~ archived since 2018 ~

Women drivers ‘consistently more angry than men’ according to new study

Ionutz23

October 30, 2017

27 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Women drivers ‘consistently more angry than men’ according to new study
Author	Ionutz23
Upvotes	27
Comments	16
Date	October 30, 2017 5:55 AM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/79lvti/women_drivers_consistently_more_angry_than_men/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/women-drivers-consistently-more-angry-than-men.912137 https://theredarchive.com/post/912137

Comments

[–]_Thurston_Howell_ 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]GhostofB1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (19 children) | Copy Link

It seems that they're suggesting that women being prone to anger and frustration only happens when males aren't around. I'd be more interested in the female perspective of this than the male one, we're in no position to know what they're like when we're gone.

[–]rollypolymasta 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]GhostofB1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

merely that women are more prone to a emotional response in stressful driving situations

You clearly didn't even read the article then.

“Evolutionary theory suggests our early female ancestors had to develop an acute sense of danger for anything that threatened them and their young if their cave was undefended while men were out hunting."

Participants were observed during the study, suggesting they were around another person during the study (whether those observing were men or women it doesn't say)

No, it doesn't suggest that at all. The most logical assumption is that they were observed via camera footage.

[–]rollypolymasta 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I did read the article although I seem to have misattributed that quote to the CEO rather than Fagan. Regardless it's still just a theory for why the study resulted in women having a higher emotional response, there's nothing in the data that actually suggests that. The only thing the data actually shows is the higher emotional response, the theory for why is Fagan's speculation.

Secondly even if that theory were correct, Fagan says:

“Psychologically, women score higher than men on emotional and verbal intelligence, and on the personality trait of neuroticism. Evolutionary theory suggests our early female ancestors had to develop an acute sense of danger for anything that threatened them and their young if their cave was undefended while men were out hunting. That ‘early-warning system’ instinct is still relevant today, and women drivers tend to be more sensitive to negative stimuli, so get angry and frustrated quicker.”

If you read the full quote he's saying that women have a more sensitive reaction to negative stimuli in general not only when men aren't around. It evolved from them having to be more sensitive to negative stimuli when men were out hunting sure, but it's not only demonstrated in response to a lack of a male protector.

It actually seems that they were observed through a computer program, so your right it is unlikely that a male observer would have been present. It talks about it in this article that's a little more detailed: http://www.edp24.co.uk/motoring/ancient-defence-mechanisms-make-women-drivers-are-angrier-than-men-says-hyundai-survey-1-4747845

[+]GhostofB1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

I didn't say the data suggests it, I said the article suggests it.

I've discovered a flaw in my logic though. They aren't implying that women only behave that way when men aren't around, they are implying women only learned to behave that way for when men aren't around.

[–]rollypolymasta 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Revorob 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[+]GhostofB1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (12 children) | Copy Link

What do you think of the idea that women don't behave like they do on Hen's nights because men aren't around, but because they feel like they're allowed to in that situation without social censure?

[–]Revorob 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

I am not sure if the lack of social censure from other women thing is valid. On Hens' nights, women are - by definition of what a Hens' night is - surrounded by other women. This does not appear to improve their general conduct and behaviour one iota. Quite the opposite, if anything. Quite frankly, I don't think most women give two hoots what other women think of them as they know all women are all cut from the same cloth. In a similar way, despite the fact that the majority of trolling and online abuse against women comes from other women, women never seem to complain about this. They simply don't seem to care what other women think of them. However, when men criticise women, everyone loses their shit. Why is this? I suspect because although women don't seem to give a crap about being shamed by other women, they are deathly adverse to being shamed by men. If this is the case, that would definitely explain why the same women who act like proper ladies in the company of men they know (in whatever fashion) will act like complete whores when they get away from the same said men - more so if they are getting away to another town.

Just my 2c worth.

[+][deleted] 8 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Revorob 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 8 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Revorob 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

By definition, "most" is defined as anything between 51% and 100%. What the number of AWALT women is is anyone's guess. However, it is worth keeping a few things in mind.........

a) Exceptions don't disprove the rule. There are a few decent women still left in society (I have actually a few of them) but they are few and far between.

b) Any decent woman can decide to become an AWALT style woman at any time she chooses, without notice and without consideration to previous behaviour. In other words, the "nice" girl can turn into a raging psycho, slut, gold digger any time she chooses. Ask any man who's wife has divorced him if you don't believe me.

c) You never truly know someone. Unless you happen to be psychic, you never know if another person (in this case, any woman you decide to talk to) has hidden motivations or agendas. Often these can come out at the worst possible times. Again, ask any man who has been divorced.

d) Women have absolutely no incentive to be decent human beings. The entire system of law (criminal, civil, family and industrial) is set up for the benefit of women. If a woman assaults you and you defend yourself, you is going to jail. If, in defending yourself from a violent woman, you inadvertently injure her, you is getting sued. If (or perhaps when) your wife divorces you you is getting fucked every which way by the family courts. Say goodbye to your house, your kids, most of your savings, a good portion of your future earnings and most of you superannuation. If you say some thing to a woman at work (no matter how innocent it may be) that she takes the slightest offence to, you can expect HR to cancel your employment without even asking your side of the story. in most countries, you have no legal recourse against this. This happens every day of the week.

e) In the presence of a known danger, caution is always advised. For example: dogs are known to bite but not all dogs do. In the presence of a dog they are not familiar with, most people will demonstrate caution until they are better able to gauge the temperament of the dog. Even then, people do manage to get bitten by their family pet that has never before shown aggression. You can never be too careful.

Men of my father's era (he was born in 1939) did not have these concerns as the behaviour and rights of women was strictly controlled. As things have turned out, there was obvious wisdom in this. Rights have to be balanced with the ability to be responsible. A good example of this is not letting children drive cars; they are simply not responsible enough to have such a right. Despite this, society has deemed it appropriate to give woman a whole slew of rights without demanding the same women be the least bit responsible for their behaviour. Should anyone be the least bit surprised that the general conduct of modern women is anywhere between deplorable and disgusting? I think not. Another way to look at it is that in the absence of any expectations of women, does any women have any motivation to be any better or decent than she absolutely has to be. Again - no. For all the above reasons, most RP men will always assume a woman is toxic. Even if they are not convinced a woman is toxic now, men are best served by remaining aware that any woman can become toxic anytime she chooses.

[+][deleted] 8 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Revorob 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link