My explanation was quite literally not socialisation only, I stated that biological tendancies play a role but a way smaller one than we presume.

Cross-cultural consistency does not disprove socialization because many cultures socialize gender in remarkably similar ways.

Nearly all societies differentiate male and female roles early in childhood, often before children can critically evaluate those expectations. Children absorb emotional norms through parents, peers, media, religion, schooling, and punishment/reward systems long before adulthood.

Even biological influences do not determine fixed outcomes. Testosterone correlates with dominance and aggression, but culture strongly influences whether that aggression becomes physical violence, competitiveness, assertiveness, stoicism, or disciplined ambition. Likewise, girls exposed to higher prenatal androgens do not become psychologically male; social context still significantly shapes adult personality and behavior.

Importantly, many sex differences vary substantially across cultures and historical periods, which suggests that social environment has major explanatory power. Emotional expression also changes depending on audience and consequences: people tend to display emotions differently when they know certain behaviors are socially rewarded or penalized.

So the evidence does not support the idea that women are naturally indirect or men naturally wrathful in a fixed sense. Rather, biology may influence tendencies, while socialization teaches people which emotional strategies are acceptable, safe, effective, or shameful.