Do you think woman are more prone to drama over men

[Sagebee]

Theres many stereotypes associated with woman like they are more emotional they are more into gossip and drama etc... maybe these stereotypes use to be true but past couple decades gender lines have become blurred almost close to being nonexistent and think in behavior and looks becoming more homogeneous.

But to say there isnt any differences in gender behavior I think isnt true like for boys from a young age we solve disputes with physicality as we grow older we get in less and less physical altercations because the cost of engaging in them isn't worth it. Also even with woman I think most men response to disputes is to walk away or let the woman win the arguement. Theres definitely many woman you can get a civil discussion with and find middle ground but theres also many woman that want to completely run the relationship and be in control. And socially many men feel like they have to forfeit complete control of the relationship for peace. I think in some ways that's guys fault aswell where they embolden toxic actions from woman.

Also many woman friends try to interject themselves into a couple dispute for woman solidarity. This one reason alot of guys have anti feminism sentiment when pro woman sentiment unify on things on things woman abuse and take advantage of without awknowledgement to their faults.

Personally I don't think a certain gender is prone to drama and disputes it's more a character thing than a gender thing even tho specific things woman do annoy me. I also feel as I get older I can avoid disputes when it comes to guys but not woman. But again don't think its gender thing just think woman dont have the same costs when it comes to disputes so they feel more free to engage in them and have support system on the micro and macro level defending them on issues so they don't feel they have to take ownership on issues.

Do you personally think woman are more prone to engage in drama over men in whatever form verbally physically etc...?

 

[Avani]

Theres many stereotypes associated with woman like they are more emotional they are more into gossip and drama etc... maybe these stereotypes use to be true but past couple decades gender lines have become blurred almost close to being nonexistent and think in behavior and looks becoming more homogeneous.

More in to gossip and drama? BS. How come most people creating drama over Sakura and Hinata belong to male species on the forum? How come they make tumbler accounts, and blogs over it and write essays over it and make social groups competing who can bash more without a deep interest in drama?

Seriously- men gossip. And many of them are perfectly capable of giving old church ladies a run for their money. I have seen men gossip for 6 hours straight during train travels. Non Stop. Men gossip in bars, cafes, in smoking rooms, in eating joints. They even boast and gossip about women, and tell tales , even imaginary ones at times. List goes on...

Only difference is that men take a lot of public spaces and women are relatively confined and get smaller pool to gossip. Women are also more likely to have limited education and limited social interaction which reduces the variety of the topics of gossip and how far it can go. And it's easy to mock people whom you find inferior or limited.

But to say there isnt any differences in gender behavior I think isnt true like for boys from a young age we solve disputes with physicality as we grow older we get in less and less physical altercations because the cost of engaging in them isn't worth it.

Disputes which are often result of some gossip and drama and ego.

Also even with woman I think most men response to disputes is to walk away or let the woman win the arguement. Theres definitely many woman you can get a civil discussion with and find middle ground but theres also many woman that want to completely run the relationship and be in control. And socially many men feel like they have to forfeit complete control of the relationship for peace. I think in some ways that's guys fault aswell where they embolden toxic actions from woman.

And men don't? Men pull a lot of shit when they want to control/manipulate their women/family etc. Do you really believe that all men are that simpleton?

Also many woman friends try to interject themselves into a couple dispute for woman solidarity. This one reason alot of guys have anti feminism sentiment when pro woman sentiment unify on things on things woman abuse and take advantage of without awknowledgement to their faults.

So no men lie/argue/pretend to be blind to cover their friends?

A female teacher was attacked and killed in the school in USA. There are threads in this forum where people were defending the killer claiming the teacher must have lead him on- good old sexism. A drunk girl passes out and is molested in unconscious state by a local football team members. City chooses to support the guys them being young guys and blames the girl for being there. What did you think was going on there?

Do you believe than none of men ever help out cover for their abusive and cheating friends? All of them are readily handing over their rapist and molesting friend to police? Haven't murders been glossed over as "crime of passion" for centuries?

They do not help them women subjugate and in control at all? Didn't they make whole laws and society rules for the purpose and create whole system for it?
How come women were told to put up even with abusive spouses and still are?

Personally I don't think a certain gender is prone to drama and disputes it's more a character thing than a gender thing even tho specific things woman do annoy me. I also feel as I get older I can avoid disputes when it comes to guys but not woman. But again don't think its gender thing just think woman dont have the same costs when it comes to disputes so they feel more free to engage in them and have support system on the micro and macro level defending them on issues so they don't feel they have to take ownership on issues.

Do you personally think woman are more prone to engage in drama over men in whatever form verbally physically etc...?

I agree that here are disputes women feel more free to engage in, but then there are situations where same is true for men and women have to walk away from. People in general can be annoying. Gender is not that important as the person. The parties in dispute, their personal social status, financial, physical and emotional state and mental conditioning, all can be a factor when engaging in a dispute. What they want something out of it, and what means they have at their hand, is important too.

 

[Sagebee]

More in to gossip and drama? BS. How come most people creating drama over Sakura and Hinata belong to male species on the forum? How come they make tumbler accounts, and blogs over it and write essays over it and make social groups competing who can bash more without a deep interest in drama?

Seriously- men gossip. And many of them are perfectly capable of giving old church ladies a run for their money. I have seen men gossip for 6 hours straight during train travels. Non Stop. Men gossip in bars, cafes, in smoking rooms, in eating joints. They even boast and gossip about women, and tell tales , even imaginary ones at times. List goes on...

Only difference is that men take a lot of public spaces and women are relatively confined and get smaller pool to gossip. Women are also more likely to have limited education and limited social interaction which reduces the variety of the topics of gossip and how far it can go. And it's easy to mock people whom you find inferior or limited.

Just referencing stereotypes that woman gossip more. If we are talking personal experience I personality find woman in my life engage in more gossip and in general interject themselves in other business or wanting to learn about other business. Of course you will find guys want to engage in it I just personally see guys tend to mind there business on things and usually the woman in their lives are the ones informing them on others. I just don't know many guys who care to get in others business you might have a different experience on this. About the sakura and hinata thing maybe more guys will bash them since this is a more male targeted series but personally see the females of the forum being the ones serious about anger and hate toward these characters most guys anything we say is just jokes.

Disputes which are often result of some gossip and drama and ego.



And men don't? Men pull a lot of shit when they want to control/manipulate their women/family etc. Do you really believe that all men are that simpleton?

Again not saying guys dont do this but it's pretty common thing in western countries and tbh in modern world in general that woman are the one that control the relationship and have final say and guys are appeasing them. I'm pretty sure you've heard these sentiments before where the guys has to be the submissive one in the relationship. You dont think the power dynamic in relationships has been skewed towards woman guys usually complain how things are skewed toward woman when it comes to law or public opinion.

So no men lie/argue/pretend to be blind to cover their friends?

A female teacher was attacked and killed in the school in USA. There are threads in this forum where people were defending the killer claiming the teacher must have lead him on- good old sexism. A drunk girl passes out and is molested in unconscious state by a local football team members. City chooses to support the guys them being young guys and blames the girl for being there. What did you think was going on there?

Do you believe than none of men ever help out cover for their abusive and cheating friends? All of them are readily handing over their rapist and molesting friend to police? Haven't murders been glossed over as "crime of passion" for centuries?

They do not help them women subjugate and in control at all? Didn't they make whole laws and society rules for the purpose and create whole system for it?
How come women were told to put up even with abusive spouses and still are?

Again you will find that it happens I'm just speaking what I usually see happens that woman are the ones to form groups and side woman in disputes. If we are talking in macro sense on issues you can find guys defend other guys in there wrong actions but I think we more so call out each other on our bs no guy is going to support someone he rapes, beats up, and just general harmful things toward woman I think we are unified on that. While in same time woman will support and ignore woman in harmful behaviors from domestic violence, false accusations etc... johnny depps ex wife was found on phone call saying she would lie that he abused her why do you think she had those sentiments because theres movement to believe all women and that the courts are skewed toward the woman. I'm not saying there arent bad guys but we call them out while for woman socially and legally they are supported in much of there toxic behaviors. Do you think this is false?

I agree that here are disputes women feel more free to engage in, but then there are situations where same is true for men and women have to walk away from. People in general can be annoying. Gender is not that important as the person. The parties in dispute, their personal social status, financial, physical and emotional state and mental conditioning, all can be a factor when engaging in a dispute. What they want something out of it, and what means they have at their hand, is important too.

I'm not saying people are the way they are because of there gender like I said comes down to character and what your moral compass is like. But in the same time I think there are gender social patterns that can be noticed like woman being more social beings than men that at times can express itself in negative ways. I dont think woman are more prone to drama and arguements even tho that's popular sentiment with guys but like you agreed with woman feel more free to act on it and many times woman not getting called out for there negative behaviors especially by woman.

 

[Vitis]

What constitutes drama? The post here premises that 'drama' is some sort of objective thing that anybody can look at and say that it's a classic case of this ambiguous notion of 'drama'. The reaction to events are what most might consider drama and that comes from personality types rather than *** though it seems in this thread you're trying to make it a gender debate rather than a *** debate, but the title is implying a biological imperative, basically I'd say your opening post reads as a contradiction. If the debate is biological there are plenty of females that don't buy into the stereotypes if you're trying to make it gender anybody who considered themselves feminine then you're introducing a social stigma attached to the word 'feminine' which in and of itself is unfair. If somebody is stereotyped as being dramatic that is automatically assigned as a 'feminine' trait be they male or female, the issue here being is if a male is worried about being perceived as 'masculine' then they have a reason to brush off something even if they're actually bothered by it, because showing some sort of emotion might damage their perceived masculinity.

The thread itself is flawed from my perspective, contradicting itself in some points and using bias wording in others, that all said no women aren't inherently proned to drama or gossip, but depending on the viewer they'll be subjected to scrutiny as if they are. If you ask somebody if it's cold outside and they say it is, then ask another somebody and they say it's hot, is it hot or is cold? Now say you yourself says it's hot or cold, you'd say the person who disagrees with you is somehow wrong when it's clearly a subjective point of view.

Not going to break it down entirely as Avani did since I'd likely echo most of what they're saying, but I would like to add specifically against this statement since it stands out so egregiously.

Also many woman friends try to interject themselves into a couple dispute for woman solidarity.

"Bros before hos" Pretty sure that's a masculine stereotype whining if a so called "bro" has a perceived slight with another so called "bro" over and a woman is involved and I'm pretty sure that's as drama ridden as you can possibly get regarding "male solidarity".

*Note I only skimmed the opening post because of the views and statements expressed in what I did read and thus dismissed the post as being invalid and bias, I did however read Avani's post. It also has me thinking this forum as a whole leans towards misogyny honestly and I'm admittedly not anywhere near the most politically correct guy around, but some of these threads just ugh.

 

[Sagebee]

What constitutes drama? The post here premises that 'drama' is some sort of objective thing that anybody can look at and say that it's a classic case of this ambiguous notion of 'drama'. The reaction to events are what most might consider drama and that comes from personality types rather than *** though it seems in this thread you're trying to make it a gender debate rather than a *** debate, but the title is implying a biological imperative, basically I'd say your opening post reads as a contradiction. If the debate is biological there are plenty of females that don't buy into the stereotypes if you're trying to make it gender anybody who considered themselves feminine then you're introducing a social stigma attached to the word 'feminine' which in and of itself is unfair. If somebody is stereotyped as being dramatic that is automatically assigned as a 'feminine' trait be they male or female, the issue here being is if a male is worried about being perceived as 'masculine' then they have a reason to brush off something even if they're actually bothered by it, because showing some sort of emotion might damage their perceived masculinity.

The thread itself is flawed from my perspective, contradicting itself in some points and using bias wording in others, that all said no women aren't inherently proned to drama or gossip, but depending on the viewer they'll be subjected to scrutiny as if they are. If you ask somebody if it's cold outside and they say it is, then ask another somebody and they say it's hot, is it hot or is cold? Now say you yourself says it's hot or cold, you'd say the person who disagrees with you is somehow wrong when it's clearly a subjective point of view.

Not going to break it down entirely as Avani did since I'd likely echo most of what they're saying, but I would like to add specifically against this statement since it stands out so egregiously.

"Bros before hos" Pretty sure that's a masculine stereotype whining if a so called "bro" has a perceived slight with another so called "bro" over and a woman is involved and I'm pretty sure that's as drama ridden as you can possibly get regarding "male solidarity".

Think drama is pretty clear when used but I mean conflict. Also I'm not proposing that woman are more prone to conflict human being by our nature tend to stereotype, put things in groups and take sides. I'm just gauging what the sentiment of people are. Also you dont have to think gender stereotypes and gender roles are true to think theres a difference in how genders tend to behave you dont think there are those differences and I'm not saying a whole gender acts in that mode but things you notice on how a gender tends to react to things.

Think your just reading the title and some phrases and just reinterpreting what I'm saying based on that.

To your last statement does male solidarity exist yes does it exist in the same way and is detrimental as woman solidarity no dont get what I mean read by response to avani more specifically amber heard example I give.

And make clear again so your not confused these arent my sentiments which is clear in my post just asking a question but the fact your ignoring that proves that you jump to defending instead of understanding.

Post automatically merged: Jul 11, 2020

What constitutes drama? The post here premises that 'drama' is some sort of objective thing that anybody can look at and say that it's a classic case of this ambiguous notion of 'drama'. The reaction to events are what most might consider drama and that comes from personality types rather than *** though it seems in this thread you're trying to make it a gender debate rather than a *** debate, but the title is implying a biological imperative, basically I'd say your opening post reads as a contradiction. If the debate is biological there are plenty of females that don't buy into the stereotypes if you're trying to make it gender anybody who considered themselves feminine then you're introducing a social stigma attached to the word 'feminine' which in and of itself is unfair. If somebody is stereotyped as being dramatic that is automatically assigned as a 'feminine' trait be they male or female, the issue here being is if a male is worried about being perceived as 'masculine' then they have a reason to brush off something even if they're actually bothered by it, because showing some sort of emotion might damage their perceived masculinity.

The thread itself is flawed from my perspective, contradicting itself in some points and using bias wording in others, that all said no women aren't inherently proned to drama or gossip, but depending on the viewer they'll be subjected to scrutiny as if they are. If you ask somebody if it's cold outside and they say it is, then ask another somebody and they say it's hot, is it hot or is cold? Now say you yourself says it's hot or cold, you'd say the person who disagrees with you is somehow wrong when it's clearly a subjective point of view.

Not going to break it down entirely as Avani did since I'd likely echo most of what they're saying, but I would like to add specifically against this statement since it stands out so egregiously.

"Bros before hos" Pretty sure that's a masculine stereotype whining if a so called "bro" has a perceived slight with another so called "bro" over and a woman is involved and I'm pretty sure that's as drama ridden as you can possibly get regarding "male solidarity".

*Note I only skimmed the opening post because of the views and statements expressed in what I did read and thus dismissed the post as being invalid and bias, I did however read Avani's post. It also has me thinking this forum as a whole leans towards misogyny honestly and I'm admittedly not anywhere near the most politically correct guy around, but some of these threads just ugh.

Response to your edit note maybe dont jump to conclusion without reading because you totally misinterpreted what I said. Also this forum use to be toxic mostly due to trolling theres no anti woman bias or group in this forum and two last woman threads not indicative of that. And you jumping to defend instead reading is what I was highlighting in my post and proved my point.

Post automatically merged: Jul 11, 2020

What constitutes drama? The post here premises that 'drama' is some sort of objective thing that anybody can look at and say that it's a classic case of this ambiguous notion of 'drama'. The reaction to events are what most might consider drama and that comes from personality types rather than *** though it seems in this thread you're trying to make it a gender debate rather than a *** debate, but the title is implying a biological imperative, basically I'd say your opening post reads as a contradiction. If the debate is biological there are plenty of females that don't buy into the stereotypes if you're trying to make it gender anybody who considered themselves feminine then you're introducing a social stigma attached to the word 'feminine' which in and of itself is unfair. If somebody is stereotyped as being dramatic that is automatically assigned as a 'feminine' trait be they male or female, the issue here being is if a male is worried about being perceived as 'masculine' then they have a reason to brush off something even if they're actually bothered by it, because showing some sort of emotion might damage their perceived masculinity.

The thread itself is flawed from my perspective, contradicting itself in some points and using bias wording in others, that all said no women aren't inherently proned to drama or gossip, but depending on the viewer they'll be subjected to scrutiny as if they are. If you ask somebody if it's cold outside and they say it is, then ask another somebody and they say it's hot, is it hot or is cold? Now say you yourself says it's hot or cold, you'd say the person who disagrees with you is somehow wrong when it's clearly a subjective point of view.

Not going to break it down entirely as Avani did since I'd likely echo most of what they're saying, but I would like to add specifically against this statement since it stands out so egregiously.

"Bros before hos" Pretty sure that's a masculine stereotype whining if a so called "bro" has a perceived slight with another so called "bro" over and a woman is involved and I'm pretty sure that's as drama ridden as you can possibly get regarding "male solidarity".

*Note I only skimmed the opening post because of the views and statements expressed in what I did read and thus dismissed the post as being invalid and bias, I did however read Avani's post. It also has me thinking this forum as a whole leans towards misogyny honestly and I'm admittedly not anywhere near the most politically correct guy around, but some of these threads just ugh.

Response to your edit note maybe dont jump to conclusion without reading because you totally misinterpreted what I said. Also this forum use to be toxic mostly due to trolling theres no anti woman bias or group in this forum and two last woman threads not indicative of that. And you jumping to defend instead reading is what I was highlighting in my post and proved my point.

Post automatically merged: Jul 11, 2020

Also want to add this isnt sentiments exclusively perpetuated by guys you will see woman just as much perpetuate this against other woman. I say that to say this isnt a popular thought just between men(not saying its true). So shouldnt be seen as an attack from guys but just an evaluation of popular thoughts socially.

 

[Vitis]

Response to your edit note maybe dont jump to conclusion without reading because you totally misinterpreted what I said. Also this forum use to be toxic mostly due to trolling theres no anti woman bias or group in this forum and two last woman threads not indicative of that. And you jumping to defend instead reading is what I was highlighting in my post and proved my point.

It's not jumping to a conclusion, it's a matter of not being bothered to take the time to fully respond to an innately flawed post. Coincidentally the assumption that I am jumping to conclusions is you jumping to conclusions, funny how that works I'd say. I'm perfectly capable of forming my own opinions onto what I find 'toxic' and I'm also perfectly capable in deciding what I find misogynistic. To reiterate I didnt jump to defend anything I am yet again going to say I am capable of forming an opinion, of you perceive it as a slight against your stance that's your prerogative, but considering youre running off your own assumptions in supposedly 'proving your point' it doesnt really prove anything just reaffirms you have an opinion and it's your opinion.

 

[minamoto]

What constitutes drama? The post here premises that 'drama' is some sort of objective thing that anybody can look at and say that it's a classic case of this ambiguous notion of 'drama'. The reaction to events are what most might consider drama and that comes from personality types rather than *** though it seems in this thread you're trying to make it a gender debate rather than a *** debate, but the title is implying a biological imperative, basically I'd say your opening post reads as a contradiction. If the debate is biological there are plenty of females that don't buy into the stereotypes if you're trying to make it gender anybody who considered themselves feminine then you're introducing a social stigma attached to the word 'feminine' which in and of itself is unfair. If somebody is stereotyped as being dramatic that is automatically assigned as a 'feminine' trait be they male or female, the issue here being is if a male is worried about being perceived as 'masculine' then they have a reason to brush off something even if they're actually bothered by it, because showing some sort of emotion might damage their perceived masculinity.

The thread itself is flawed from my perspective, contradicting itself in some points and using bias wording in others, that all said no women aren't inherently proned to drama or gossip, but depending on the viewer they'll be subjected to scrutiny as if they are. If you ask somebody if it's cold outside and they say it is, then ask another somebody and they say it's hot, is it hot or is cold? Now say you yourself says it's hot or cold, you'd say the person who disagrees with you is somehow wrong when it's clearly a subjective point of view.

Not going to break it down entirely as Avani did since I'd likely echo most of what they're saying, but I would like to add specifically against this statement since it stands out so egregiously.

"Bros before hos" Pretty sure that's a masculine stereotype whining if a so called "bro" has a perceived slight with another so called "bro" over and a woman is involved and I'm pretty sure that's as drama ridden as you can possibly get regarding "male solidarity".

*Note I only skimmed the opening post because of the views and statements expressed in what I did read and thus dismissed the post as being invalid and bias, I did however read Avani's post. It also has me thinking this forum as a whole leans towards misogyny honestly and I'm admittedly not anywhere near the most politically correct guy around, but some of these threads just ugh.

i dont agree wit ur opinion..

 

[Sagebee]

It's not jumping to a conclusion, it's a matter of not being bothered to take the time to fully respond to an innately flawed post. Coincidentally the assumption that I am jumping to conclusions is you jumping to conclusions, funny how that works I'd say. I'm perfectly capable of forming my own opinions onto what I find 'toxic' and I'm also perfectly capable in deciding what I find misogynistic. To reiterate I didnt jump to defend anything I am yet again going to say I am capable of forming an opinion, of you perceive it as a slight against your stance that's your prerogative, but considering youre running off your own assumptions in supposedly 'proving your point' it doesnt really prove anything just reaffirms you have an opinion and it's your opinion.

It's literally the definition of jumping to conclusion to say something without proper information. And you jump from saying you can make a conclusion on my post to now saying you can make a conclusion on me without even reading what I said. But I'm the one just reaffirming what I believe when I took the time to READ what you said and replied.

 

[minamoto]

bagesee why u ask tis kestion??? are u have family issue wit ur wife????...

 

[Sagebee]

bagesee why u ask tis kestion??? are u have family issue wit ur wife????...

Wivez beevz crayzie broovz

 

[Vitis]

It's literally the definition of jumping to conclusion to say something without proper information. And you jump from saying you can make a conclusion on my post to now saying you can make a conclusion on me without even reading what I said. But I'm the one just reaffirming what I believe when I took the time to READ what you said and replied.

Let me ask you this side question. If you see something that is inherently flawed and you know it to be flawed do you bother reading the logic that follows that results in such flawed statements or do you dismiss the entire thing for what it is? Allow me to answer it so we're on the same page. If a conclusion is flawed or inherently objectionable then one doesn't need to read the supporting statements to ultimately draw the same conclusion, they don't HAVE to go through and pick apart each point as a courtesy to the individual just to stroke their ego and explain it. I read enough to know that I didn't need to read the rest, but that's not jumping to conclusion figuratively or in a literal sense, so no it's not the definition of jumping to conclusion.

 

[Sagebee]

Let me ask you this side question. If you see something that is inherently flawed and you know it to be flawed do you bother reading the logic that follows that results in such flawed statements or do you dismiss the entire thing for what it is? Allow me to answer it so we're on the same page. If a conclusion is flawed or inherently objectionable then one doesn't need to read the supporting statements to ultimately draw the same conclusion, they don't HAVE to go through and pick apart each point as a courtesy to the individual just to stroke their ego and explain it. I read enough to know that I didn't need to read the rest, but that's not jumping to conclusion figuratively or in a literal sense, so no it's not the definition of jumping to conclusion.

What exactly is inherently flawed you read the title and first couple sentences and formed your conclusions not based on the message I was getting across but what you wanted to believe I was saying.

Proven by your own note that you didnt read it and jumped to conclusions.

Should you do that? No because for one you can misunderstand what a person is saying which you did with me and is not good for engagement where your just talking at me of what you want to believe I said. Even if i had those sentiments shouldnt be the response to sincerely try to engage with the person so they see the error in their ways all your doing is just want act on emotion and alienate and misjudge that's never the answer.

 

[Vitis]

What exactly is inherently flawed you read the title and first couple sentences and formed your conclusions not based on the message I was getting across but what you wanted to believe I was saying.

Proven by your own note that you didnt read it and jumped to conclusions.

Should you do that? No because for one you can misunderstand what a person is saying which you did with me and is not good for engagement where your just talking at me of what you want to believe I said. Even if i had those sentiments shouldnt be the response to sincerely try to engage with the person so they see the error in their ways all your doing is just want act on emotion and alienate and misjudge that's never the answer.

Let me use an example of why I'm not going down this road any further with you. If I sat down and wrote a 100 page essay just blocks of word why 2+2=3 would you read it all before saying 2+2=4? If you answer yes you would as you're expecting me to do then that's a serious logic issue. You DO NOT need to read somebody's full argument if their conclusions and thesis statement is flawed and skipping over their full argument isn't jumping to conclusions in that case, but you do you not going to go on a tangent rant why I don't need to read your full post just to satisfy your ego. Cheers.

 

[Sagebee]

Let me use an example of why I'm not going down this road any further with you. If I sat down and wrote a 100 page essay just blocks of word why 2+2=3 would you read it all before saying 2+2=4? If you answer yes you would as you're expecting me to do then that's a serious logic issue. You DO NOT need to read somebody's full argument if their conclusions and thesis statement is flawed and skipping over their full argument isn't jumping to conclusions in that case, but you do you not going to go on a tangent rant why I don't need to read your full post just to satisfy your ego. Cheers.

You restating again your justification for why you didn't read I got it the first time it would be one thing if you were responding to the message of my post you were responding to what you think I was saying partially piggybacking from avani's post like you stated.

And you don't have to read the post to satisfy my "ego" you read to understand what a person is saying to properly respond.

If you feel comfortable misinterpreting people based on emotion and ego okay do you no ones forcing you to understand and properly engage.

 

[Chikombo]

No because I have seen men fall in love with dramas, I love dramas too. Maybe not teenage dramas but other dramas like LOST etc has effected me a lot.
But I have seen men watch those shows as well alot.

 

[kujaku]

Theres definitely many woman you can get a civil discussion with and find middle ground but theres also many woman that want to completely run the relationship and be in control.

That's valid for men too.

Do you personally think woman are more prone to engage in drama over men in whatever form verbally physically etc...?

No. This is more a character issue than gender issue. Men gossip just as much as women do, only people in general, regardless of gender, have a very convenient definition of what gossip means.

 

[GrapeApe]

drama is human nature, just look at history, its one big drama

also we're all entertained by movies, books, tv shows, they all have an element of drama to them to make it interesting

 

[Sagebee]

That's valid for men too.


No. This is more a character issue than gender issue. Men gossip just as much as women do, only people in general, regardless of gender, have a very convenient definition of what gossip means.

Well I was speaking on drama and conflict not specifically gossip but agree with your point.

 

[kujaku]

Well I was speaking on drama and conflict not specifically gossip but agree with your point.

Oh, due to replies I focused on gossip rather than drama, but yes, what I said is valid for drama too. People in general like drama regardless of gender, as evidenced by GrapeApe's example too.

 

[Avani]

Let's talk real data ( I'm quoting) : Men are bigger gossips than women, according to studies. A recent study has found that men spend an average 76 minutes a day tittle-tattling with their friends or work colleagues, compared to just 52 minutes for women.
I had read about another study few years back too and it too find men to be bigger on gossip than women. It included age groups and younger men made the largest group in to negative gossip.

Most common theme is money and power followed by *** and relationships. Studies also show that the men share confidential information within three hours — especially about office affairs and other romances — thanks to social media, while women hold out for nearly 40 minutes more.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

Spoiler

Just referencing stereotypes that woman gossip more. If we are talking personal experience I personality find woman in my life engage in more gossip and in general interject themselves in other business or wanting to learn about other business. Of course you will find guys want to engage in it I just personally see guys tend to mind there business on things and usually the woman in their lives are the ones informing them on others. I just don't know many guys who care to get in others business you might have a different experience on this. About the sakura and hinata thing maybe more guys will bash them since this is a more male targeted series but personally see the females of the forum being the ones serious about anger and hate toward these characters most guys anything we say is just jokes.

Again: Social role, level of education and learning and work sphere decides what the person talk about.

The lowly view of women's gossip comes from the times when women were mostly confined to home and have to fight for their own place within allowed norms therein. They had no exposure to and little education for so the level of gossip was limited to what they had access to and what affected their lives directly or indirectly. And it was seen as unimportant because it didn't affect men's lives as much women of that society.

This sexist stereotype is no better than some racist stereotypes. But it's interesting to see how racist stereotype is noticed faster and more strongly opposed, since MEN are affected by it. While Sexism is taken more casually, relatively, when it affects female population only.

I must ask here what constitutes as gossip and drama for you? Men tend to mind their business and not get in to drama?There are a lot of 'gossip' and 'drama' that circulate in businesses environment. How do you dismiss it without much thought?

Let's talk very small. What "business" some of the lovely members here had with my personal identity and address, if not drama and gossip? Why the attempted stalking trying to find my FB account? Even making up rumours about who I might be and spreading it on discord too.

Let's go a bit bigger and check out comment section of gossip channels on youtube. Let me know if there is any lack of men watching and commenting on shitty gossip. Drama is bread and butter of several popular youtubers and their audience is primarily male. They even show up for celebrity gossip channels.

Drama is bread and butter of media houses and news channels even. Drama and gossip is there in politics. Exactly where do you not see it?

And nope, again not true. Only a handful of girls were serious in whole anime women fight. Most active people on the topic were mal . You do not waste hours of your life writing essays and going around arguing with every one on MULTIPLE internet sites at the same time for a mere joke. That's some serious dedication and deep seated love for gossip and drama there. Dismissing it as a joke and entertainment doesn't fly because similar argument can be made for a lot of gossip among women too.

There was a social group dedicated to drama- they made rankings based on who could bash sakura the most and people made threads daily and bashed her like crazy to get higher up in there. That level of drama is not a joke and hard to forget. It is astounding how much of a hate and misogyny persists in the world and how it finds outlets even in least expected places.

Again not saying guys dont do this but it's pretty common thing in western countries and tbh in modern world in general that woman are the one that control the relationship and have final say and guys are appeasing them. I'm pretty sure you've heard these sentiments before where the guys has to be the submissive one in the relationship. You dont think the power dynamic in relationships has been skewed towards woman guys usually complain how things are skewed toward woman when it comes to law or public opinion.

Women have control in relationship in modern world? or Some women have gained more financial and property rights that doesn't always sit well with everyone? Or you are referring to right to abort which is another sour point for men's right groups and religious bodies?

Let us see:

• Men still get away with cheating more often and more easily (subjective but speaking relatively).
• Women may not be obligated to put up with such infractions of marriage or partnership but they still feel pressured to find compromise in such situations. Maybe not as much as a century ago but it's there.
• There are still sections which try to justify abusive relationships and find novel ways to justify it.
• People still discuss a woman's highest purpose being breeding.
• Women still feel pressured to put up with abusive or cheating husbands in name of family and children.
• When both souses are working, women still end up with bigger share of work at home and men get away with bare minimum while boasting of "helping out" with house chores especially when children are involved.
• Men still get to change *** partners more frequently without much repercussion and women run a serious risk of being seen as "easy" and thus lesser. There is still a preference for male child in around the world. ( Most apparent in South Asia but a 2011 Gallop poll revealed that 40 percent of American would prefer to have a son if they only had one child, compared to 28 percent who would prefer a daughter)
• Many women still end up having limited control over the money they themselves make and husband manage it for them- (especially in religious households where religion dictates such traditions.)
• Single mothers with small children are expected to be more cautions in their new relationships than single men with children and also have to make more compromises even if they do enter in one. Their choices are more limited.
• Women are more readily expected to take a break from job when a child is born, even if her career is likely to suffer from it. Career women are often described as selfish and not-so-feminine women, and have to make extra effort. Less visible in certain circles but the stereotype remains.

So exactly what kind of control in relationship you are referring to? It's all subjective but relatively speaking women still are likely to suffer more and lose their social status more often in case of breakdown of a relationship.

Again you will find that it happens I'm just speaking what I usually see happens that woman are the ones to form groups and side woman in disputes. If we are talking in macro sense on issues you can find guys defend other guys in there wrong actions but I think we more so call out each other on our bs no guy is going to support someone he rapes, beats up, and just general harmful things toward woman I think we are unified on that. While in same time woman will support and ignore woman in harmful behaviors from domestic violence, false accusations etc... johnny depps ex wife was found on phone call saying she would lie that he abused her why do you think she had those sentiments because theres movement to believe all women and that the courts are skewed toward the woman. I'm not saying there arent bad guys but we call them out while for woman socially and legally they are supported in much of there toxic behaviors. Do you think this is false?

What people talk about is linked with the sphere they live in. I suspect you have a very narrow definition of what gossip and drama means and ignore what goes in men's circle as you see it more acceptable sharing of "information" even if dubious and unimportant and sleazy kind. Even when half of it is shit talking about some colleague or bosses, office affairs, personal comments about other people, rumours and conjectures related or outright boasting and lying and not just about how they conduct business.

I'm not saying people are the way they are because of there gender like I said comes down to character and what your moral compass is like. But in the same time I think there are gender social patterns that can be noticed like woman being more social beings than men that at times can express itself in negative ways. I dont think woman are more prone to drama and arguements even tho that's popular sentiment with guys but like you agreed with woman feel more free to act on it and many times woman not getting called out for there negative behaviors especially by woman.

Not getting called out by other women for negative behaviour? Oh please! Women typically are taught to not support other women if they fail to comply with sanctioned "righteous" behaviour. Women are indoctrinated to talk about negatively and participate in discrimination and even objectification of other women - systematically through social and religious norms of righteousness as well as legal system.

I agreed on what? I said there maybe some kind of situations where a woman may feel more free and then there are situations where men feel more free, but it's society and it's norms guiding it more than biology.

We have real researches over it that reject your personal anecdotal findings, so you are going to find it hard to sell your personal opinion. Harder than usual.