But I would like to address one aspect of what he wrote, and it's something that you see everywhere: the idea that women are "more emotional" than men, and that they are more likely to bring it into the workplace. Where does this idea come from? Because women are more likely to cry when upset or frustrated? Guys can't handle it when women cry, and I think they go to great lengths to avoid such situations. There are many emotions out there, and the presence of tears is not an adequate indicator of "emotion." Kyle writes:
Both women, however, have one thing in common: an inability to totally extract emotion from their arguments. That isn’t to say men don’t get into passionate arguments, but they generally don’t treat them as a personal attack.I call bullshit. In my experience, the faculty members who are unable to control their emotions have all been men. (Yes, this is all anecdote.) Examples include: the angry professor who indulged in yelling at and terrorizing students; the other angry professor who indulged in yelling at and terrorizing students and telling them they were stupid; the depressed professor who started drinking in his lab every day at 3 pm and tried to get his grad students to get drunk with him when they were trying to work; the professor who was so scared of women that he actively discriminated against them... I could keep going. And yes, I have seen all of these same men treat disagreements as personal attacks - in their offices, in the classroom, and in conference panels.
Tears are not involved in any of these situations, but these are men who are clearly emotional and who make professional decisions based on their emotions. On the other hand, most of the women I have worked with have controlled their emotions so well that they have been accused of being "cold bitches." (We can't win!)
Emotion of any kind is simply not tolerated in professional women. I have gotten hate mail and trolling comments on this blog from people who say things like "you're just an angry person." Well, duh. It even says so in my profile. But somehow that is perceived as invalidating anything I have to say. I never see men berated for being angry. They are called "passionate," or "idealistic," or "strong," or various other positive terms.
scientiae-carnival
8 comments:
Hi Brazen: I totally agree with you that (1) it's bullshit to say that women are "more emotional" and (2) I've seen LOTS of child-like behavior from male colleagues. It's just ANOTHER example of a double standard, like saying that women can't be president because they might start a war when they have PMS. Look at our current president- what's his excuse for starting a war? I personally think that testosterone has caused a lot more trouble in the world than estrogen. This double standard does not end at emotional response either (as you said). When a man loses his temper and screams in a staff meeting, he is just exerting his authority- if a woman does, it must be "that time of the month". Since when is yelling less emotional than crying, either? It's all very f---ed up. I could go on, but I better stop there...
this is total bullshit. even if I'm crying, it doesn't mean I'm any more or less emotional than someone who isn't. besides that, I am in anecdotal agreement with you: the profs I've seen get most cloudy because of their emotions were all men. Some of the men I've worked with have amazingly fragile egos and, when slighted, they will turn it into something that sounds legit but really, it's all about hurt feelings. And that is about emotion.
of course they treat disagreements as personal attacks. they didn't call it that, but there's no other reason why I should be treated the way I have been by the male faculty in my program beyond I don't sign up to their view of the world and/or scholarly inquiry. And they take that very personally.
and dammit, people know that! I keep thinking I'm going to end this comment and then I have more to say. But my own department chair let me know that she thinks on of my problems (and she doesn't mean it like it's my problem) is that I've bruised too many egos and they don't handle that well. Her experience as department chair is that women handle conflict far better than the men do.
I suspect my husband gets plenty emotional when his stupid boss presses his buttons, but I doubt he cries. Instead, he probably starts talking in that slow, deliberate way that he does to prevent a blow-up, which pisses me off even more than if he just blew up.
Like everyone else, my point is that "emotional" is just a code word for crying here, and that's just silly. Men have plenty of reactions I'd rather just avoid if I could, too.
Amen! I've seen plenty more angry or depressed males than crying females.
You couldn't be more right. My advisor took my union activity personally. The most notable situation was the time he turned bright red and beat his chest like a gorilla, yelling "It cuts me to the core that you're doing this! It cuts me to the core!"
Needless to say, we did not see eye to eye about much of anything, and he actively tried to screw things up for me. All the freaking time.
That's a lot more emotional than me choosing my morals over my scholarship -- what I was doing was making a rational decision.
Brazen, I totally agree with you and the previous commenters! The most emotional decision making I have been witness to has been done by men with bruised egos.
You are 100% correct about how men's emotional problems are accepted, but a few honest tears are not.
It seems that the false idea of an ideal and non-passionate observer remains strong... sadly. I think that emotional responses are important -- and informative.
I guess I was lucky too in the sense that my adviser had worked with some "emotional" women before me, and he was not freaky about it. At some point it was 4 girls in our office... and there were some professors who would definitely blush after entering our room... I always got a kick out of that!
Post a Comment