So there's this book that's been out for a while, you've probably seen it or even read it.  You Just Don't Understand:  Women And Men In Conversation, by Deborah Tannen.  It is very popular and, like the Venus and Mars books, purports to explain how men and women differ in the way they talk and why.

A lot of people got as their takeaway from the book that men talk to convey information, women talk to share feelings.

I think she's almost right.  The things women talk about are counted as feelings [1].  That doesn't mean they aren't information!  Nor does it mean that a piece of information that is expressed with feeling is expressed for the sole purpose of getting feelings back.

Supposed "conveying information":

Man:  Let's go swimming.
Woman:  I don't know how to swim.
Man:  I can teach you.
[Woman thinks, who asked you?]

Supposed "sharing emotions":

Man:  Let's go swimming.
Woman:  I don't know how to swim.
Man:  I'm sorry, I didn't mean to upset you. 
[Woman thinks, I better not look upset, he doesn't like that.  Man thinks, better never talk about swimming again.]

Notice how #2 wasn't actually discussing what she said?  It acknowledged she had an emotion but stopped there.

Actual discussion:

Man:  Let's go swimming.
Woman:  I don't know how to swim.
Man:  How did that happen?
Woman:  My father tried to drown me when I was six.

Which can go one of a few ways.  First, when the man treats the communication of emotions as meaningful information:

Man:  That's terrible, I'm sorry to bring it up.
Woman:  I was always afraid of him after that.
Man:  No wonder.
[further discussion about feelings where they get to know each other better, by, you know, exchanging information]

But if they both feel like discussing it in depth, they can also initiate action or gain understanding from the inclusion of emotion:

Man:  That's terrible, I'm sorry to bring it up.
Woman:  It really scared me.  I would like to enjoy swimming but I don't know if I ever can.
Man:  What have you tried?
Woman:  I went to lessons but no one really addressed my fear, so I quit.
[further discussion about options, taking her emotions into consideration as valid reasons to do or not do something]

Or, the man could treat the communication as just emotion which is the enemy of truth which should be removed from the discussion:

Man:  Are you sure?
Woman:  Yes, he held me under until I choked and my mother stopped him.
Man:  He was probably just trying to teach you how to swim.
[continued explanation of how she probably just overreacted]

Of course these discussions can happen between any two people of any gender.  The fact is, though, Tannen treats "emotion-laden discourse" and "information-laden discourse" as separate, neatly severing emotions from the highly-revered category of information.

Sorta like how rotating 3-D images in space is considered the ultimate in intelligence, because it's one of the "intelligences" that males tend to do better at.

[1]  I have to wonder, if we had just a male or female voice saying, "That's not fair!" how many people would count the male voice as saying something factual while the woman is thought to be saying something emotional.