Emotion v logic

Demasio wrote an intriguing book called "Descartes Mistake". In that book he discussed a case where a steel rod passed through the brain of a talented man who somehow survived. However, there were some interesting consequences.
The change that fascinated Demasio was his later inability to guage consequences for personal behavior. He retained all the knowledge of how to do his job, he would recognize the danger, but he would take no steps to avoid the danger, even though on an intellectual level he knew it would seriously harm him.
One of the underlying arguments, and I should stress that this is a very simplified version of a truly complicated argument, was the loss of his emotional abilities caused this otherwise intelligent man to become a danger to himself and to others once the emotional consequences of danger were removed from his consciousness.
Demasio went on to argue that without both halves...the emotional capacity and the intellectual capacity...no person could fully function and function to their capacity.
Compare and contrast that with the societal construction of gender beliefs. Females are driven and guided by emotion, while men are logical. Women are in touch with their feelings while men are supposed to either not have them or else they subconsciously suppress them.
People who fall outside these artificially constructed views are outside of mainstream society. They actually are regarded as freaks or unnatural much of the time. Take for example the victim of a cruel prank in The Longest Yard (2005). One of the guards was taking anabolic steroids, a substance which is associated all that is "worst" about "correct male behavior". The prisoners switch in some estrogen...which will theoretically bring out the "correct female behavior."
This brings up an interesting point; previously I indicated the gender traits are artificial constructs, yet the idea that steroids and estrogen produce particular behaviors would contradict that idea. This is something that will be pursued further later. For now, the movie is the point.
The guard starts unknowingly popping estrogen. For the rest of the movie he behaves "like a woman". He cries, he feels badly for people in pain, he wants to talk about things, he explores his feelings...all this is played off for the laughs it does, in fact, achieve.
It achieves those laughs because every audience member can read the codes...he is now "acting like a woman" instead of "acting like a man". Are those methods correct?
I would lead you back to Demasio's book. I would argue that every person should actually access both halves of these sides. They need the emotional and the intellectual. I would also argue those are not male and female naturally but rather only in socially constructed manners.
Saying emotion is strictly or primarily a female trait subtracts from the male usage of their full mind. It does have an impact on society. Men who use their emotion as a factor in making decisions are looked dowen on, so they subsume that portion of their mind and thus lose their full faculties.
By contrast, the idea that women should make decisions on emotion rather than taking the time and energy to consider the intellectual repercussions is just as harmful to their gender. They are regarded as less intelligent, more apt to make faulty decisions that might make emotional sense but be flawed intellectually.
Obviously neither approach is correct. Women and men have equal intellectual and emotional CAPABILITIES. It is the societal acceptable decisions they make that cause many of the problems we encounter.
Decisions mad using solely using one portion of the mind are decisions made deliberately crippling our own mind. I urge you to read Descartes Mistake to fully understand the implications.
Now, it is interesting to note that, somewhat subtly, Hollywood seems to be trying to move people towards basing their decisions more off emotion than anything else. Being a bit lazy this morning, I will take an easy target to illustrate this; Star Wars.
Watch the sextet of flicks How many times are they told to "Search your feelings", "Use your feelings", or "Let your feelings be your guide"? Hint: double figures. It is strongly thematic. The "Force" is all about feelings. Knowledge, right decisions, and more can all be discovered using feelings.
Making "rational" decisions is never considered as an option. It would be an impediment to achieving the aims of the good guys. Right and wrong were reduced to feelings of "anger, greed, jealousy" or feelings of...well, okay, the good feelings are never fully identified.
Lest you think I am picking too easy a target, look at all the romantic comedies that are out. 13 Going on 30, Guess Who, Anger Management, School of Rock, Monster in Law, and more are examples of guys who are good precisely because they operate on their feelings.
Movies have a history of producing agitprop, sometimes blatantly (Birth of a Nation, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, Crash) and sometimes more subtly (Fight Club, Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Kingdom of Heaven). Themes have always existed in the movies being made at a particular time.
These themes cross genre lines, also. This drive to function mostly on feelings is found in romantic comedies, sci-fi, horror (Amityville Horror), sports movies, action-adventure (Cinderella Man) and more. It is there if you just know to look for it.
The real question becomes how much of this subconscious ideology is internalized by those who are not aware it is even being put in front of them? Furthermore, is it important?
THe answer is simple. I am heading off to a bbq and card playing event.