“The best marketing scheme in history is men successfully getting away with calling women the “more emotional gender” … because they’ve successfully rebranded anger as not an emotion”
– Claire Willett
Jimothy here reiterates the old argument some folks like to level – women are too emotional to be trusted with leadership. I, like dear Tim, often don’t even know what to say when this claim is made. It’s ridiculous, unfair, and lazy. Not only is it scientifically unsound, it’s also not been my experience. I’ve had female professors, worked under a female manager in a corporate setting, and watched my own wife lead a team of people. The “too emotional” argument is absurd at the familial, church, corporate, and national level. But it’s a powerful argument and has been used to keep men in charge for a very long time.
If we include anger as an emotion, are women still “more emotional”?
Do I speak with lazy generalizations about how women are made or behave?
How are both men and women damaged by lazy speech like Jimothy’s?
javen.bear. 