Women as emotional being :myth ?

[Karius]

http://blog.kimberlyalyn.com/2009/10/22 ... t-cry.aspx

I hear everywhere women are eomtionnal driven being to the point I am requestioning.
What do you think ?

[jupiviv]

Drivers and Analyticals are less emotional by nature and are often annoyed with overemotional displays (disclaimer: the exception would be female Drivers and Analyticals with PMS—they may show more emotion than usual as hormones fluctuate).Male Drivers and Analyticals are socially acceptable as being low on emotion.The females are often dubbed as “hard-hearted,” because they don’t fit the stereotypical myth of being an “emotional female.”

So she is saying that anyone who doesn't like overemotional displays is necessarily rational by nature? Presuming that "overemotional" means a higher intensity of emotion, being averse to or irritated by such emotional states doesn't prove that a person is being more rational. In fact, it proves that the person is being emotional, since anger/impatience is an emotion.

It is amusing that emotional people view rationality - as an emotion! This is true especially of women. Women seem to think that they're being rational when they are calm, indifferent, annoyed etc. In short, any emotion that men typically display or seem to display when they are also perceived as being rational.

[Kunga]

!

That was emotional :)

[jupiviv]

So the statement - "A square circle is possible." - is a rational statement, since I'm ending it with a period? And what about question marks? Does using a question mark indicate indecisiveness, vulnerability, confusion etc.?

[Kunga]

So the statement - "A square circle is possible." - is a rational statement, since I'm ending it with a period? And what about question marks? Does using a question mark indicate indecisiveness, vulnerability, confusion etc.?

Actually, every time we react , it's emotion.

[Dennis Mahar]

Actually, every time we react , it's emotion.

it's a chain reaction.
if you're in the club it's deemed passion for truth.
if you're not in the club it's deemed emotional.

it's the machinery moving always.

it's like a centipede rolling across the floor with it's 100 legs perfectly co-ordinated (Zen).

there's no point to the rolling machine. It just is.

it's empty and meaningless that it's empty and meaningless.

if it's perceived as lacking something or imperfect in any way, that is suffering.

[Dan Rowden]

So the statement - "A square circle is possible." - is a rational statement, since I'm ending it with a period? And what about question marks? Does using a question mark indicate indecisiveness, vulnerability, confusion etc.?

Actually, every time we react , it's emotion.

I think if you wish to define emotion that broadly it becomes pretty meaningless as a term. I just clicked on a new game of Mahjong because it said "game over". I reckon if you wish to proclaim an emotional content to that then you're defining emotion way too broadly and in a way that doesn't gel with the normal use of the term.

[jupiviv]

Actually, every time we react , it's emotion.

Every action is also a reaction. So all human actions, indeed any kind of action at all, is an emotion according to this statement.

[sue hindmarsh]

Kimberly Alyn doesn’t explain the psychology behind the ideas: women are emotional and men don’t cry. Instead she writes about her hopes and dreams of people being accepted for who they are...or some such twaddle like that...for she never really points out what it is she expects from society...or how society is to change...or...whatever.

Why, Karius, you chose Alyn’s piece of codswallop I’ll never understand, so would you please rephrase your question to include information about what it is you wish to discuss and also include some of your own ideas to flesh out the point.

[Kunga]

you're defining emotion way too broadly and in a way that doesn't gel with the normal use of the term.

Since when is normal the norm around here ? Yes,
that was too broad. But rarely is there a post here that is flavorless,
even if it tastes like cardboard....at any rate,humans are emotional, yes, some more than others, most violence in the world is created by men .

[jupiviv]

even if it tastes like cardboard....at any rate,humans are emotional, yes, some more than others, most violence in the world is created by men .

Love(for example, the love for one's children) is a major cause of violence, as is peace. When people feel that their peaceful lives are threatened, they go to war.

[Karius]

That article sound like someone trying to make us believe that the emotional mecanism in males and female work the same way depending on their "profile" which is doubtful...
Now I am not sure.

I just put this to have some material to start with.


I am trying to understand the mecanism of emotion in males and females.
We tend to oppose intellect/reason ( male) vs emotion/impulse (female) while I think in males emotions always occur even in very subtle way that one don't always notice.

Maybe every action you take has to do with emotions even though they arise very subtley and very slightly.

I think in males emotion serves or should serve his principles, ideas, reason and give drive and direction to his intellect, his will.

While in female they like to feel for the fun of it;

Now like Kunga said wars made by men shows that they are subject to the emotion of violence.
You often see males getting angry mor prone to self destruction, depression etc

When I take a walk I notice ladies seem to be more zen than guys...just an observation.
Now some have argued that females do'nt have existential anxiety they don't realize the chaotic aspect of life and flows from moment to moment without concern.

Of course females cry more but does that mean they are more emotional ?

I mean let' s consider the same intensity of the same emotion (sadness or melancholy or whatever) occuring in one male and one female> the female is crying but the male is not.

The response is "exaggerated" in female who have less tolerance for inner pain and the male is not going to show any emotional facial expression but he is feeling the same intensity of the same emotion than of the female.

I think even if emotions seem to occur randomly they occur because of some belief , self , perspective, view of life etc give room for particular emotions to arise.

The fact that we are here trying to understand thing arise from the need/want/will to have the upper hand over, dominate, control reality.
Which come from the need/instinct/want to not let one self caught up or trapped by reality..... which come from the need for freedom.
But it can also come from fear....even thought you might not be realizing it.
When I say fear I don't mean fright or terror but a subtle fear that is here latent and pushing you to think and learn and do

Emotion = message which implies that I don't think you re gonna move and just act for the sake of the idea of freedom. Freedom has to have some "resonance" in you throught emotions/feeling for you to go in the quest of freedom. _ a liberating feeling is linked to the idea of freedom.
You search for freedom because you feel trapped even thought you may not be in touch with this.

[Tomas]

Good stuff Karius.

RIP Rodney King.

[Dennis Mahar]

You're on the right track there Karius.
The prime duality experientially is Freedom and Bondage.
What shows up as freedom one day becomes bondage soon enough.

excessive attachment to any person, idea, institution or thing gets one in inauthentic mode (afflictive emotions) soon enough in the passage of time, simply because of the impermanent nature of everything.

the machinery works in the way it works, it can't be argued with,
it lacks nothing, runs perfectly and bites your ass if you don't 'get' it.
it's all empty.

[jupiviv]

excessive attachment to any person, idea, institution or thing gets one in inauthentic mode (afflictive emotions) soon enough in the passage of time, simply because of the impermanent nature of everything.

Emotion - afflictive or otherwise - is not inauthentic, but it blocks the awareness of reality, or at least those aspects of reality that are not within the scope of that emotion. You, for example, seem to bound within the idea of "it's empty and meaningless", which probably gets rid of all the "afflictive emotions" for you.

[Dennis Mahar]

jup,

Emotion - afflictive or otherwise - is not inauthentic, but it blocks the awareness of reality

In my experience, emotion shows up regularly in conversations as a device people use to 'get their way'.
particularly afflictive emotions designed to intimidate.
even a so called positive emotion like enthusiasm flooding the conversational space has the design to persuade and lead one one into the point of view of the person using enthusiasm.
in that sense, emotions are inauthentic, subtle persuaders designed to get a result.

It's interesting, being lulled into a sense of security by someone declaring love.
I can tell they want something from me.

It's not a matter of despising emotions,
they're interesting phenomena.

coming from empty 'gets' excessive emotion as acting out or manipulative.
that's the reality of it.

[Cathy Preston]

#
If emotion blocks awareness of reality how can it be anything other than inauthentic?
#

[jupiviv]

In my experience, emotion shows up regularly in conversations as a device people use to 'get their way'.
particularly afflictive emotions designed to intimidate.
even a so called positive emotion like enthusiasm flooding the conversational space has the design to persuade and lead one one into the point of view of the person using enthusiasm.
in that sense, emotions are inauthentic, subtle persuaders designed to get a result.

In general emotional people don't realise that they are being emotional, since it is an unconscious process. It's like a tree shedding its leaves - the action may have some effect on other things, but the tree doesn't know it. If they realise it though, then they are being unemotional to the degree that they do. Also, to the degree that someone is emotional, they don't have a point of view.

coming from empty 'gets' excessive emotion as acting out or manipulative.
that's the reality of it.

Even if an emotion is exaggerated or manipulative, it is not inauthentic in any way.

[Dennis Mahar]

Even if an emotion is exaggerated or manipulative, it is not inauthentic in any way.

because each person is a seed for the possibility of enlightenment.
on some level, even dimly, they are aware of their emotional act.
it might appear they are completely unconscious,
it's not so,
otherwise transformation wouldn't be possible and forums like QRS would be wasted time.
All persons, as separate selves, are the experiencers of their own causal continuum and that continuum can be transformed.

the 'what's so' for the person who recognises emptiness,
is the authentic stand,
emotional displays in order to manipulate simply don't transform because they are generated out of 'neediness'.

emotional displays in order to manipulate are actually designed to entrap someone else, to enslave someone else in an activity that suits the purpose of the enslaver.
that's how religion works,
the carrot and stick emotional ploy of 'terror of the devil' and 'praying to God for salvation like a beggar'.


an experiencer of emptiness doesn't 'need' people, ideas, institutions or things and there's no need to 'belong' emotionally.
an experiencer of emptiness only recognises the truth that all phenomena is empty.
authentic means authentically in touch with reality.

people know on some level they are bullshitting but because of their self-centered neediness they walk their bullshit and their bullshit pulls in a few compensatory breadcrumbs so it persists.

in reality it's unsatisfactory.

The Heideggerian approach of interrogating human being.
of disclosing the human machinery,
what's to be asked is,

what does language do?
what does emotion do?

not what it is.
it's the causal machinery of human being, that's what it is.

what does it do is the question.

[sue hindmarsh]

Dennis,

jupiviv wrote:

In general emotional people don't realise that they are being emotional, since it is an unconscious process.

Jupiviv is correct that people don't know anything about the emotions, for their whole being is just that. This state of unawareness makes people act and think, as Jupiviv wrote and I paraphrase - without focus. They are like zombies, feeding off anything that wanders into their path. And it isn't hard to run into these zombies, for they are 99.9% of the population of the world.

[Dennis Mahar]

Jupiviv is correct that people don't know anything about the emotions, for their whole being is just that. This state of unawareness makes people act and think, as Jupiviv wrote and I paraphrase - without focus. They are like zombies, feeding off anything that wanders into their path. And it isn't hard to run into these zombies, for they are 99.9% of the population of the world.

My take is people are trained or conditioned that way you speak of.
because each person is a seed for the possibility of enlightenment is my premise, from that transformation is possible.
a curriculum of education is possible to bring that about.

I could be wrong about it.

What has to be decided here is,

is each and every person a seed for the possibility of enlightenment?

Buddha says that is the case and I can't rest on Buddha's commentary to refute you because that would amount to emotionalism.

[jupiviv]

because each person is a seed for the possibility of enlightenment.
on some level, even dimly, they are aware of their emotional act.

Every finite thing has the potential to become enlightened, but that does not mean that any particular thing is conscious to any degree. But yes, human beings in general are conscious to some degree. And to the degree they are conscious they are not emotional.

emotional displays in order to manipulate are actually designed to entrap someone else, to enslave someone else in an activity that suits the purpose of the enslaver.

Sometimes emotional manipulation may involve some degree of consciousness, but in general it does not.

authentic means authentically in touch with reality.

Even emotion-based beings are authentically in touch with reality, but they are not conscious of it.

[sue hindmarsh]

Dennis Mahar wrote:

My take is people are trained or conditioned that way you speak of.
because each person is a seed for the possibility of enlightenment is my premise, from that transformation is possible.
a curriculum of education is possible to bring that about.

I could be wrong about it.

What has to be decided here is,

is each and every person a seed for the possibility of enlightenment?

Buddha says that is the case and I can't rest on Buddha's commentary to refute you because that would amount to emotionalism.

I’ll refute that idea with these few quotes:

Immediately after his awakening, the Buddha debated whether or not he should teach the Dharma to others. He was concerned that humans were so overpowered by ignorance, greed and hatred that they could never recognise the path, which is subtle, deep and hard to grasp. However, in the story, Brahmā Sahampati convinced him, arguing that at least some will understand it. The Buddha relented, and agreed to teach. -- According to a story in the Āyācana Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya VI.1) a scripture found in the Pāli and other canons.
---
Out of many thousands of men hardly one endeavors for the perfection of self-realization, and of those so endeavoring hardly one has achieved the perfection of self realization, and of those hardly one knows me in truth. -- from the Bhagavad Gita.
---
Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. -- Luke 13: 24
---

[sue hindmarsh]

Karius wrote:

I am trying to understand the mecanism of emotion in males and females.

I see that you are indeed “trying to understand” - and it is good to do so, for it is one of the most important topics to understand for anyone who wishes to develop their mind.

I think in males emotion serves or should serve his principles, ideas, reason and give drive and direction to his intellect, his will.

While in female they like to feel for the fun of it;

That's true. Women don't take themselves seriously, so the emotions are just a playground. Men do take themselves seriously, and their connection to the emotions reflects this.

Now like Kunga said wars made by men shows that they are subject to the emotion of violence.
You often see males getting angry mor prone to self destruction, depression etc

When I take a walk I notice ladies seem to be more zen than guys...just an observation.
Now some have argued that females do'nt have existential anxiety they don't realize the chaotic aspect of life and flows from moment to moment without concern.

Your observation about women being, as you describe, “more zen” is right on the money - though I’d not express it exactly that way, I know what you’re getting at. It’s a smug, serene, motherly, sexy, lightness of being, feet planted flat on the ground, compassionate, violent type of appearance. And being so many things at the same time it always keeps you slightly off kilter, so that you don’t really know what’s going on with them, or how you really feel about them. Because of this, women hold an all encompassing position of power.

Of course females cry more but does that mean they are more emotional ?

It's not that they're more emotional, they're less self-contained than men.

I mean let' s consider the same intensity of the same emotion (sadness or melancholy or whatever) occuring in one male and one female> the female is crying but the male is not.

The response is "exaggerated" in female who have less tolerance for inner pain and the male is not going to show any emotional facial expression but he is feeling the same intensity of the same emotion than of the female.

Men show their emotions in their actions. They’ll risk their life by running into a burning house to save their wife and children, or go to war to protect their home, family and people. They’ll climb the highest mountains, battle on Wall Street, work 8 hours a day in a boring job, play Santa at Christmas, walk the dog, paint the house, fix the kid’s toys: all showing how emotionally attached they are to their lives. They show by their actions how much they love, care and respect someone or thing. And when men cry you know they have reached the point where action isn’t an option open to them at that moment.

Women find it difficult to accept the obvious emotional nature of man, because her nature is passive, expecting those around her to continuously prop her up emotionally. That’s why men have to be so active all the time finding new ways to assure women that they are loved, valued and cherished. From this you can see why the world is the way it is.

I think even if emotions seem to occur randomly they occur because of some belief , self , perspective, view of life etc give room for particular emotions to arise.

The fact that we are here trying to understand thing arise from the need/want/will to have the upper hand over, dominate, control reality.
Which come from the need/instinct/want to not let one self caught up or trapped by reality..... which come from the need for freedom.
But it can also come from fear....even thought you might not be realizing it.
When I say fear I don't mean fright or terror but a subtle fear that is here latent and pushing you to think and learn and do

Emotion = message which implies that I don't think you re gonna move and just act for the sake of the idea of freedom. Freedom has to have some "resonance" in you throught emotions/feeling for you to go in the quest of freedom. _ a liberating feeling is linked to the idea of freedom.
You search for freedom because you feel trapped even thought you may not be in touch with this.

Fear is the driving force pushing men onwards in their search for bigger and better ways to show women how serious they are about them. Thankfully, some men can also use their enterprising ability to look at things in a more rational light. Using reasoning and logic he can look into his own mind and see how life really is and make changes to his life if he sees fit. And as you say, Karius, “the need for freedom” makes one search out the truth.

[Dennis Mahar]

the notion that each and every human being is the seed of a possibility of enlightenment hasn't been refuted,
what has been disclosed is that it is a difficult project requiring commitment.
what is also disclosed is a curriculum for education (dharma).

the education is in the primordial wisdom of emptiness.
the requirement for that is a spaciousness of mind that is nigh on impossible to experience for a mind excessively distracted by worldly concerns.

what emptiness means, in part, is infinite possibilities for form which enables constant transformation.
and how is that made possible?
by an imputing consciousness.

the cup is there by imputation.
the cup is ultimately not there.
it can't be said the cup isn't there.
how the cup is there is the realisation of emptiness.

the self is there by imputation.
the self is ultimately not there.
it can't be said the self isn't there.
how the self is there is the realisation of emptiness.

a further revelation, which is a total mind-fuck is the realisation that an imputing consciousness is itself imputed.

When David says there's nothing there ultimately,
what I get is he has followed that line of reasoning.

now the obvious question for inquiry is,
what is the act of imputation?