But we all seem to think that if we do it, if it’s us, not those people, then it will be ok, in fact it will be good. And we can do it and we won’t need anyone else to balance or correct or criticize us. It will just be a pure virtue when we do it.

Women might wear disagreeability differently than men, but that doesn’t mean better. Men might wear agreeability differently than women, but not necessarily better. Neither is strictly a virtue or a vice, or they wouldn’t be normally distributed.

Being disagreeable, as a woman, has been a problem throughout history, and not always well received, partly just because women have high expectations for other women. They expect and demand more solidarity and consideration. It matters to them more, it means more in their society, and they reward and punish it appropriately.

Men care a lot less about other men and what they think, and are much more like to say “screw you, I’m gonna do what I want”. But that disagreeability isn’t a virtue. Not for men, and not for women. It’s just an average feature. Men, and therefore their social structure, tend to be more disagreeable.

That also doesn’t mean that it’s a vice. It’s a feature to be understood, integrated, tamed, regulated, and dealt with. It could be a virtue, and it could be a vice. You can assume it’s good or bad for men or women to be how they are, that’s just how they are. The moral element is a separate, contingent, question. And you can’t assume it would be good or bad for either sex to change. That’s just swapping clothes, not improving them. The moral question is a separate issue.

Being “strong”, or outspoken, or in your face and bold, is not in itself either a good or bad thing. It all depends on how its being used, what it’s being used for, context, degree, balance, appropriateness, etc. This way of acting could be used for good, and it could be bad. And it’s wrong to assume that just because X group (my group) is being this way that that’s good and right and helpful. Or that because group Y is being that way that it’s bad.

Women, in general, have higher negative emotion. That’s why they make up the bulk of the anxiety disorders, while men stack up on disorders of aggression. Both sexes have their burdens to carry. Women have a more sensitive threat detection system, while men have a more sensitive threat response system. And both carry risks and challenges.

Women’s sensitivity to the negative is higher, and their tolerance for things not being satisfactory is lower. Then you add that average trait to average greater agreeability of women and you have some good and some bad results. Being agreeable means that women tend to seek group solutions to problems. They utilize community and the resources it provides to manage their concerns. And that’s pretty great. It also means that the concerns and feelings of any single person are somewhat regulated by the group, which acts collectively to evaluate and address those concerns. It also means they can be amplified by the group, one person’s exceptional concerns getting distributed among everyone, raising the collective threat assessment or moral imperatives for everyone when that isn’t quite appropriate.

To some degree we need to just learn the appreciate and understand the sexes for what they are, including their distinct character and differences. We won’t fix ourselves or fix the other sex by coveting their virtues or vices (as we see them). We simply need to recognize who we are, appreciate the value in it, and understand how we are meant to complement and temper and refine one another. After that, we can set abiut the much more difficult task of learning to manage and perfect whoever we are, how best to carry whatever burden we have been given in our place upon the spectrum of personality and society. We can learn to integrate, hopefully, some of the strengths of others, to balance somewhat within ourselves our natural tendencies, while understanding that all positions carry an inherent risk as well as an inherent positive potential.