Such a thing is not gender-dependent. Males are as much emotional creatures as females are. Society has from time immemorial superimposed a code of stoicism upon the male inhabitants of this little planet, so that a man in order to avoid wroughting hairline cracks on the credibility of his masculine nature must at all instances shy away from things (mushy emotions) which make him appear vulnerable, or human if you will e.g. showing visible symptoms of being in pain, grieving over a lost love, and the likes.
Since all men have been indoctrinated from birth to never make their emotions into a public gallery, how then can we pass a sound judgement? But, you know what they say, “the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence”. That men are wont to be stoic, rarely giving away their emotions, doesn't mean an inner jihad is not going on within them.

However, if it were incumbent that I made a choice, then I'd say more females than males find it difficult in convalescing from the scalds of heartbreak. My reason is rooted in precedent cases that all seem to point towards the female folks having a tougher time. It's pertinent also to note that more women than men are given to demisexuality i.e women are more likely than men to commit to a romantic relationship only if feelings and emotions have been thrown in the mix. Since more women than men are apt to wear their heart on their sleeves, then it's safe to assert that more women than men get hurt emotionally, and therefore find it more difficult than their male counterparts to bounce back in the aftermath of a heartbreak.

DarkRebel69:
Such a thing is not gender-dependent. Males are as much emotional creatures as females are. Society has from time immemorial superimposed a code of stoicism upon the male inhabitants of this little planet, so that a man in order to avoid wroughting hairline cracks on the credibility of his masculine nature must at all instances shy away from things (mushy emotions) which make him appear vulnerable, or human if you will e.g. showing visible symptoms of being in pain, grieving over a lost love, and the likes.
Since all men have been indoctrinated from birth to never make their emotions into a public gallery, how then can we pass a sound judgement? But, you know what they say, “the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence”. That men are wont to be stoic, rarely giving away their emotions, doesn't mean an inner jihad is not going on within them.

However, if it were incumbent that I made a choice, then I'd say more females than males find it difficult in convalescing from the scalds of heartbreak. My reason is rooted in precedent cases that all seem to point towards the female folks having a tougher time. It's pertinent also to note that more women than men are given to demisexuality i.e women are more likely than men to commit to a romantic relationship only if feelings and emotions have been thrown in the mix. Since more women than men are apt to wear their heart on their sleeves, then it's safe to assert that more women than men get hurt emotionally, and therefore find it more difficult than their male counterparts to bounce back in the aftermath of a heartbreak.

Good points! So it would appear most people here agree to some degree that it's not exactly gender-dependent. I think that should be the answer. Then it comes down to individual nature and personality. Most men probably feign composure and act tough to fit into certain boxes society has provided for them, to which they're pressured to jump into instinctively. They want to "be a man". But the fact that, on the contrary, ladies tend to let out their hearts and pour out their feelings without holding back doesn't mean they're emotionally feeble than men. Therefore, the claim that women suffer more from heart break and wallow longer and more intensely in the grief is baseless and wrong.

I keep wondering why some men will never tire of looking for ways to prove that they're somehow superior to women "by nature".

Tearless:
Good points! So it would appear most people here agree to some degree that it's not exactly gender-dependent. I think that should be the answer. Then it comes down to individual nature and personality. Most men probably feign composure and act tough to fit into certain boxes society has provided for them, to which they're pressured to jump into instinctively. They want to "be a man". But the fact that, on the contrary, ladies tend to let out their hearts and pour out their feelings without holding back doesn't mean they're emotionally feeble than men. Therefore, the claim that women suffer more from heart break and wallow longer and more intensely in the grief is baseless and wrong.

I keep wondering why some men will never tire of looking for ways to prove that they're somehow superior to women "by nature".

Women score higher than men on EQ tests. I don't believe members of the fairer sex are emotionally feeble. Emotionally susceptible mayhap.

Well, many a lawyer would tell you that the truth rarely matters in the courthouse, and that instead what counts on many occasions is what has been given the semblance of the truth. So, whether or not males are superior to females, that belief no doubt has been ascribed the appearance of the truth by mileniums upon mileniums of rote assertion. Wasn't it Lenin who said, and I quote, “A lie told often enough becomes the truth”... ?

If I may ask, do you honestly believe all humans are equal?

DarkRebel69:


Women score higher than men on EQ tests. I don't believe members of the fairer sex are emotionally feeble. Emotionally susceptible mayhap.

Well, many a lawyer would tell you that the truth rarely matters in the courthouse, and that instead what counts in most cases is what has been given the semblance of the truth. So, whether or not males are superior to females, that belief an doubt has been ascribed the appearance of the truth by mileniums upon mileniums of rote assertion.

If I may ask, do you honestly believe all humans are equal?

Of course not. I just think superiority shouldn't be defined along gender lines.

ladies are kinda more flexible so I think they grief for long.

Tearless:
Of course not. I just think superiority shouldn't be defined along gender lines.

Touché!

Some four million years ago – during the stone age – when humans were at their most primal and when the issue of superiority was arbitrated solely on the premise of practical physicality, men had a rightful claim to being called the superior specie.

But, what people – the male chauvinist posse precisely – fail to grasp is that the power dynamic has long been tweaked profoundly by the hands of evolution; that there's been a giant shift in the paradigm. And that now, the most superior person is not the most brute or physical, but the smartest person in the room.

Seeing as more and more women have finally begun to disentangle themselves from the self-limiting social constraints imposed on them by virtue of their gender, I forsee a future brimming with püssy-whipped men. Winter is coming for we males.

DarkRebel69:


Touché!

Some four million years ago – during the stone age – when humans were at their most primal and when the issue of superiority was arbitrated solely on the premise of practical physicality, men had a rightful claim to be called the superior species.

But, what people – the male chauvinist posse precisely – fail to grasp is that the dynamic of the power relationship has been tweaked profoundly by the hands of evolution; that the paradigm has long shifted. And that now, the most superior person is not the most brute or physical, but the smartest person in the room.

Seeing as more and more women have finally begun to disentangle themselves from the self-limiting social constraints imposed on them by virtue of their gender, I forsee a future full of püssy-whipped men. Winter is coming for we males.

Hahahaha If the universe was born of goddesses who became gravid after happening upon the panspermia permeating the Quantum vacuum of space, giving birth to galaxies, stars and planets, then it's only rational that it returns to bed in its chamber through the portal which it came.

And what do you think of the purpose of man on this gigantic rocky body that amounts to not more than a speck of dust in respect to the universe, and his eventual fate, in the grand scheme of things, may I ask?

Tearless:
Hahahaha If the universe was born of goddesses who became gravid after happening upon the perspermia permeating the Quantum vacuum of space, giving birth to galaxies, stars and planets, then it's only rational that it returns to bed in its chamber through the portal which it came.

And what do you think of the purpose of man on this gigantic rocky body that amounts to not more than a speck of dust in respect to the universe, and his eventual fate, in the grand scheme of things, may I ask?

The question of man's existential purpose is one I am unable to answer - if man even has any purpose.

loswhite:
women do not love they only summit to whoever is paying the bills

my brother this ur statement has touched my spirit, soul & body.

DarkRebel69:


The question of man's existential purpose is one I am unable to answer - if man even has any purpose.

Hehehe...... Man definitely has a purpose. Existence is neither accidental nor random. The task is to go on the delightful adventure of figuring out that purpose.