TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/seduction
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

      • Artful Prudence
      • A Voice for Men
      • Alpha Game
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Good Looking Loser
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • In Mala Fide
      • KillToParty
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Married Man Sex Life
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Power Moves
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • The Spearhead
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

When receiving help hurts: Gender differences in diurnal cortical responses to spousal support

[deleted]

November 13, 2014
5 upvotes
/r/PurplePillDebate

Wives are considered more effective support providers than are husbands. As support promotes healthy physiological functioning, husbands should derive greater health benefits from spousal support than do wives. Yet, a growing literature indicates that men are relatively insulated from the physiological consequences of marital interactions, suggesting that men may not reap the benefits that support can provide. To examine gender differences in physiological responses to spousal support, couples completed a 6-day diary task that assessed daily support exchanges and diurnal cortisol slopes. On days of greater spousal support, wives exhibited steeper cortisol slopes, whereas husbands exhibited flattened cortisol slopes [viz. wives benefited, but husbands were harmed, by spousal support]. Furthermore, for husbands, the association between daily support and cortisol was moderated by problem-solving efficacy; the less efficacious husbands perceived their problem-solving abilities, the flatter their cortisol slopes on high support days. All results held controlling for daily stress and marital satisfaction. Thus, support may incur costs for husbands’ health.

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title When receiving help hurts: Gender differences in diurnal cortical responses to spousal support
Author

[deleted]

Upvotes 5
Comments 27
Date November 13, 2014 1:03 PM UTC
(11 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2m6e20/when_receiving_help_hurts_gender_differences_in/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/when-receiving-help-hurts-gender-differences-in.284370
https://theredarchive.com/post/284370
Red Pill terms in post
provider

Comments

[–]purplethrows11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Maybe what the wife considers to be "support", is actually bitching and nagging to the husband.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I have thought about this a lot in the last few days in the context of the "kindness"-study that was posted twice here.

Unfortunately I think it's true. Women seem not to be as good as men when it comes to emotional support. And I am not only thinking of nagging.

[–]homo_homini_lupus 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Whenever a man expresses a particle of emotion that isn't love and worship for his wife, the wife's reaction is "enough about you, what about MEEEE!!", if he expresses doubts about his job, she thinks "oh no I'll suffer financially". Women's idea of support is supporting men is supporting them to be better beta bux for them and what women now amazingly and openly call "my" kids, even while still married.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

To put it a bit more positively:

Remember that the study that was linked twice in the last few days explained how there are four kinds of responses to something someone says? "passive destructive, active destructive, passive constructive and active constructive."

In my experience, women rarely react with the "active constructive" response. I sincerely believe that this is the reason for many failed relationships and marriages.

Example:

Had drinks with a female friend. She was pissed because of her boyfriend.

He had told her he wanted to go rock-climbing in a few months. She told him that he should practice in the hall first before trying to do actual rock climbing. He didn't seem to care too much about her advice, so she was pissed.

I explained to her that all she did was showing him that she didn't trust him to be able to do it. She said no, I am just worried that he might injure himself. Why doesn't he appreciate that I am worried about his well-being? I said, I understand and it does make sense but in the end he just feels that you underestimate him. You could have voiced your concerns later, after all it's still a few months until they want to go rock-climbing. Right now he is happy and enthusiastic about the idea so it was really bad timing.

Then she was sad.

According to the study, she gave him an active destructive response. She did care about what he did which is a good thing ("active"), but it came across as "that's a bad idea". ("Destructive"). An active constructive response would have been to first say something like "hey that's great. Where exactly is that? Who else is in your group?...basically enjoying his enthusiasm together as a couple. And then later voice her concerns.

[–]homo_homini_lupus -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Don't fool yourself. In her head it wasn't "Oh no Dave might get hurt! That would be terrible for him", it's "Oh no MY boyfriend might get hurt and stop being able to adequately boyfriend for me"

[–]Those_Who_RemainIrrelevant Homosexual1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

You love to make assumption about women that put them in a negative light, don't you? You have absolutely no clue whether she thought that or not.

Is this the way you also think about your man/partner? If not, why do you assume you are different?

[–]homo_homini_lupus 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Reality is often "negative" (as idealistic leftists define it) whether idealistic leftists like it or not

[–]Those_Who_RemainIrrelevant Homosexual3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

That is pretty much a non-answer. Can you address my actual question, or do you just want to pretend you know everything and refuse to back anything up?

I'm very curious whether your description of 'women' also includes yourself.

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I think the point is that in our view, this is reality. We don't love to say negative things about women. Its just that there are negative things to say, and no one is saying them, so we're the only one who do. I genuinely feel that is the reason, for me at least. And this happens because a distinctly femi-centric discourse that's feel-good as opposed to realistic dominates all discussion.

In fact, I would say that you love to assume all things about women that put them in a positive light. The "women are wonderful effect" is strong with you. Me saying these things about men would elicit no response.

[–]Those_Who_RemainIrrelevant Homosexual1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

In fact, I would say that you love to assume all things about women that put them in a positive light. The "women are wonderful effect" is strong with you. Me saying these things about men would elicit no response.

Nonsense. I am fully aware women can be awful, horrible people. I'm just against the focus and emphasis from many RPers on how horrible most women are, while ignoring the same faults in men. Both men and women have the potential to be horrible people.

If a sub-reddit trashed men only and frequently in the same way TRP does with women, I would have the same criticisms.

[–]aguy011 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Because all people are inherently selfish. The difference comes from evolutionary psychology. A man loves a woman because the men that stuck with their women were most reproductively successful, and the good feeling of love is what made him stick to her. Men didn't 'need' women for their own survival. Women, though they feel a similar feeling, experience it differently because throughout history women have had to rely on men for their own survival, meaning the women that looked at men as tools for their own survival were most likely to reproduce succesfully. This isn't a conscious thing on women's part and they do not realize what is happening, but that is what's going on.

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

I have considered this and it might be true, but I feel better about life when I think she was really concerned about him. So I do that.

[–]homo_homini_lupus 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

ding ding ding ding ding

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Men do not derive support in the same way women do. They derive it from a feeling of admiration and being seen as capable and in control. They solve the problem at hand not caring much about the route to achieve it, in order to show their capability. Support for a man means being seen as virile, sexually desirable and respected. Not any faux-therapy session with a woman where he exposes his feelings and becomes more vulnerable. More vulnerability may in fact be what is driving the harm husbands experience from "support". They are losing respect. They are being coddled by their woman. Unacceptable.

In contrast, women derive support from emotional closeness. They don't have a burning need to have problems solved so much as having the feelings the problems create resolved. Women see problem-solving as a means to facilitate emotional closeness. The solution doesn't matter as much as the means to reach it. The means may entail talking about their feelings to close people who'll listen, and hugging it out and showing support and all that stuff... not necessarily fixing the problem.

So this is the disparity. For one partner, the solution being solved by HIM, and him receiving admiration for it is the support. For the other partner, the feelings of discomfort being recognized and addressed is the support.

I think the main issue is the solipsistic way women assume that all support is exactly what works for them. And men, often being the spineless fools they are, assume what a woman says is best for them. That if it works for her, it will work for him.

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

That's very... Odd given other literature showing more positive health outcomes for men, both mentally and physically, from supportive relationships.

[–]ayyeih-na_eloheykhem 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Did these studies check for confounders such as partnered/single status? (viz. as your comment stands now, "supportive relationships" confounds relationship status and relationship support. Perhaps relationship STATUS drives men's health outcomes, whereas relationship QUALITY drives women's health outcomes.)

And it would be interesting to know what kinds of support men benefit from or are harmed by.

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

And it would be interesting to know what kinds of support men benefit from

BJ, sandwich and STFU support

[–]SquidwardsEuphoriafemale neckbeard1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Men and women in general need to communicate better, and women aren't told how to communicate with men. Unfortunately, we're kind of told that we're right in all arguments and that if the man thinks we're wrong, he's gaslighting or being an asshole. I can't even tell you how many times I've been told to leave my H because he said something perfectly reasonable. That says nothing about the inherent nature of women, of course. I just think the way relationship advice is given needs to change.

[–]ayyeih-na_eloheykhem 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This reminds me of a theory of why women with strong opinions, or are assertive, or women who disagree, are seen as less likeable - specifically, I am not sure how much this explains it, but it's one proximate reason.

Whatever the reason, women are seen as people-oriented, not task-oriented - they are seen as being ad hominem creatures in the literal sense. So when women express a disagreement, to observers' eyes it's perceived as an attack on the person with whom she is disagreeing with.

So if the problem of assuming assholishness/bitchiness goes in both directions, part of the problem might be that women tend to see a disagreement as a sign of 'assholishness', or some other negative reflection on the disagreer's person, and are seen as doing so.

[–]autowikibot0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ad hominem:


An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person" ), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a form of criticism directed at something about the person one is criticizing, rather than something (potentially, at least) independent of that person. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized. Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.


Interesting: Ad Hominem Enterprises | Tu quoque | Argument from authority | Association fallacy

Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words

[–]Those_Who_RemainIrrelevant Homosexual1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Overall, these results extend the existing literature on marital functioning and health by highlighting the associations between positive marital interactions and health outcomes. Though prior work has found that men incur fewer physiological costs from marital conflict, the current study indicates that men also may reap fewer benefits from marital support. Put another way, it seems wives may surpass their husbands in both the costs and the benefits gleaned from marriage.

I think the conclusion is also interesting and may (partially) explain why women initiate divorces more often. It's not just because 'women are unhaaaappy' (like a pretty frequent poster here often suggests), but that women are actually physiologically influenced more harshly by issues in the relationships than men.

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points2 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Those_Who_RemainIrrelevant Homosexual1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

a.k.a. women become unhaaaapy?

You know damn well that 'women became unhaaaapy' is used as something different from there being valid biological influences that negatively influences them when there's conflict.

The 'women are unhaaapy' is most commonly used to claim women are whiny or can't commit to partners.

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points2 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Those_Who_RemainIrrelevant Homosexual1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

A lot of relationship counselors and sex therapists and the like today are saying that women are abandoning great men.

Maybe because being a great man does not automatically mean you are automatically a great partner for all women? There's also a thing such as compatibility.

And I'm not sayin that women don't divorce for the wrong reasons. I'm sure plenty of them do. I'm just saying that in many cases women divorce for very valid reasons beyond 'being unhaaaapy'.

You believe what you like though.

God forbid I don't believe all women who initiate divorces do it for frivolous reasons. How could I possibly not just take your word for that! The arrogance in your statement is almost palpable.

[–]aguy010 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Women divorce because they are unhappy, just like men do. Regardless of whether it's physical abuse causing her to be unhappy or she is just bored. The difference is in what makes the women unhappy enough to divorce verse what makes a man unhappy enough to divorce. Often a man losing his job can make a woman unhappy enough to divorce him. Or he isn't exciting in the bedroom. Or she sees that no other women want him. The amount of unhappiness it takes to consider divorce is drastically different when you get cash prizes for doing so, versus the man who has his possessions stolen from him in the divorce.

[–]ayyeih-na_eloheykhem 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

but that women are actually physiologically influenced more harshly by issues in the relationships than men.

a.k.a. women become unhaaaapy?

Yeah this is how I always interpreted it.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter