As Bill Clinton would say, "define crisis." Because if the crisis is one of the mundane kind, like a mouse poking its face from the kitchen door, there's no question who will cope better. Logic tells you that the mouse is rather small and, in relation, you are rather large. You have weapons, he has none. You are on your territory, he is an intruder. The odds clearly are stacked against him. Try selling that to a woman, any woman. Replace the mouse by anything else that's furry, crawly or slithery and men will always react better. I can think of any number of other everyday situations that shouldn't even qualify as crisis. Yet they do because of gender. Like reversing the car out of a parking lot. If there is a man around, a woman will always hand over the keys to him, with the command, "you reverse". If there isn't a man around, she will reverse into the car next to hers. Men, thus, clearly cope better with situations that are physical, even extreme ones like fire, brimstone and earthquake. Except, maybe, the pain of childbirth, but since men don't have either the experience or the equipment, how can we be sure? In every other way, whether it's 9/11 or 26/7 or any of the future digits we will have to deal with, it's men who do not lose their cool. Recently two friends of mine split up after a long relationship. The man got on with life, the woman wailed. The man kept his council, the woman rang her friends. Soon, everyone she knew had got (in detail) the story of her life. Who coped really better? Do men, bottling up all that pain, because unwritten rules of behaviour told us to do so, not to damage to themselves? Whereas women, with their ability to share, their skill at conjuring up a support group, let out all the pain in one cathartic swoop. Who will be better off in the long run? Clearly, it won't be men. |
