). Tribes were often egalitarian: hunting often required many members of the tribe (such as a group to walk the woods to drive prey to a clearing where the rest of the tribe waited), and men were just as likely to contribute to child-rearing and gathering (I thought it interesting that you attributed this to the men of the group, as it is often listed as one of the "women's roles" in hunter-gatherer societies). It wasn't until over-hunted lands drove hunting parties out for weeks that the gendered division of labor began to come about, later reinforced through religion and government policy.

This is the reason natural law language is a detriment to these discussions. I am not saying that there are no biological differences between men and women, but attributing a specific behavior to said biological differences is useless to the overall discourse.

 

[cerebus23]

And i did not use absolutes i said in general men would do the more hunter gatherer roles, and women would naturally having to carry a child to labor and give birth would be more camp bound.

How our brains process different things and priortizes different things among the sexes supports that. while not set in stone men always out hunting, women always rearing children it happens and has happened enough to evolve our brains to handle those tasks and to specialize those tasks to a great extent.

Granted some it could be tied patriarchial society and the oppression of women, but those are all fairly modern things in the last 10,000 years sexism and racism, in a more tribal setting it really does not make sense to oppress your women, they have to carry and help raise children, they have duties and tasks that important to the survival of your tribe.

 

[Decessa]

Perhaps then my issue is in the use of evolve here. Human behaviors are not evolutionary artifacts, they are cultural ones. They are learned and reinforced socially, there is little to no physiological change involved.
While this is ultimately a semantic difference, it is an important one to note. While evolution is a natural process, our social system is entirely man-made. Though one could potentially make light of a "social evolution", the ways our social systems have changed over time bear little similarity to the iterative evolutionary process.

 

[NiPah]

I'm sorry mate, "sounded so true" is not acceptable when your trying to make sweeping generalizations. If all your using to back up your reasoning I can invalidate your entire claim by saying "that doesn't sound true", and back it up with what a few of my friends said a few weeks ago.

 

[cerebus23]

Perhaps then my issue is in the use of evolve here. Human behaviors are not evolutionary artifacts, they are cultural ones. They are learned and reinforced socially, there is little to no physiological change involved.
While this is ultimately a semantic difference, it is an important one to note. While evolution is a natural process, our social system is entirely man-made. Though one could potentially make light of a "social evolution", the ways our social systems have changed over time bear little similarity to the iterative evolutionary process.

when there are biological difference in how our brains process perceive and use information that is evolution not cultural, you cannot culturally rewire a brain or how we process things with it. you can modifify individual behaviors through any number of means.

Genetics have found that we have soft markers in our dna that encode behavior across generations. these markers last over several generations, if proceeding generations pursue the same behavoirs, those markers are strengthened, if they are not used they will eventually be removed out of our dna, that is dna evolving.

I dunno how you take evolution out of the equation when talking about how our body and brains are hardwired to certain tendencies. its the core of how things work in nature.