Happy to be women today in the UK

[mrsmuddlepies]

I posted about this on the Chat forum but no one responded and I think it is a significant piece of research.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37600771
The level of satisfaction with being a woman in the UK today is higher than it has ever been, a huge increase on that of 50 years ago and much higher than that of male satisfaction with being men today.
A cause for celebration?

Thanks for providing further examples.

If unemotional equates with "not crying" then yes, that's an expectation of masculinity. With which I disagree. Emotional for women is often equated with irrational and cries like a girl belongs in the dustbin of sexism.

Anger is an emotion and I'm not sure that most people would stick it in the feminity part of your imagined spectrum.

Do you really think feminists want to chop off risk taking and non-docility? Women take risks regularly, especially through history: pregnancy and childbirth.

Which goes back to where I came in on an early response to you: yes, I would like to ditch the masculine and feminine categorisations of traits.

Last week I asked a doctor I know why he thought men were so much more violent than women. He thought that although culture makes a difference, it's mostly down to testosterone.

When you think about it, most male violence is committed by younger rather than older men. Testosterone levels reduce as men age. Also the Swedish study which showed MTT have the same crime rate as other men found that FTT have a slightly higher rate of criminality than other women. It's not possible to separate out the effects of hormones from violence caused by a desire to appear masculine, but it makes you wonder.

Wouldn't the argument go though that MTT commit violent crime at the same rate as men because they are men and have been largely socialised as such. I always find the whole nature or nurture thing fascinating, it certainly is the case the violence has historically been required and celebrated by society, as long as it is responsibly directed in benefit of the state.

In an environment with no men, how would women establish a hierarchy, in womens prisons for example ? According to certain australian soaps they do so through exactly the same means as men, i.e. violence and intimidation.

I would add things like being unemotional, taking risks, self reliant, non conforming (i.e. not docile) - stuff like that

What an odd list of masculine traits!

Self-reliance? Masculine? Really? Tell that to the single mothers raising their children alone, or to the wives of soldiers/sailors/fishermen/farmers who raise their families while their husbands are away at work.

Non-conforming? Like all the women who went out wearing trousers until it was normalised, or campaigned for the vote?

Risk-taking - well, having relationships with blokes is pretty dangerous for women, as is having children (as mentioned before)

Unemotional - This is an interesting one. Women aren't allowed to have some emotions (anger) and are projected as having others - Stereotypically people say this, but I really can't apply it to anyone I know.

Growapear, MTTs commit crimes at the same rate as other men, because despite taking cross sex hormones they continue to have very much higher rates of testosterone than women.

Transmen are piling in the testosterone on top of their female hormones, and this may be what's making them more violent than other women.

So what we are saying is that men are a slave to their hormones? Therefore not unemotional or non conforming at all.

Just a thought.

No 'men' are not slaves to their hormones but it strongly influences peoples behaviour, depending on the persons disposition/upbringing or even just their current situation. Obviously as males have greater exposure to hormones that increase aggression they would more likely be violent.

I know people like to think human beings are completely separate from other animals but to be honest our basic behaviour is just the same. We have greater understanding and greater control (well most of us) though.

Testosterone isn't the whole story though, for anything.

Low serotonin has been shown to make people more impulsive and aggressive. Raised Dopamine levels may also increase levels of aggression, although this might be because aggression causes the release of high levels of Dopamine. Low levels of cortisol are also indicated in aggressive behaviour.

So yes, while testosterone can be said to be a causative factor in aggression, it's not quite so black and white as that. It's simplistic to suggest that men are a sum of their hormones and therefore can't help being more aggressive. That infantilises men.

There is good evidence that aggression is a learned behaviour, and what can be learned can be unlearned if there is the will to do so.

Sorry, didn't mean to suggest that male violence is entirely caused by hormones. Culture is hugely important, with massive differences in male violence in different societies around the world.

I guess what I'm saying is that because male violence is a feature of all societies that the underlying factor might be related to testosterone. Doesn't mean we can't overcome it by the way children are socialized and by societal pressure. After all there are plenty of other "natural" urges that we overcome.

I dont believe men are slaves their hormones btw. I believe social conditioning is a greater factor. However I find it ironic that women are often described as 'hormonal' or emotional and yet those same people argue that men have a predisposition to violence because of their hormones but are somehow also 'unemotional'. All seems a bit conflated to me.

I also agree with Xenon about testosterone not being the whole story even in terms of hormones.

And yes I agree Prawn. I'm not sure it matters too much whether or not men and their hormones make them more predisposed to violence. Social conditioning and upbringing can overcome these things. It's seen in plenty of ar3as. Humans can control their behaviour.

Sorry Prawn, I didn't mean to suggest that you had.

I have heard so many people excuse aggressive and especially sexually aggressive violence from men because it's nature, they have "urges" and they are a sum of their hormones, and it's bollocks.

Humans especially adult humans can and should control their impulsive behaviours.

I'm not excusing behaviour just pointing out that it is more complicated then just nature or nurture it will be both. And I specifically didn't mention testosterone because there is a whole cocktail of hormones which have varying influences on human behaviour.

Anyway the levels of violence can be reduced but won't dissappear. In my opinion it would probably take the human population to be hugely reduced to stand any chance.

"However I find it ironic that women are often described as 'hormonal' or emotional and yet those same people argue that men have a predisposition to violence because of their hormones but are somehow also 'unemotional'. All seems a bit conflated to me."

Yy.

I remember in my first job, men who got angry and swore about clients being rubbish and requiring cancelling of plans etc were nodded through, if I got upset rather than angry and sweary, clearly there was a massive concern, was I ok etc. I pointed out it was the same emotional response (frustration at external fuckwittery) expressed differently and male boss conceded I had a point...

Goodness Holo, I'm not seeing where anyone suggested that you did say any of that. My comments were in response to Yonic and Scallops.

Hey ho.

Sorry I apologise Xeno

No worries