Where did the myth that women are the more emotional gender *actually* come from? and is it true?

“Something isn’t adding up…”

You’re probably all too familiar with the stereotype that women are more emotional than men. For example, have you ever felt the white-hot rage of being told to “calm down” when you’re perfectly calm already? Yep, that’s gender bias in action.

Head to any football stadium and observe the crowds instead of watching the match. Within the first half alone, you’re likely to witness tears, singing, swearing, chanting, and rage — so much rage. In other words, you’re about to see a lot of men get really emotional.

And there’s nothing ~inherently~ wrong with that. If women behave similarly at a concert, they are often labeled as crazy. Likewise, when women express their sexual desires, they are often criticized as being foolish and disgusting. In contrast, when men exhibit the same behavior, it is often deemed more socially acceptable simply because they are “just men”.

Men make war, become furious when their team doesn’t win, and even engage in violence or killing when they are faced with rejection or situations they dislike, including minor instances such as shouting profanities while playing games.

However, women are consistently labeled as excessively emotional, which is an unfair characterization. Furthermore, the statement that “Men employ logic and reason more than women, who rely too heavily on their emotions,” truly troubles me.

The problem arises when we categorize these emotions (because yes, that’s what they are!) as more justified when they’re displayed by men than when they are by women. Anger, in particular, seems to have been neatly repackaged as a neutral behaviour (when displayed by men, of course), rather than an emotional outburst.

The idea that women are more emotional than men is a deeply-entrenched cultural myth, that harms all genders. But where exactly did it come from? And just how have we been duped into believing that anger isn’t really an emotion?

Are women more emotional than men?

We might as well start by debunking this myth once and for all. A study conducted in 2019 concluded that there was little evidence to suggest that female biology (ovarian hormone fluctuations) led to significant variations in emotions.

Another study (conducted in 2021), which analysed 184,000 people who posted about their relationships and breakups on an anonymous online forum, found that men discussed their feelings significantly more than women did.

In short, there’s no biological reason why cisgender women would be more emotional than cisgender men. And while it might be expected for to be men to be angrier than women — given that men are reported to commit more violent acts than women — the research doesn’t back it up.

One study (conducted in 2000) concluded that “in day to day interactions, women appear to take advantage of their anger just as frequently as men.” According to the research, the distinction between men and women lies in how they perceive their anger: “men seem to embrace their anger and use it to their advantage whereas women view anger as being counter-productive.”

It’s not hard to see how prominent gendered stereotypes may contribute to these different interpretations of anger. After all, a man who gets angry during a meeting may be described as passionate, committed, and motivational — thereby furthering his career. As for the woman who dares to behave in this way? She’s out of control. She’s crazy. It’s little wonder that women often regard anger as being counter-productive.

Where does the myth that ‘women are more emotional than men’ come from?

In a 2009 research paper, the neuroscientists Lisa Feldman Barrett and Eliza Bliss-Moreau identify that some people believe women are more emotional than men, because “they are treating women’s emotional behavior as evidence of an emotional nature, whereas men’s emotional behavior is evidence that the situation warrants such behavior.”

In other words, if a woman raises her voice during a heated discussion, it’s because of her inherently emotional nature. But if a man exhibits the exact same behaviour during the discussion, his response is regarded as directly proportional to the situation and therefore justified. The upshot is that the same expression of emotion serves to dismiss a woman’s credibility while enhancing the man’s.

Amanda Montell, a linguist and author of Cultish: The Language of Fanaticism, notes that “there are so many more insults in the English language referencing women and their emotions in a negative way than there are for men.” I mean, have you ever heard a man be described as ‘shrill’ or — God forbid — ‘hysterical’? I don’t think so.

It may seem like a small distinction, but language has a profound effect on how we perceive others, so it makes sense that if our language is fraught with slurs in reference to women and femininity then almost any behaviour a woman exhibits is likely to be perceived more negatively by default.

We shouldn’t underestimate the extent to which sexism is baked into a language. The word ‘hysteria’ is a prime example, it originates from the Greek word for ‘womb’, an organ that has historically been categorized as inherently feminine.

“In the 1800s the word hysterical describes an exclusively-female mental illness defined by emotional instability without cause,” In other words, a woman who expressed emotions that deviated from the expectations of her gender was deemed to be ill.

Another way that language has been used to marginalize women who dare to display their emotions is to deprive their anger of any significance. For so many centuries, women haven’t been permitted to express the full range of their anger in the way that men have. It’s perceived as a masculine emotion. When a woman does express her anger, she will be described as a ‘bitch,’ a ‘shrew’ or a ‘c**t.

In her book, Rage Becomes Her, Soraya Chemaly argues that anger is “mediated culturally and externally by other people’s expectations and social prohibitions.” For example, in the US, “anger in white men is often portrayed as justifiable and patriotic, but in black men, as criminality; and in black women, as threat.”

We’re socialised to perceive anger as an unflattering emotion — as Soraya writes: “[women] are taught that our anger will be an imposition on others, making us irksome and unlikeable” — which drastically limits our ability to express the full spectrum of our emotions. Except, that is, when it comes to gender roles.

In her book, Soraya explains “Women’s anger is usually disparaged in virtually all arenas, except those in which anger confirms gender-role stereotypes about women as nurturers and reproductive agents. This means we’re allowed to be angry but not on our own behaves.”

Basically, our anger is only acceptable if it’s on behalf of our partner or children, thereby reinforcing stereotypes that our life purpose is confined to being a good mother and wife. This has huge consequences for women who attempt to advocate for themselves in other areas, such as the workplace.

Two public figures who are often used to demonstrate this discrepancy are ex-President of the USA, Donald Trump, and former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Despite the former live-tweeting his emotionally-charged reactions to world news during his presidency, a study in 2019 determined that some Americans still questioned whether women were emotionally suited to work in politics.

In Indonesia itself, a similar situation frequently occurs, as exemplified by the experience of Mrs. Tri Rismaharini, a distinguished leader currently serving as the Minister of Social Affairs during Joko Widodo’s leadership. Her character is marked by bravery and assertiveness, often gaining widespread attention as she fearlessly raises her voice and enforces discipline when dealing with subordinates or addressing situations that have gone awry.

Regrettably, there remain many individuals, particularly men, who perceive her as overly emotional, harsh, and unsuitable for a woman. This perception starkly contrasts with the way they would describe a man engaging in the same behavior; in such a case, they would likely commend him as a resolute, courageous, and adept leader.

Of course, the notion that anger is a masculine emotion harms men, too. Jackson Katz, the educator and author of The Macho Paradox, explains that “a lot of men are emotionally illiterate. [They] can’t identify the range of emotional experiences they’re having. So what ends up happening is that lots of other emotions end up being channeled into anger.”

Soraya agrees, noting in her book, “Boys learn early on about anger, but far less about other feelings, which handicaps them — and society — in different ways. “Socially discouraged from seeming feminine (in other words, being empathetic, vulnerable, and compassionate), their emotional alternatives often come down to withdrawal or aggressive expressions of anger.” The upshot of this is that men’s emotional health is “dramatically impacted by their inability to experience — and allow themselves to experience — the full range of human emotion,” according to Jackson.

In 2023, the negative impact of gender roles may feel like old news. But when it comes to expressing our emotions, the origins of these stereotypes couldn’t be more relevant. If we can arm ourselves with an understanding of why gendered expectations are used against us, we’re more likely to be able to advocate for ourselves, others, and our gender equality rights.