Ask one of your friends who works in a female dominated workplace what it's like. They might prefer a bit more stoicism, less emotional displays, and more working together without complaint.
Ask one of your friends who works in a female dominated workplace what it's like. They might prefer a bit more stoicism, less emotional displays, and more working together without complaint.
Men do have emotional displays, like constantly. If you work in tech, I doubt you never seen someone lash out over petty difference in coding style, change of requirements, completely loose it on analyst etc. "The lack of social skills" is often euphemism for "can keep control over negative emotions".
The other interesting issue I see is that women are according to stereotypes both a.) more cooperative and easier to work with and b.) horrible to work with - depending precisely on which variant makes women inferior in the context.
Men normally are able to control their negative emotions, but you're right that women can be dichotomous, especially in tech. You can predict it if you know why and how they got into the industry.
Men in tech are somewhat more introverted then the rest. They are not more emotional nor feminine then actors, writers, sales or literally any profession. Speaking of groups, the men with least in control are those who end up in jail and similar troubles.
Please state the culture for context. This is absolutely not the case in the West.
> The other interesting issue I see is that women are according to stereotypes both a.) more cooperative and easier to work with and b.) horrible to work with - depending precisely on which variant makes women inferior in the context.
I challenge the very concept that women are more cooperative; they simply cooperate differently from men. When men are overtly challenging one another, they are usually cooperating in the sense that they are playing by the same hierarchical rules. Women cooperate through covertly challenging each other while overtly playing by rules that limit the amount of displayed aggression and promote hospitable behavior. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, but the fact that men tend to be more aggressive to each other is not to say that they aren't very cooperative with one another; if that weren't the case, men on average would be far more underhanded and circumvent rules on a regular basis.
A lot of suicide is when men retire, get long term unemployed or divorces (divorces are harder on men statistically these days). In two of those you cease to have "shared struggle", but not because women presence caused it. More like, people you knew disappeared. You are not useful to them anymore.
Workers don't share struggle, because most work is about struggle against colllegues, competition and people change jobs often anyway. Combined with working more then 60 hours a week, female presence is hardly the primary reason for lack of long term friendship that sticks as you get unemployed or sick. (I don't think the job should supply socialization, but it does for people working a lot.)
And men like you just described openly challenge those under them in hierarchy, but rarely those higher then them. So, I have reservations about that openness you talk about. It is less about openness and more about never saying you disagree with higher ups in hierarchy and lashing out when perceived lowers disagree or criticize you - because that is interpreted as challenge.
The rest of your post is non sequitur. Improving the unhealthy parts of male life does not mean making everyone stereotypically female.