Acceptable behaviour favours woman?

savoyard

MorningStar wrote:

THe specific culture doesn't matter as people will claim racisim I decided not to mention it. As a result my friends and wife think crying is really anti-social as acceptable behaviour because it allows manipulation increase along with it's own show lack of control.

Oh, but the specific culture does matter, a great deal. Perhaps it is a culture where crying is more acceptable than in Ireland. Perhaps they are being totally manipulative. Perhaps training, for example, welfare officers to understand the cultural differences in how different groups are prone to react might be helpful, or not. But we have no idea because this is a wild and unspecified generalisation. Are they crying because they can't get a seat in a restaurant? Can't get money? Can't jump a queue? Is is just the women in this culture that cry or are the men at it too? How can we tell other than take you at your word, which given the remainder of your arguments, I am not willing to do. You have claimed some culture uses crying as a manipulative technique (and this is partly what sparked your OP) but you refuse to tell us which one? How is that helpful to the discussion?

MorningStar wrote:

Read the whole thread! I have repeatedly explianed that lack of control is anti-social how it is expressed means little to me it is equally anti-social. I don't think everybody crying is manipulative and I find inability to control yourself is a problem no matter how it is expressed. If you are being unreasonable and have lack of control it should be socially unacceptable

Well, what posters are repeatedly trying to tell you is that, regardless of what you think, all forms of losing self control are not equally anti-social or unacceptable and neither should they be, simply because some are more potentially harmful than others.

You have done absolutely nothing on this thread to justify why we should equate crying, a form of loss of self control that is not seen as being potentially harmful to people, with shouting, which is seen as being scary and potentially leading to violence. Where does laughter fit into your grand scheme of loss of self control that needs to be controlled? I fail to see how you can say all emotions that involve some sort of loss of self control are the same. How loss of control is expressed may mean little to you, but it means a lot to others and THAT is why people react differently to different emotions.

Freelancer

The Corinthian wrote:

Of course it doesn’t condone it. You’ve not been shy in the use of glib language either, but I’d hardly jump to the conclusion that you’d condone it either.

I've only quoted you, directly.

Ultimately you’ve taken what I said and extended it to imply that I was encouraging or condoning rape. How you make this jump in your logic is unclear as if lurid or extreme descriptions alone encouraged anti-social behaviour, most satire would be banned.

Not really you yourself said language can

in that the latter condones or even encourages anti-social

Why shouldn't describing a violent assault in such a casual and graphic manner do the above. Why won't you apply own logic to your casual use of language in this instance?

The "nig nogs" comment dehumanises people of colour. The description of rape as simply "bending someone over a car" paints a picture of a gentle, act commited by mutual consent, it gives an air of mutual consent to a forced attack. Both terms give an air of normality or acceptability to abusive acts.

Err, no you didn’t. Feel free to make it again if you’re so certain.

I have to a satisfactory degree. to the point that you feel you need to defend yourself, and demand I provide literature to back up my assertion.

In what imaginary world is this? Seriously can you point to any reasoned study or argument that supports that what I said actually even condones, let alone encourages it, rape or are you actually just inventing things to rant against?

http://courses.lib.odu.edu/engl/jbing/cp11.html

Violence generally starts with verbal abuse or sexual harassment

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/ecls/research/speech/theses/kendall.htm

The use of the euphemism "bend you over a car" lends an air of legitmacy or normality, passiveness to the act of a violent sexual assault.

For someone who’s not bothered engaging it you’re in no position to comment. Indeed, you don’t appear to consider the debate worthy of having and have only used it as a means to blow off some indignant steam.

I consider the points raised by yourself and morningstar to be utterly to be without merit and surprised many have dignified them with a response. Your use of language just stretched over the line between tolerating someone's unacceptable behaviour and pointing it out.

I did not specifically call you anything and your insults are uncalled for, if predictable.

The inference was that I was one of these "nutjobs". Apparently you now appear to be attempting to further wound me by insulting my intelligence.

Thats a pretty undignified scrabble to the moral high ground you're engaging in.

As for your second point, it’s a valid one, but no, on balance I would not.

I sincerely doubt that, but perhaps its in character.

Its interesting to note that many studies of rapists state that many rapists have little interest in the feelings of others or suffer an inability to empathise.

zenith wrote:

Freelancer: personal abuse is not tolerated. Attack the argument, not the person.

Apologises my point is made and noticed.

Sleepy wrote:

If that's how you misinterpreted my post, it's not difficult to see why you're losing this debate so impressively...

Feel free to join the discussion you'll need to drop the pom poms with "TC" on them.

MorningStar

savoyard wrote:

Oh, but the specific culture does matter, a great deal.

No it does and I will not state it. If you are unaware of which culture it is then you are equally unaware that it ia big problem for people dealing with them. You even assume it is social welfare officers.

savoyard wrote:

Are they crying because they can't get a seat in a restaurant? Can't get money? Can't jump a queue? Is is just the women in this culture that cry or are the men at it too?

READ THE WHOLE THREAD. It has been said about the difference in sex. THey cry to get their own way it doesn't matter why. You can think it is not true but the reason does not matter.

savoyard wrote:

Well, what posters are repeatedly trying to tell you is that, regardless of what you think, all forms of losing self control are not equally anti-social or unacceptable and neither should they be, simply because some are more potentially harmful than others.

Not really the pointis why they think it is acceptable to lose control. Some say woman can't help it and others say it is because it is not threatening.
On lack of ability to control on woman's part I have more respect to woman that I think they are well capable of controlling themselves. If people say they can't I see that as a suggestion woman are emotional mess.
Whether it is a threat or not does not really matter it is equally unfair to expect somebody to deal with somebody who has no control. An emotional woman may also attack a person and I have seen it happen. If somebodies lack of control makes another person uncomfortable it is anti-social. Why it accepted is perception

savoyard wrote:

You have done absolutely nothing on this thread to justify why we should equate crying, a form of loss of self control that is not seen as being potentially harmful to people, with shouting, which is seen as being scary and potentially leading to violence. Where does laughter fit into your grand scheme of loss of self control that needs to be controlled? I fail to see how you can say all emotions that involve some sort of loss of self control are the same. How loss of control is expressed may mean little to you, but it means a lot to others and THAT is why people react differently to different emotions.

If you simply accept it as a lack of self control then it is unacceptable. How your lack of control is expressed means little to me. To equate shouting to violence is the same as equating crying with hysterial. They are not the same thing and to link violence with shouting is a perception problem that you are not doing with crying.
Laughter does need to be controled how many people are seen laughing around funerals. There is a time and place and laughter can be an expression for a few things. THe reason I link emotional responses and lack of control is because it is accepted as physcology fact. It's not like I have made up some mad theory all on my own. How you think of shouting as a massive threat and a sign of violence is a crazy theory and you seem to have difficulty seeing them as massively different grades of expression of anger or (note this) any other emotion ranging from frustration to grief.
Where do you draw the line where somebody shouting is unacceptable and where for crying?
Crying acceptable when a your child marries? Crying acceptable when a soap oprea couple get married? Crying when your pets marry?
Crying unnessarily lessens the emotional release and is simply unreasonable as is shouting.

Lemming

MorningStar wrote:

Laughter does need to be controled how many people are seen laughing around funerals. There is a time and place and laughter can be an expression for a few things. THe reason I link emotional responses and lack of control is because it is accepted as physcology fact. It's not like I have made up some mad theory all on my own. How you think of shouting as a massive threat and a sign of violence is a crazy theory and you seem to have difficulty seeing them as massively different grades of expression of anger or (note this) any other emotion ranging from frustration to grief.
Where do you draw the line where somebody shouting is unacceptable and where for crying?

You, sir, are a h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e.

I know quite a few people who cannot but laugh in the most unfortunate of circumstances because they simply feel very uncomfortable and cannot "help" themselves. I also know people who have laughed in what would be extrordinarily serious circumstances because they simply don't give a crap and have no respect for whatever/whomeevr it is.

So, laughing is just like crying. ANd is therefore unacceptable by your "logic" :rolleyes:

Of course I could point out the irony in applying logic to emotion.

The Corinthian

Freelancer wrote:

I've only quoted you, directly.

No you’ve managed to be glib all on your little lonesome.

Not really you yourself said language can

That sentence makes no sense.

Why shouldn't describing a violent assault in such a casual and graphic manner do the above.

I asked you why it would to which you respond why shouldn’t it? Not terribly compellying.

Why won't you apply own logic to your casual use of language in this instance?

Explain.

The "nig nogs" comment dehumanises people of colour. The description of rape as simply "bending someone over a car" paints a picture of a gentle, act commited by mutual consent, it gives an air of mutual consent to a forced attack. Both terms give an air of normality or acceptability to abusive acts.

The former actively attacked people of colour - if you removed the term “nig nogs” it would still do that and thus condone or encourage anti-social behaviour. The latter does not - how you can actually think it “paints a picture of a gentle, act committed by mutual consent” is frankly bizarre.

I have to a satisfactory degree. to the point that you feel you need to defend yourself, and demand I provide literature to back up my assertion.

No, I’ve accused you of ranting and you’ve denied this. So I’m calling your bluff.

The use of the euphemism "bend you over a car" lends an air of legitmacy or normality, passiveness to the act of a violent sexual assault.

In what parallel universe? Seriously, your interpretation of what I said is abnormal to say the least. The entire point of the statement was to shock and jar the reader into re-examining an assumption by using an extreme example. Somehow you’ve taken this to suggest that it “paints a picture of a gentle, act committed by mutual consent” which it simply does not.

I consider the points raised by yourself and morningstar to be utterly to be without merit and surprised many have dignified them with a response. Your use of language just stretched over the line between tolerating someone's unacceptable behaviour and pointing it out.

If they are without merit debunk them, otherwise it is most likely your position that is without merit as you cannot defend it.

The inference was that I was one of these "nutjobs". Apparently you now appear to be attempting to further wound me by insulting my intelligence.

Get off the cross, someone needs the wood.

Its interesting to note that many studies of rapists state that many rapists have little interest in the feelings of others or suffer an inability to empathise.

Are you implying now I’m a rapist? Unbelievable.

MorningStar

Lemming wrote:

You, sir, are a h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e.

I know quite a few people who cannot but laugh in the most unfortunate of circumstances because they simply feel very uncomfortable and cannot "help" themselves. I also know people who have laughed in what would be extrordinarily serious circumstances because they simply don't give a crap and have no respect for whatever/whomeevr it is.

So, laughing is just like crying. ANd is therefore unacceptable by your "logic" :rolleyes:

Of course I could point out the irony in applying logic to emotion.

You are wrong. I said it has to be controlled like crying and other expressions of emotions. No change in my view so explain the hypocracy! And don't call me a name call the view hypocritical as the mod already pointed out.

As I said

Laughter does need to be controled

There is a time and place.

So I will accept you applogy or report you for personal abuse. Even if I said something hypocritical I will still report you unless you applogise:p

zenith

The Corinthian wrote:

Are you implying now I’m a rapist? Unbelievable.

Moderator note:
While different as to magnitude, the rhetorical approach is similar to The Corinthian's earlier 'nutjob' comment.

However, I'm ruling that Freelancer knows well what they wrote, and the comparison they were drawing by the presentation of their comment as they did.

Personal attack. Ban for Freelancer.

Zombrex

MorningStar wrote:

If you simply accept it as a lack of self control then it is unacceptable.

But a lack of self control, in general with no context, is not social unacceptable. That is what people have to trying to get through to you.

You are being ridiculously general here, which is why I originally said this discussion was ridiculous. If you apply this logic anything from laughing to crying to shouting out during sex is "unnacceptable" social behaviour simply because it is a loss of self control

You are not understanding why certain emotional responses are not acceptable, such as shouting and being threatening. It is not simply because they are losses of emotional control.

MorningStar wrote:

How your lack of control is expressed means little to me.

Well that is ridiculous ... there is a world of difference between someone crying and someone shouting. If someone is shouting in my face I don't object because it is a loss of emotional control, I object because I don't like someone shouting in my face. This is a completely different reason than if someone is crying beside me.

Yes the two things might make me uncomfortable, but in two completely different ways and in for two completely different reasons.

Watching war reports on the BBC makes me uncomfortable but it is a completely different uncomfortable than if there was a woman shouting and screaming on the DART. Saying in general that in both situations I was uncomfortable so a BBC war report is the same thing as a screaming woman on the DART is ridiculously general.

MorningStar wrote:

To equate shouting to violence is the same as equating crying with hysterial.

No it isn't. Shouting is a form of aggression. Aggression makes people feel threaten. This has nothing to do with crying. You seem to be the only person linking crying with shouting, where in fact no link exists. They are two completely different emotional responses, just because you don't like either of them doesn't mean they are the same. They have as much in common as a BBC news report and a woman screaming on a train (see above)

MorningStar wrote:

Laughter does need to be controled how many people are seen laughing around funerals.

There you go, context ... i have said all along that in reality society objects to crying only under certain curcumstances, when people feel someone is making a big deal out of nothing. But that is completely relative, and more to do with the issues of the observer than the person actually crying.

MorningStar wrote:

THe reason I link emotional responses and lack of control is because it is accepted as physcology fact.

What you fail to realise is that it is not the lack of control that is objectional, but certain types of emotional responses. And not all emotional responses are the same, not all are equally objectional. Laughing hysterically at a funny joke is not the same as crying on a train, or shouting at someone in Burger King. Not in the slightest, even though all could be considered lack of emotional control.

MorningStar wrote:

Where do you draw the line where somebody shouting is unacceptable and where for crying?

Depends on teh context, but there are very few justifications for shouting at someone, while there are millions of justifications for crying.

MorningStar wrote:

Crying acceptable when a your child marries? Crying acceptable when a soap oprea couple get married? Crying when your pets marry?

So long as none of that crying harms or threatens anyone what would be anyones objection?

You seem to just think people should express emotion, as if that is the reason why people don't like other people shouting at them.

MorningStar

WIcknight>
I'll keep it simple for you.
Crying lack of control therfore unacceptable! That is it! Want to be treated like an adult, act like an adult.
You seem to fail to understand that it is not a theory I made up but fact. Don't believe the fact attack the details of the fact not my belief in it. Don't know it is a fact educate yourself. Don't belive it is a fact prove it. Repeat your self , don't bother. You think this thread has no point half of the reason is people accusing people of saying things they haven't. Don't discuss it if it has no point. You don't get to choose and tell people how the mind works unless you have studied the subject. I'd even be vaguely happy if you knew some basics but you don't appear to even know that.
A woman cries at me they get the same response as if a man is shouting. Cailm down and when you have I will talk to you. THere are a few exceptions but I don't come accross many massively emotional events when dealing with people now.
THere appears to be a complete lack of understanding (scientifically) here. Understanding the human mind is more than relating events in your life to how somebody feels. It is about how the mind works and how people express themselves. Anger is upset crying is an expression of emotion as is shouting. You can't seperate them as foregin objects. Physically hitting somebody is NOT shouting but they are on the same scale of expressions of anger. Crying is an expression on the same scale as hysterial to express emotion they are also not them same.
You think differently just saying so doesn't make it any less a fact. If you are stating it as just a belief get evidence to support it. I studied it and know and don't need proof but just shouting down the views I express doesn't debate the point.
Why woman's lack of control is acceptable is the question regardless of how it is expressed. They should have control is the point and if they don't why should we cater for it? It has an unnessary effect on other people around them so is huge intrusion and anti-socal

Personal insult are unneeded

savoyard

MorningStar wrote:

No it does and I will not state it. If you are unaware of which culture it is then you are equally unaware that it ia big problem for people dealing with them. You even assume it is social welfare officers..

I gave welfare officers as an example, I didn't assume. Take your own advice and read my posts. I honestly have no idea what culture you are taking about. I have no idea what circumstances you're talking about. Yes, of course I am unaware that it is a big problem for people (whoever they are and wherever they are working) to deal with them (whoever they are and wherever they are crying). Because you won't tell me what you are going on about.

MorningStar wrote:

READ THE WHOLE THREAD. It has been said about the difference in sex.

I hate to break it to you but I have a life and I am not trawling through a 6 page thread to see if I missed any the pearls of wisdom you have scattered throughout your long, rambling and often totally incoherent posts, no matter how much you shout at me. You have moved randomly from women in general to immigrant women, I no longer know what you are going on about. I asked in relation to this mystery culture.

MorningStar wrote:

Whether it is a threat or not does not really matter it is equally unfair to expect somebody to deal with somebody who has no control. ...

Dear me, do I have to explain it again. Yes, there is a difference with dealing with people losing contol in different ways, due for one to fear of outcome and another because you cannot be sure if they are trying to manipulate the situation or whether they are genuinely upset. And as I said before, no one said that it is right for anyone to use crying to deliberately manipulate a situation.

MorningStar wrote:

How your lack of control is expressed means little to me. To equate shouting to violence is the same as equating crying with hysterial.

Where did I equate shouting and violence? I said shouting "which is seen as being scary and potentially leading to violence" Note the words "seen" and "potentially leading to" and how I have noted that this is not the same perception people have with crying. Of course emotional women can get violent. But not on the same scale as angry men get violent.

MorningStar wrote:

How you think of shouting as a massive threat and a sign of violence is a crazy theory .

Again, read my posts. Shouting is generally perceived as agressive behaviour, scary and a hell of a more linked to violence than crying. If I am standing in a shop with a man OR woman shouting at me, yes, I do think he or she might hit me or turn violent. If he or she is crying, I won't. It's not a crazylady theory. I suggest you read your 'physcology' books a little more closely.

MorningStar wrote:

Crying unnessarily lessens the emotional release and is simply unreasonable as is shouting..

Crying is a much more complex emotion than shouting. And while shouting in front of a person is generally unreasonable behaviour and agressive (obviously excluding situations when you are merely making yourself heard over a long distance), crying isn't. Some people cry as easily as they laugh. I think it is a natural emotion and as it doesn't frighten people, I don't think it is necessary to control it in the same manner as shouting. I express sadness with tears. I don't see why I should have to control that. It's not harming or frightening anyone and nor is is threatening behaviour.

Finally, I suggest your wife and friends dealing in this unknown place with ladies from some unspecified country somewhere in the world crying to get their own way deal with them in the same way as they would deal with anyone else. If it is possible to do something for them, do it and if not, don't do it, regardless what whatever emotion.

Anyway, to stop little baby jesus crying, I'm off. It's kind of pointless carrying on with this.

Zombrex

MorningStar wrote:

WIcknight>
I'll keep it simple for you.
Crying lack of control therfore unacceptable! That is it! Want to be treated like an adult, act like an adult.
You seem to fail to understand that it is not a theory I made up but fact.

I am not denying that crying is a loss of emotional control.

I am saying the reason some emotional responses (such as shouting) are socially unacceptable is not simply because they are losses of emotional control. So you cannot apply the tag of socially unacceptable to all forms of loss of emotional control simply because they are losses of emotional control.

MorningStar wrote:

You think this thread has no point half of the reason is people accusing people of saying things they haven't.

I think this thread's foundation is that you don't actually understand why certain things, such as shouting at someone, are actually social unacceptable.

It is not simply because they are a loss of emotional control. Loss of emotional control by itself is not social unacceptable, people do it all the time, be they laughing in a comedy club or crying at a funeral. The reason some emotional responses are social unacceptable depend on the characteristics and circumstances of the emotional responses themselves, not simply the lack of control behind them

MorningStar wrote:

You don't get to choose and tell people how the mind works unless you have studied the subject.

How the "mind works" is pretty irrelivent to this MorningStar .. I don't know what you think you know, but I have pointed out a fundamental flaw in the basis of your argument (that the reason certain emotional responses are unacceptable is based on the characteristics of that response, not on the emotional state of the person behind them) that you have continued to ignore.

MorningStar wrote:

I'd even be vaguely happy if you knew some basics but you don't appear to even know that.

Excuse me if I don't take notes from a thread that boils complex emotional and cultural topics down to ridiculous stereotypes such as "women cry/men shout" ... :rolleyes:

MorningStar wrote:

A woman cries at me they get the same response as if a man is shouting.

You feel threatened by a woman crying?

Shouting is nothing like crying, and it invokes a completely different reaction in a human being.

Shouting is a combination of noise and aggression. It puts people on defensive, invokes fight or flight responses in extreme cases. People generally move away from someone shouting.

Crying has the exact opposite effect, people tend to believe something is wrong, the instinct to help and protect is invoked. For somone who claims to have studied this I would have thought that would be obvious.

MorningStar wrote:

Why woman's lack of control is acceptable is the question regardless of how it is expressed.

No it isn't, the expression is key to what emotional responses are accepted by society and what are not.

For example, laughing at a funny show is considered totally acceptable, shouting up at the performers on stage is not. These are both examples of same emotion, but based on the characteristics of them one is acceptable and one is not.

Likewise, crying in a certain situation may be acceptable where as shouting is not. If I just found out I got fired from my job, being visable upset would be acceptable, people in the office would probably feel sorry for me, come over to comfort me give me a helping hand. If, under the same emotion, I started shouting at my boss and getting aggressive that would not be acceptable at all, no one would want to be near me. The emotion is the same (being very upset) but the characteristics of the response to this emotion is what determines if the people around me accept this as acceptable or not

The characteristics of an emotional response is what determines if it is social acceptable or not, not the emotional state of the person behind it.

I really can't make this it any clearer, and to be honest I am amazed that people on this thread don't get this fundamental principle of human interaction.

MorningStar

savoyard wrote:

I hate to break it to you but I have a life and I am not trawling through a 6 page thread to see if I missed any the pearls of wisdom you have scattered throughout your long, rambling and often totally incoherent posts, no matter how much you shout at me. You have moved randomly from women in general to immigrant women, I no longer know what you are going on about. I asked in relation to this mystery culture.

Then don't contribute as you are repeating things said and answered. The first post here says what it is about so you obviously didn't even read that

MorningStar

Wicknight wrote:

I think this thread's foundation is that you don't actually understand why certain things, such as shouting at someone, are actually social unacceptable.

Actually the point is that you don't understand that crying has an effect on others and the perception of the person being in front of somebody crying.

If I don't fear somebody shouting then nobody should! Wrong, right? If a crying woman makes me feel uncomfortable and makes people defend the crying person then it is equally wrong. THen it is socially unacceptable. It is reasonable for me to feel that way. It is unreasonable for somebody to have to put up with such lack of control.

I disagree with peopl who think cry is acceptable and that they think woman can't control it.

I understand people are more bothered by the actions than the loss of control I just don't think that makes a difference.

Shouting and crying aren't emotions and are very a like becasue they are loss of control. They induce an emotional response in the person who recieves it.

When I said you don't know the basic I meant phsycology. Stereotypes on the other hand have ther place in life and discussions

The big problem is woman will be defended if they get upset and cry. They lose control and they get better attention and the behaviour is therfore encouraged. A person in the wrong crying may actually get away with it as a result allowing people to intentionally manipulate or subconsiously. By allowing it lack of control is encouraged.

Earthhorse

Society is based on consensus though. So if enough people don't find crying a problem then it's "okay". I'm not saying it should be, simply saying it is.

On the other hand it would appear that we can't ignore people's anger - http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,66364,00.html?tw=wn_10techhead.

I wonder would a similar study into crying produce the same results.

Zombrex

MorningStar wrote:

Actually the point is that you don't understand that crying has an effect on others and the perception of the person being in front of somebody crying.

I know it has an effect, I am saying the effect is not necessarily social unacceptable, it depends on the specific circumstances, where as it is far more likely that most circumstances would make shouting socially unacceptable as it falls into the realm of aggression responses which are much less tolerated in society than any other forms of emotional responses.

I would put crying in the same league as laughing.. under some specific circumstances it is not acceptable, but in the majority it is because it is because it is relatively harmless. I would put shouting in a completely different league, as there are relatively few situations where it would be considered acceptable, no matter what the emotional state of the person.

You seem to be saying all emotional responses should be treated the same, whether a person is laughing, crying or screaming in someones face, and that all are equally unacceptable. As I have said a billions times, that is ridiculous.

MorningStar wrote:

If a crying woman makes me feel uncomfortable and makes people defend the crying person then it is equally wrong.

You seem to be talking about a specific example and then trying to apply it to all instances of people or women crying.

I might as well saying people should never laugh in a comedy club because I have seen, once, a person laugh at the wrong time, kill the momentum of the performance and make everyone uncomfortable.

MorningStar wrote:

It is reasonable for me to feel that way. It is unreasonable for somebody to have to put up with such lack of control.

Again, it depends on the exact circumstances. You seem to be talking about a specific example, where someone was crying (your girlfriend maybe?) and you got in trouble because people thought you did something. That is fair enough, but if you are saying it is unreasonable in general for someone to cry because of that specific event then I don't think you are going to get many supporters here. You are taking a specific event and trying to apply it in a totally unreasonable fashion, just as unreasonable as if I demanded no one laugh at the next Des Bishop show (maybe bad example), that they all control there responses, just in case someone laughed at the wrong time

MorningStar wrote:

I disagree with peopl who think cry is acceptable and that they think woman can't control it.

So you think people should just never cry?

MorningStar wrote:

I understand people are more bothered by the actions than the loss of control I just don't think that makes a difference.

Of course it makes a difference. If your wife leaves you no one would think it unacceptable if you got very upset, had a cry, were depressed. Lots of people would think it unacceptable if you called her house every hour screaming down the phone that she is a bi*tch.

MorningStar wrote:

Shouting and crying aren't emotions and are very a like becasue they are loss of control. They induce an emotional response in the person who recieves it.

But any interaction induces a response. Theres responses vary greatly depending on the intial interaction, and the interaction between crying and shouting is completely different, as I have already explained.

MorningStar wrote:

The big problem is woman will be defended if they get upset and cry.

"Defended" by who?? Again you are bringing your specific issue with a specific event into the general discussion. In general crying invokes a sympathetic response in people around you, this is the same if a man or woman is crying. The issue of defending someone does not enter into this unless you start bringing the issue down to specific circumstances.

MorningStar wrote:

They lose control and they get better attention and the behaviour is therfore encouraged.

What are you talking about?? Encourage by who? Better attention from who?? Better attention than who? Men in general? It sounds like you are jealous you feel no one listens when you cry ..

MorningStar wrote:

A person in the wrong crying may actually get away with it as a result allowing people to intentionally manipulate or subconsiously.

Again you are trying to apply a specific example to a general statement.

MorningStar wrote:

By allowing it lack of control is encouraged.

And ...?

Loss of emotional control by itself is not bad, or unacceptable. Remember that the next time you are laughing hysterically at a Jim Carrey movie, or crying like a baby at Bambie.

Zombrex

Earthhorse wrote:

Society is based on consensus though. So if enough people don't find crying a problem then it's "okay". I'm not saying it should be, simply saying it is.

On the other hand it would appear that we can't ignore people's anger - http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,66364,00.html?tw=wn_10techhead.

I wonder would a similar study into crying produce the same results.

A study was done that said it is very hard to ignore a crying child. This is why it can be so annoying on a train or bus, because it is against human nature to put it in the background and ignore it, while something like a men working on the road or, the sound of the train can be ignored even if it is just as loud.

We have an evolutionary system set up to be concerned if a child is crying, because in the wild the child would most likely be ours. The human ear is also most sensitive at the specific frequency range of a childs crying or screaming (I think it is something like 10 times more sensitive at this frequency than to adults talking, if I remember my college lectures correctly). Not surprising this effect was slightly stronger in women and men.

lazydaisy

The Corinthian wrote:

I’m not sensitive (apparently), however I know if name-calling goes unchecked what little debate remains in this thread will sink into a verbal abyss.

Why dont you take some of your own advice. You have compared me to a dog with rabies by referring to my response to your vile comments as "foam at the mouth." You have brought this thread to a whole new level with the "bend over a car" imagery.

MS,

Maybe you should have referred to social manipulation/emotional blackmail rather than crying publically because it might have made your point more clear. Crying, like laughter is so contextually determined its next to impossible to make a sweeping statement about it. Your language around this topic is scary. You say things like "by allowing it." What are you proposing? Making a law against it? If it makes you uncomfortable, then you have to find a way yourself to deal with it because you cannot control the tear ducts of other people. I do not get anxious when someone starts crying nor do many other people. If someone cries all you have to do is wait for them to get it out of their system and then you can talk to them. It is so harmless I dont understand what you're having trouble with. As WK said already you sound like your jealous.

The Corinthian

lazydaisy wrote:

Why dont you take some of your own advice. You have compared me to a dog with rabies by referring to my response to your vile comments as "foam at the mouth." You have brought this thread to a whole new level with the "bend over a car" imagery.

Are we done yet, or do you need to express yourself a little more before you calm down?

amp

This thread is now closed due to people carrying on little grudge match style debates with each other despite repeated warnings on the thread. Grow up people.