The Man Box

Walls

I would like to post this in the Gentleman's Lounge, but I don't think they are very receptive... But I know a lot of men visit this forum, and might find the following link really of interest. It certainly is food for thought for those who are parents...

Warning; Trigger, sexual assault.

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/04/10/whats-wrong-with-being-a-man/

I grew up in New York City, between Harlem and the Bronx. Growing up as a boy, we were taught that men had to be tough, had to be strong, had to be courageous, dominating — no pain, no emotions, with the exception of anger — and definitely no fear — that men are in charge, which means women are not; that men lead, and you should just follow and do what we say; that men are superior, women are inferior; that men are strong, women are weak; that women are of less value — property of men — and objects, particularly sexual objects. I’ve later come to know that to be the collective socialization of men, better known as the “man box.” See this man box has in it all the ingredients of how we define what it means to be a man. Now I also want to say, without a doubt, there are some wonderful, wonderful, absolutely wonderful things about being a man. But at the same time, there’s some stuff that’s just straight up twisted. And we really need to begin to challenge, look at it and really get in the process of deconstructing, redefining, what we come to know as manhood.

This is my two at home, Kendall and Jay. They’re 11 and 12. Kendall’s 15 months older than Jay. There was a period of time when my wife, her name is Tammie, and I, we just got real busy and whip, bam, boom: Kendall and Jay. (Laughter) And when they were about five and six, four and five, Jay could come to me, come to me crying. It didn’t matter what she was crying about, she could get on my knee, she could snot my sleeve up, just cry, cry it out. Daddy’s got you. That’s all that’s important.

Now Kendall on the other hand — and like I said, he’s only 15 months older than her — he came to me crying, it’s like as soon as I would hear him cry, a clock would go off. I would give the boy probably about 30 seconds, which means, by the time he got to me, I was already saying things like, “Why are you crying? Hold your head up. Look at me. Explain to me what’s wrong. Tell me what’s wrong. I can’t understand you. Why are you crying?” And out of my own frustration of my role and responsibility of building him up as a man to fit into these guidelines and these structures that are defining this man box, I would find myself saying things like, “Just go in your room. Just go on, go on in your room. Sit down, get yourself together and come back and talk to me when you can talk to me like a –” What? (Audience: Man.) “like a man.” And he’s five years old. And as I grow in life, I would say to myself, “My God, what’s wrong with me? What am I doing? Why would I this?” And I think back. I think back to my father.

There was a time in my life where we had a very troubled experience in our family. My brother, Henry, he died tragically when we were teenagers. We lived in New York City, as I said. We lived in the Bronx at the time. And the burial was in a place called Long Island, it was about two hours outside of the city. And as we were preparing to come back from the burial, the cars stopped at the bathroom to let folks take care of themselves before the long ride back to the city. And the limousine empties out. My mother, my sister, my auntie, they all get out, but my father and I stayed in the limousine. And no sooner than the women got out, he burst out crying. He didn’t want cry in front of me. But he knew he wasn’t going to make it back to the city, and it was better me than to allow himself to express these feelings and emotions in front of the women. And this is a man who, 10 minutes ago, had just put his teenage son in the ground — something I just can’t even imagine. The thing that sticks with me the most is that he was apologizing to me for crying in front of me. And at the same time, he was also giving me props, lifting me up, for not crying.

I come to also look at this as this fear that we have as men, this fear that just has us paralyzed, holding us hostage to this man box. I can remember speaking to a 12 year-old boy, a football player, and I asked him, I said, “How would you feel if, in front of all the players, your coach told you you were playing like a girl?” Now I expected him to say something like, I’d be sad, I’d be mad, I’d be angry, or something like that. No, the boy said to me — the boy said to me, “It would destroy me.” And I said to myself, “God, if it would destroy him to be called a girl, what are we then teaching him about girls?”

(Applause)

It took me back to a time when I was about 12 years old. I grew up in tenement buildings in the inner-city. At this time we’re living in the Bronx. And in the building next to where I lived there was a guy named Johnny. He was about 16 years old, and we were all about 12 years old — younger guys. And he was hanging out with all us younger guys. And this guy, he was up to a lot of no good. He was the kind of kid who parents would have to wonder, “What is this 16 year-old boy doing with these 12 year-old boys?” And he did spend a lot of time up to no good. He was a troubled kid. His mother had died from a heroin overdose. He was being raised by his grandmother. His father wasn’t on the set. His grandmother had two jobs. He was home alone a lot. But I’ve got to tell you, we young guys, we looked up to this dude. He was cool. He was fine. That’s what the sisters said, “He was fine.” He was having sex. We all looked up to him.

So one day, I’m out in front of the house doing something — just playing around, doing something — I don’t know what. He looks out his window, he calls me upstairs, he said, “Hey Anthony.” They called my Anthony growing up as a kid. “Hey Anthony, come on upstairs.” Johnny call, you go. So I run right upstairs. As he opens the door, he says to me, “Do you want some?” Now I immediately knew what he meant. Because for me growing up at that time, and our relationship with this man box, do you want some meant one of two things, sex or drugs — and we weren’t doing drugs. Now my box, card, man box card, was immediately in jeopardy. Two things: One, I never had sex. We don’t talk about that as men. You only tell your dearest, closest friend, sworn to secrecy for life, the first time you had sex. For everybody else, we go around like we’ve been having sex since we were two. There ain’t no first time. (Laughter) The other thing I couldn’t tell him is that I didn’t want any. That’s even worse. We’re supposed to always be on the prowl. Women are objects, especially sexual objects.

Anyway, so I couldn’t tell him any of that. So, like my mother would say, make a long story short. I just simply said to Johnny, “Yes.” He told me to go in his room. I go in his room. On his bed is a girl from the neighborhood named Sheila. She’s 16 years old. She’s nude. She’s what I know today to be mentally ill, higher functioning at times than others. We had a whole choice’s-worth of inappropriate names for her. Anyway, Johnny had just gotten through having sex with her. Well actually, he raped her, but he would say he had sex with her. Because, while Sheila never said no, she also never said yes.

So he was offering me the opportunity to do the same. So when I go in the room, I close the door. Folks, I’m petrified. I stand with my back to the door so Johnny can’t bust in the room and see that I’m not doing anything. And I stand there long enough that I could have actually done something. So now I’m no longer trying to figure out what I’m going to do, I’m trying to figure out how I’m going to get out of this room. So in my 12 years of wisdom, I zip my pants down, I walk out into the room. And lo and behold to me, while I was in the room with Sheila, Johnny was back at the window calling guys up. So now there’s a living room full of guys. It was like the waiting room in the doctor’s office. And they asked me how was it. And I say to them, “It was good.” And I zip my pants up in front of them, and I head for the door.

Now I say this all with remorse, and I was feeling a tremendous amount of remorse at that time, but I was conflicted, because, while I was feeling remorse, I was excited, because I didn’t get caught, but I knew I felt bad about what was happening. This fear getting outside the man box totally enveloped me. It was way more important to me, about me and my man box card than about Sheila and what was happening to her.

See collectively, we as men are taught to have less value in women, to view them as property and the objects of men. We see that as an equation that equals violence against women. We as men, good men, the large majority of men, we operate on the foundation of this whole collective socialization. We kind of see ourselves separate, but we’re very much a part of it. You see, we have to come to understand that less value, property and objectification is the foundation and the violence can’t happen without it. So we’re very much a part of the solution as well as the problem. The center for disease control says that men’s violence against women is at epidemic proportions, is the number one health concern for women in this country and abroad.

So quickly, I’d like to just say, this is the love of my life, my daughter Jay. The world I envision for her, how do I want men to be acting and behaving? I need you on board. I need you with me. I need you working with me and me working with you on how we raise our sons and teach them to be men — that it’s okay to not be dominating, that it’s okay to have feelings and emotions, that it’s okay to promote equality, that it’s okay to have women who are just friends and that’s it, that it’s okay to be whole, that my liberation as a man is tied to your liberation as a woman.

I remember asking a nine year-old boy. I asked a nine year-old boy, “What would life be like for you, if you didn’t have to adhere to this man box?” He said to me, “I would be free.”

Thank you folks.

(Applause)

SheRa

Id imagine that people wouldnt be very receptive here either.

Its very patronising towards men, actually worse than that, its scaremongering.

Morag

That's the transcript from the TedTalk which was also but on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gildCVqkX7Y

Being parents who try and not pass on on negative gender stereotypes I think is very important.
Makes me laugh when people try and be scornful about being a feminist and stay at home mother.

cantdecide

So, objectification of women = bad

omniscient_toad

I remember asking a nine year-old boy. I asked a nine year-old boy, “What would life be like for you, if you didn’t have to adhere to this man box?” He said to me, “I would be free.”

It's not that the general message conveyed is itself wrong (ie men/women/various cultures etc should think beyond their cultural programming) but the style veers into the hysterical and absurd (particularly the above quote, it's bizarre)

Wibbs

SheRa wrote: »

Its very patronising towards men, actually worse than that, its scaremongering.

This. I'd go further and say it's largely bollocks. This isn't about whataboutery or any of that. It's simpler than that. We're not all high functioning retard rapists. We don't all want to share our emotions at the drop of a bloody hat, just because that's deemed healthy at the moment. We don't all have some "man guilt" over being born with external gonads and feel we need to emote like some self hating man to make excuses for some of our past mistakes. We didn't all come from some fcuked up damaged childhood looking for something to blame and when magical thinking failed then looked to our gender. Might work in Oprah addled faculties and trailer parks of Amerika, but for me get back to us when the argument is less daft, less a product of damage and actually offers solutions instead breast beating guilt tourism.

I would add; what is this issue these days with actually growing a pair and getting the hell on with things? Said pair can be internal you know? Mostly are I've found of late.

EDIT, that whole thing could be as much about the utterly daft competitive guff the yanks obsess about and how dog eat dog their culture is as it is about gender. When watching anything from the US it's best to filter it through that first and then see what flavour comes out. There are lots of things to admire about US culture, but that shíte ain't one of them.

Sibylla

I think it's quite offensive towards men. We cannot generalise and make these assumptions when they are hopelessly inaccurate.

Wibbs

Sibylla wrote: »

We cannot generalise and make these assumptions when they are hopelessly inaccurate.

Oh I would say it's slightly accurate for a small group and within a culture and that does need attention, but it doesn't bear a closer eye nor extrapolation without fading a fair bit.

MissFlitworth

I remember asking a nine year-old boy. I asked a nine year-old boy, “What would life be like for you, if you didn’t have to adhere to this man box?” He said to me, “I would be free.”

hmmmm.. that's a suspiciously eloquent 9 year old there. I would have thought the standard 9 year old response to that question would be something like "MAMMMMMY, MAMMMMMMMY this man wants me to look at his man box..."

amacachi

Wibbs wrote: »

I would add; what is this issue these days with actually growing a pair and getting the hell on with things? Said pair can be internal you know? Mostly are I've found of late.

Growing a pair or getting a prescription from the doctor?

I agree with your sentiment though, and the current national situation is getting on my nerves listening to people give out about "the government" while also discussing a house they may buy in the South of France and then complaining about poor medical facilities for their kids.
Without meaning to get too far off topic it seems like it's something that's permeated us from US culture, every problem needs to be talked to death.

strobe

sigh... there's 2 minutes of my life I am never going to get back.

pickarooney

Shoot me if you want but I thought the whole article seemed to more about being a black American than being a man.

LittleBook

pickarooney wrote: »

Shoot me if you want but I thought the whole article seemed to more about being a black American than being a man.

To narrow it even further, a black American man growing up in The Projects.

metrovelvet

I dont think this is offensive at all. Its very honest about how men are socialised in working class urban areas by their peers.

A certain amount of desensitisation is necessary to survive in them.

The article was honest and poignant in my opinion and a lot of boys growing up in working class or poor urban areas are socialised into a certain box, one where you are demoted in the neighborhood if you do well in school, if you even show up for school, and it is about how many women you bang and how cut off you are from your feelings.

Where does it say this man is black or the neighborhood is black?

metrovelvet

MissFlitworth wrote: »

hmmmm.. that's a suspiciously eloquent 9 year old there. I would have thought the standard 9 year old response to that question would be something like "MAMMMMMY, MAMMMMMMMY this man wants me to look at his man box..."

What's a man box?

LittleBook

metrovelvet wrote: »

I dont think this is offensive at all. Its very honest about how men are socialised in working class urban areas by their peers.

A certain amount of desensitisation is necessary to survive in them.

The article was honest and poignant in my opinion and a lot of boys growing up in working class or poor urban areas are socialised into a certain box, one where you are demoted in the neighborhood if you do well in school, if you even show up for school, and it is about how many women you bang and how cut off you are from your feelings.

Agreed. It reminds me of articles I've read on how young French men cope in their "projects". Even the incident with "Sheila" reminds me of a French novella I read years ago with a similar incident but can't for the life of me remember the name.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Where does it say this man is black or the neighborhood is black?

I know Tony Porter is black and the areas where he grew up which are mentinoned in the speech are, as far as I know, predominantly black although I wouldn't say the kind of conditioning he's talking about applies ONLY to blacks.

Walls

Hey all. I posted this and headed off to bed, and see where a lot of you are coming from. (I should also point out I only read the transcript, didn't see the film, so I wasn't aware of the style when I posted it).

So I agree with a lot of ye. There's a huge amount here to chuck out as not remotely relating to Irish people. Still though, is there anything to what he says at all? Any blokes wish there were less constrictive views on what makes a man, or do you feel there is no such rule at all? And if there is such a rule, do you see it amongst yourselves, in the medja, in how you raise your kids?

Ta to all who responded.

metrovelvet

I got the impression too it is a black neighborhood but then I couldn't find anything that said it directly.

This kind of thing happens in working class white neighborhoods too. I don't think it does any harm to acknowlege or point out the unfair pressures that young boys are put under to their own detriment and harm in these systems.

Maybe this kind of thing doesnt happen in Dublin or other Irish urban areas, I dont know, or maybe it remains invisible.

*You also see it in fraternity cultures in big universities.

I would also say, as a single mother who has to raise a boy into a man, this is exactly why I would go out of my way NOT to live in a working class urban area. I know that may sound bad, but I would rather live in the burbs or the country, where I don't have to fight the uphill battle of male self destruction.

RedXIV

Thing is though, when I started reading this I kinda got an insight into a more general version of this "man box" before he started all the rape stories.

Its true, in my experience, that the world is less tolerant of guys "sobbing it out",as opposed to girls doing the same. We do tend to set up these "man rules" that seem to in actual fact create a level playing field among men where problems are not really discussed in public and instead, you play it cool. I remember lying about the first time I kissed a girl in school because of the inevitable label of "gay" or "frigid" if I didn't.

So we do have these constraints on male society. But in saying that, I'm happy with them. Possibly I'm brainwashed but I'm one of the old school, just get on with it, types. I didn't have a lot of time for this metreosexual wave that came through and all the talk about men getting in touch with their feminine side just irritated me. There are probably some aspects of the seemingly mandatory male persona that I'd like to change but to be honest, I think the mandatory female one is worse? Not for any deep social reason but just because I couldn't possibly bring myself to put that much effort into appearance that seems to come natural to 90% of women

LittleBook

RedXIV wrote: »

Thing is though, when I started reading this I kinda got an insight into a more general version of this "man box" before he started all the rape stories.

Agreed. I (and I will guess many other men and women) could completely empathise and sympathise with the part relating to his son and how he treats/treated him differently to his daughter and his father who couldn't express his emotion in front of women.

But my field was narrowed down when he went back to his childhood.

Also, I don't know any man* who was raised so explicitly to believe that "men are superior, women are inferior; that men are strong, women are weak; that women are of less value — property of men — and objects, particularly sexual objects".

Which could mean that (for at least some part) the "man box" issues he's alluding to aren't confined to his own social class and upbringing.

*Religion aside, speaking only socially.

Wibbs

metrovelvet wrote: »

I dont think this is offensive at all. Its very honest about how men are socialised in working class urban areas by their peers.

A certain amount of desensitisation is necessary to survive in them.

Yea but too often "honest" these days has hysterical exaggeration and fear coming along for the ride. US culture is famous for this. Watch US TV for any length of time and the level of fear mongering about all sorts of guff is off the bloody scale.

This kind of thing happens in working class white neighborhoods too. I don't think it does any harm to acknowlege or point out the unfair pressures that young boys are put under to their own detriment and harm in these systems.

Oh it does, but again I think it's as much to do with American culture and it's pressures and confusions. So an American male on the one hand is told he should be emoting all over the place, a sensitive soul, yet on the other hand is expected to "pay his way" and be a "winner" or forget about getting or keeping a wife. And if he does get and support a family he can be divorced and lose literally everything on a whim. Bad enough as it can be here or anywhere, I would not like to be a young man in the US. No way and a young man of colour? Fcuk no.

RedXIV wrote:

So we do have these constraints on male society. But in saying that, I'm happy with them. Possibly I'm brainwashed but I'm one of the old school, just get on with it, types. I didn't have a lot of time for this metreosexual wave that came through and all the talk about men getting in touch with their feminine side just irritated me.

This. Hey good luck to you if that's your bag and I won't judge you for it*, but don't assume others are the same. I too have a pain in my face with the dafter end of the metrosexual stuff, that somehow I'm not a real/new man if I'm not emoting with my fellow men banging a drum in a forest in the nip crying for my lost "female" side. Sod off.

My father was born in 1917(not a typo) so not some happy clappie hippie type and I never got the big boys dont cry crap from him. Nor anything else yer man described. I also knew "working class" lads and didn't get that macho guff to the degree he was going on about. Indeed my rugger bugger mates were worse for it. I dunno, I think there's too much Oprahesque guilt tourism(I'd be shocked if that hand wringer hadn't had this guy on yet) based on a narrow cultural and experience angle.




*Not quite true. It depends on the level. If it strays to whining territory I'll switch off, regardless of your gender.

metrovelvet

Wibbs wrote: »

Yea but too often "honest" these days has hysterical exaggeration and fear coming along for the ride. US culture is famous for this. Watch US TV for any length of time and the level of fear mongering about all sorts of guff is off the bloody scale.

That article, I can tell you is not an exaggeration. It doesnt represent the entire United States by any stretch, but it is pretty accurate about certain parts of it.

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh it does, but again I think it's as much to do with American culture and it's pressures and confusions. So an American male on the one hand is told he should be emoting all over the place, a sensitive soul, yet on the other hand is expected to "pay his way" and be a "winner" or forget about getting or keeping a wife. And if he does get and support a family he can be divorced and lose literally everything on a whim. Bad enough as it can be here or anywhere, I would not like to be a young man in the US. No way and a young man of colour? Fcuk no.

The pressures are coming from different directions. The article talks about pressures on boys and men from other boys and men and he illustrates what these pressures are, and they are not as strong outside of tough working class or poor areas where survivorship is an issue.

There is a lot of misinformation about courts and divorce in the US. Seriously, he cant lose everthing on a whim. 50/50 of what is obtained during the marriage and that is it. And women are paying the alimony now too ya know.

In reality I dont think the American man is being told to emote all over the place. Its still a business oriented and competitive culture so that doesnt fit in at all with emoting all over the place.

Morag

It wasn't usa tv.
It was a ted talk.

http://www.ted.com/pages/about

TED is a nonprofit devoted to Ideas Worth Spreading. It started out (in 1984) as a conference bringing together people from three worlds: Technology, Entertainment, Design. Since then its scope has become ever broader. Along with two annual conferences -- the TED Conference in Long Beach and Palm Springs each spring, and the TEDGlobal conference in Edinburgh UK each summer -- TED includes the award-winning TEDTalks video site, the Open Translation Project and TED Conversations, the inspiring TED Fellows and TEDx programs, and the annual TED Prize.

The annual TED conferences, in Long Beach/Palm Springs and Edinburgh, bring together the world's most fascinating thinkers and doers, who are challenged to give the talk of their lives (in 18 minutes or less).

While a lot of people here find little in that to relate to, those notions and being a 'man' are part of life for many in Ireland esp in the inner city and the sprawling suburbs where boys grow into men with out good male role models and fall into gangs. Which is pretty much what he's describing above.

The rape of a minor in her own home by the 'mates' of her brother while her parent was at work happened on my road when I was growing up and things got worse after that so that my parent moved away asap.

Also the trading of a girlfriend for a something one guy wanted who was fedup of her.
Just like she was property.

We do have gangs becoming more and more of a problem in certain parts, we'd a 16 year old who lives near by talked into trying to down half a bottle of vodak Paddy's day
by his 'mates' and ended up in hospital in an alcohol induced coma.

I will never tell my son to suck it up as a man but I will also never tell him he's a crying like a girl. I believe we can rear our kids to be good people, reliable, responsible and respectful with out that.

Wibbs

metrovelvet wrote: »

That article, I can tell you is not an exaggeration. It doesnt represent the entire United States by any stretch, but it is pretty accurate about certain parts of it.

OK but then why extend this out to the rest of American manhood, never mind the rest of the world? This is what I mean by this exaggeration and fear mongering that is part and parcel of that culture. The "circle the wagons" mindset. Even where there's no injuns.

There is a lot of misinformation about courts and divorce in the US. Seriously, he cant lose everthing on a whim. 50/50 of what is obtained during the marriage and that is it. And women are paying the alimony now too ya know.

really? How many divorces in the US are instigated by men? How expensive does it get in the US on the legal bills front? What about the so called male led marriage strike trend in the US? Wonder why that is? What is the suicide rate of post divorce american men compared to women? I'll give you that one; it's four times higher. Yet it's 50/50? I will say though MV that daft as it can be over there, it's as bad or worse over here, where men have even less protection.

In reality I dont think the American man is being told to emote all over the place. Its still a business oriented and competitive culture so that doesnt fit in at all with emoting all over the place

That's my point MV, he is. On the one hand a good chunk of the media is telling him to emote and on the other he's living in a dog eat dog culture where it doesnt take much to be go from boardroom to bum. Its a confusing enough time and it's a confusion that appears to be spreading.

Wibbs

Sharrow wrote: »

We do have gangs becoming more and more of a problem in certain parts, we'd a 16 year old who lives near by talked into trying to down half a bottle of vodak Paddy's day
by his 'mates' and ended up in hospital in an alcohol induced coma.

This stuff is a worry S. Like you said a lot of it is the lack of good male role models. The thing is I disagree with much of the whys being posited. I think we need more quiet maleness than metrosexual emotive stuff. We need the help of men raising our kids, not just women and absent male twats.

I believe we can rear our kids to be good people, reliable, responsible and respectful with out that.

I agree. It's the how is the trick.

metrovelvet

Wibbs wrote: »

OK but then why extend this out to the rest of American manhood, never mind the rest of the world? This is what I mean by this exaggeration and fear mongering that is part and parcel of that culture. The "circle the wagons" mindset. Even where there's no injuns.

Wibbs, when I read that, I did not feel fear or that it was trying to inspire fear. I just nodded along in agreement with a lot of it, having been exposed to these neighborhoods, though I did not grow up in them. The article didnt scare me at all.

I've seen similar things in other working class urban neighborhoods too. Again this article isnt scary, just an acknowlegement that people are raising their boys differently to their girls and the pressure is largely from other men/boys in these machismo areas. No one wants to be a pussy right?

Just look at our culture, American football, Frat boys, hip hop culture, hazing, etc of the American suburb too.

Wibbs wrote: »

really? How many divorces in the US are instigated by men? How expensive does it get in the US on the legal bills front? What about the so called male led marriage strike trend in the US? Wonder why that is? What is the suicide rate of post divorce american men compared to women? I'll give you that one; it's four times higher. Yet it's 50/50? I will say though MV that daft as it can be over there, it's as bad or worse over here, where men have even less protection.

I dont know the statistics wibbs. I know divorces are expensive because lawyers dont want to get involved in family law because it is so stressful and impossible and if you need a hlaf decent family lawyer you will have to pay through the nose because supply is low on the ground [and that is in a city like New York which is awash with lawyers, one to every 87 people I believe]. No one wants to do family law so the ones that do can charge what they like.

At the same time our courts are very accessible, we even have e court now, so you can get the basic and simple things done yourself over there, that over here you would need a barrister and solicitor for, like a simple dna test. A paternity test has to go through the circuit court here, requiring a solictor and a barrister. Not in the US, you show up for court, you petition for paternity [dad or mom can do this] and the blood test is ordered. No lawyers needed.

Wibbs wrote: »

That's my point MV, he is. On the one hand a good chunk of the media is telling him to emote and on the other he's living in a dog eat dog culture where it doesnt take much to be go from boardroom to bum. Its a confusing enough time and it's a confusion that appears to be spreading.

What do you mean 'the media is telling him?"

Morag

By being aware of the whole gendered bullshít to start with and noticing how it effects our behaviours and what we do. You start by being aware and changing how you think about people and kids and your own attitudes towards people based on gendered assumptions and then once you know you've had on those blinkers and you work on taking them off you try and make sure the same blinkered view of the world doesn't happen to your kids.

The Ted talk is that man speaking about how he was blinkered by gendered thinking, how it shaped him and his family, how it caused his father to behave and him to behave as a father until he saw how such thinking cut him and his children off from being happy and many opportunities in life.

He calls it the man box, I call it blinkers.

We see it with the whole stud/slut attitudes.
Also when a child comes to thier parent and says they want to be a nurse.
If it's a girl then it's considered a calling and a tough job but they will support her.
If it's a boy then they wonder what's wrong and why he wasn't a woman's job and not to be a dr.

Blinkered gender thinking hurts us all, it restricts how we think and what we think we can do and be, and what we think others can do and be.

As for absent male twats, well the father can be living in the home and still be an absent idiot, who doesn't get involved with his kids other then to pass on and re enforce the same 'traditional' thinking.
A boy can have his father living in the family home and still not have a good male role model in his life.

Wibbs

metrovelvet wrote: »

Wibbs, when I read that, I did not feel fear or that it was trying to inspire fear. I just nodded along in agreement with a lot of it, having been exposed to these neighborhoods, though I did not grow up in them. The article didnt scare me at all.

I was speaking more about the culture of fear that is a large chunk of US culture and how that is spreading. There's also a western general thing of handwringing and misery porn. Even in the very worst neighbourhood it's still a minority that are at this extreme and a minority of mad male behaviour too. It's not restricted to there, though that's where the focus can be and you do tend to get more parents who are obviously and publicly unfit. But Sharrows example of an alchoholic induced stupor in a 16 year old? I was raised in a middle class neighbourhood and schooled privately with all mod cons and two guys in my year alone ended up in similar straits. And remember the lad who was savagely kicked to death outside a middle class nightclub? Not a "working class" kid to be seen.

I've seen similar things in other working class urban neighborhoods too. Again this article isnt scary, just an acknowlegement that people are raising their boys differently to their girls and the pressure is largely from other men/boys in these machismo areas. No one wants to be a pussy right?

True but this is where I take issue. The women, their mothers, their sisters and their girlfriends shoulder some responsibility too. IE a lot of this macho behaviour is for the sake of young women and attracting same.

In a lot of these cases it is women raising these men, so what are they doing wrong/need to be doing differently/taught more about men? In a lot of these delinquent cases they do come from one parent families where the father is in gaol or simply gone. A young man is also more likely to run afoul of the law coming from such a family. They're being raised by women, so where are they getting this macho stuff?

I dont know the statistics wibbs.

Check em out and see what I mean when I snigger a bit at the 50/50 part.

What do you mean 'the media is telling him?"

There are a lot of conflicting signals being pumped at us all by the media.

Sharrow wrote:

As for absent male twats, well the father can be living in the home and still be an absent idiot, who doesn't get involved with his kids other then to pass on and re enforce the same 'traditional' thinking.
A boy can have his father living in the family home and still not have a good male role model in his life.

True. Plus it seems young men also need in an ideal world good male role models that aren't their fathers. They do seem to need more rearing than young women in that regard.

Why exactly do you think that the Gentleman's Chambers isn't very receptive, OP?

Morag

Deleted User wrote: »

Why exactly do you think that the Gentleman's Chambers isn't very receptive, OP?

Well if you think it would fly there you could post it yourself

I can understand why they would not be receptive to this. It's basically me, as a male, posting an extraordinarily sexist article in this forum. Yet the OP gave across the impression that they weren't receptive in general.

Morag

I don't want to fall foul of the rules about not discussing other forums, nor would I want to speak for the op, but when I saw that tedtalk (as I am subscribed to the youtube channel on it) I tought about posting it in tGC but didn't as I felt it would be locked and not discussed as it would be seen as attacking men in general and that the take on life which is being presented by that man would be to alien to a lot of the posters and the topic of how gendered thinking limits people would not be discussed.

Do you think the piece is sexist?

The Sparrow

Seems to me that whilst this article may not be directly relevant to the majority of Irish men, there is a problem here with masculinity and young Irish males. The horrendous suicide rate in Ireland suggests that as a society we do put undue pressure on young men.

Obviously the reasons for the high suicide rate in Ireland are difficult to ascertain without significant research. However, it is equally clear that as a society, Ireland has a huge problem with alienating and failing vulnerable young males.

So I wouldn't completely dismiss the article as only applying to the US.

@Sharrow

One of the problems facing young men is that if you express any feelings or emotions, you are somewhat seen as being less of a man, or "gay" (while there is nothing wrong with being homosexual in any way, this can be an extraordinarily painful insult to a young male growing up, as terrible a thing as that is). So we wouldn't talk about it, or address it, or solve it and the problem grows.

@Sharrow - the piece may not be entirely sexist and possibly that wasn't the right word to choose - how about my creating a thread here detailing how women are overly emotional and whatnot. While people here are receptive, that kind of thread would not be received well and thus locked.

donfers

Deleted User wrote: »

One of the problems facing young men is that if you express any feelings or emotions, you are somewhat seen as being less of a man, or "gay" (while there is nothing wrong with being homosexual in any way, this can be an extraordinarily painful insult to a young male growing up, as terrible a thing as that is). So we wouldn't talk about it, or address it, or solve it and the problem grows.

@Sharrow - the piece may not be entirely sexist and possibly that wasn't the right word to choose - how about my creating a thread here detailing how women are overly emotional and whatnot. While people here are receptive, that kind of thread would not be received well and thus locked.

the article isn't that bad, let's not get too defensive about it, as far as I am concerned it's the usual "save the world by crying" cliched overly simplistic, crazy-liberal, jingoistically populist, excessively sentimental American bollox....but I could be wrong and that stuff could be worthwhile for certain people who are emotionally repressed although taking it from one extreme to the other is never the solution in my opinion

incidentally I am 99% certain tgc would have had no problem with you posting this thread there, they would only have locked it if guys chimed in suggesting it was sexist or misogynist which could well have happened, they ain't so different from this forum at all in my view, apologies fo talking about other forums but the issue did come up and i don't believe I have insulted them in any way

metrovelvet

Wibbs wrote: »

I was speaking more about the culture of fear that is a large chunk of US culture and how that is spreading. There's also a western general thing of handwringing and misery porn. Even in the very worst neighbourhood it's still a minority that are at this extreme and a minority of mad male behaviour too. It's not restricted to there, though that's where the focus can be and you do tend to get more parents who are obviously and publicly unfit. But Sharrows example of an alchoholic induced stupor in a 16 year old? I was raised in a middle class neighbourhood and schooled privately with all mod cons and two guys in my year alone ended up in similar straits. And remember the lad who was savagely kicked to death outside a middle class nightclub? Not a "working class" kid to be seen.

Thats interesting that you think of the US and its culture of fear, because living over in Ireland it feels to me like everyone lives in fear, fear of offending, fear of rocking the boat, fear and suspicion of a parochial kind. I cant quite put my finger on it, but I feel it, far more than I ever did falling asleep on the subway having had one too many margueritas. Maybe because I dont trust the law here, the authorities, it all seems so haphazard and whimsical. Maybe I read The Field too many times. Maybe the fear of Hell still hangs in the air.

I know this is not exclusive to the working class masculinities either [althoug some feminists such as Camille Paglia argue that the working classes are the only ones allowed to me masculine and everyone else has been turned into eunachs], which is why I mentioned frat boys, and the hazing that goes on boarding schools and colleges.

Wibbs wrote: »

True but this is where I take issue. The women, their mothers, their sisters and their girlfriends shoulder some responsibility too. IE a lot of this macho behaviour is for the sake of young women and attracting same.

In a lot of these cases it is women raising these men, so what are they doing wrong/need to be doing differently/taught more about men? In a lot of these delinquent cases they do come from one parent families where the father is in gaol or simply gone. A young man is also more likely to run afoul of the law coming from such a family. They're being raised by women, so where are they getting this macho stuff?

I dont look at children of single parents in isolation. In other words you have to look at the missing piece too.

If they are raised in a culture where women are secondary and inferior, they are hardly going to take much notice of what their mother's say are they? The mothers have a losing battle in a culture like that. If they run foul of the law, its not always because of the mother but because of the environment [monkee see, monkey do], because of peer pressure into crime, or because they are poor and need the money. They get it from their peers and older boys.

Wibbs wrote: »

True. Plus it seems young men also need in an ideal world good male role models that aren't their fathers. They do seem to need more rearing than young women in that regard.

I definitely agree with the role models. It is essential. Like I said above, monkey see, monkey do. They need their dads for this, but in the absence of this what are the answers? If the dad is in prison, that is his role model. In these areas its easy to think one is trapped in a destiny driven by statistics and awful paradigms. You have to fight your way out of that.

Walls

The reason I posted this was because I think (and this is a subjective belief) that there is a nicely pat view of masculinity and that maybe it isn't that simple. I think that to say men are X or Y is to harm them, and that it is no bad thing to suggest now and again that a man should be allowed broader definitions to live with. Most of the time though I think that the majority of men hate discussions of this type. Sometimes it seems to me that 'Masculinity' is seen as a gift or a trait, which is why people will say 'She cut his balls off' or similar; the implication is that to be a man is to be strong in the eyes of others and when you aren't seen as strong, that's that, you are no longer a man.

The reason I didn't post it in the Gentlemen's Lounge is that I don't think they want to talk about themselves in this way (yes, I will happily acknowledge that this is subjective too). I think they don't see beyond the roles they inhabit, or are given, and when someone asks if they want to discuss it, they shut down the discussion - again, I'm aware talking about other forums isn't allowed so I'm trying to walk a fine line here.

My experience is that men would much rather be hurt physically rather than be weak, or be less of a man, or to live in an emotional landscape where they talk and live their feelings. Some do, but most don't. I remember hearing about one person in Norn Iron saying, as they heard a bomb go off, "There is the sound of men holding in their feelings". So I want to talk about this. I want to hear what men feel, I would like men to acknowledge that they do feel, and feel deeply. I don't want a man to be more 'womanly', I want a man to be a free man. I want both my son and my daughter (don't have kids, these are my hypothetical perfect ones in the future) to not feel the need to hurt themselves by hiding their feelings and that the world is big enough to hear about all of them, not just some outdated ideal that no one can live up to.

There you have it.

Wibbs

Walls wrote: »

I would like men to acknowledge that they do feel, and feel deeply.

And that's great, but then you have to acknowledge that not all of us do feel or feel that deeply or if we do that we don't feel the need or want to be going around sharing that with all and sundry. Some of us are very happy to keep our own council.

I don't want a man to be more 'womanly',

I disagree. IMHO that's precisely what you're looking for. Or at least to meet you in the middle. To be free to be more "womanly". Give the "average woman" the opportunity to tell others, even complete strangers about her feelings at the time and off she'll happily go. The "average man" will not. It's not because we don't have the language to do so, (there are enough male poets, artists et al that knock that on the head) but that we simply don't have as much of a need to do so socially. Or at least a goodly chunk of us don't.

I want a man to be a free man.

So do I, but that must mean that if said man(tm) wants to keep his own council and not go over Every. Little. Nuance. Of. His. Inner. Feelings, then he should be left the hell alone to do so and not considered emotionally stunted because of it. Just like if another man wants to spill his guts to release inner tensions etc then go man go with my blessing.

In a way Walls I would like some meet in the middle. Too many women in my experience go on ad bloody nauseum about how they're feeling, day in, day bloody out. You know it gets old folks, a game of emotional cry wolf. Get over yourself. And like you said too many men in my experience do clam up and say nothing while taking it out on others or even being so screwed up they end up killing themselves(don't get me started on those idiots who take their family with them). Again get over yourselves.

TL;DR? Just because you feel the need to share(or not), don't expect the other gender to feel the same(or not). That's actual freedom.

Walls

Wibbs wrote: »

In a way Walls I would like some meet in the middle. Too many women in my experience go on ad bloody nauseum about how they're feeling, day in, day bloody out. You know it gets old folks, a game of emotional cry wolf. Get over yourself. And like you said too many men in my experience do clam up and say nothing while taking it out on others or even being so screwed up they end up killing themselves(don't get me started on those idiots who take their family with them). Again get over yourselves.

TL;DR? Just because you feel the need to share(or not), don't expect the other gender to feel the same(or not). That's actual freedom.

Wibbs you always make sense, but I do have a response to make. If we all live in a society that rejects a man's right to have feelings, then it doesn't matter how a guy feels, he is going to feel obligated to hide his emotions. If a society is repressed, either for men or for women, then people will hide themselves from criticism. The only way to allow people to be free to be themselves is deliberately push back the limits; and for some that means you're going to make people uncomfortable. Why do we need to do this, they'll ask. This is emotional incontinence, nothing more! In the meantime, other folks get the chance to say and do things they don't get to do otherwise.

I know it seems weird, and unnecessary. But I think it is necessary, and ultimately does less harm than having others forced into silence.

metrovelvet

Ouch Wibbs. Harsh.

@Walls,

My theory on what you are saying is men have been in the public sphere far far longer than we have and its demanded they play a certain amount of poker face. As time goes by, the longer we spend in the public sphere we will become as garded as the men are. It was a foolish thing for Ms Clinton to cry in public thats for sure. You need to repress to survive. The larger the stakes the more you need to repress.

We've been living in the emotional sphere because we are assigned childcare where reading emotional queues are necessary to the survival of the babies.

The shrinks should hear the sounds of change rattling getting louder and louder.

I think Wibbs makes a very good point though. I have seen myself and others fall into the trap of expecting or maybe assuming that you can get the same emotional support, response. exchanges whatever you want to call it, from men that you can from women and then end up frustrated and dump their boyfriends, when really the wise thing to remember [though hard to] is that you will never get what you get from your girlfriends in this regard.

RedXIV

Walls wrote: »

Wibbs you always make sense, but I do have a response to make. If we all live in a society that rejects a man's right to have feelings, then it doesn't matter how a guy feels, he is going to feel obligated to hide his emotions. If a society is repressed, either for men or for women, then people will hide themselves from criticism. The only way to allow people to be free to be themselves is deliberately push back the limits; and for some that means you're going to make people uncomfortable. Why do we need to do this, they'll ask. This is emotional incontinence, nothing more! In the meantime, other folks get the chance to say and do things they don't get to do otherwise.

I know it seems weird, and unnecessary. But I think it is necessary, and ultimately does less harm than having others forced into silence.

The problem here is that while you have a minority at the moment forced to silence, the solution is NOT to force the majority to talk about it. Its possible that its the age old argument that men don't get women and vice versa but a massive amount of us really don't see the need or feel the obligation to share feelings. If something needs to be said, i'll say it once and then i'm done. This is fairly infuriating to my gf and with your example, the solution is for me to talk at length about my feelings. In mine, its to take what is said on board and move on.

Obviously people are gonna say meet in the middle but to be honest, feck that, i compromise on enough things to know the one thing I don't want in a relationship is to have to sit down on a regular basis and discuss our feelings. That'd be a deal breaker for me

Walls

RedXIV wrote: »

If something needs to be said, i'll say it once and then i'm done. This is fairly infuriating to my gf and with your example, the solution is for me to talk at length about my feelings. In mine, its to take what is said on board and move on.

Obviously people are gonna say meet in the middle but to be honest, feck that, i compromise on enough things to know the one thing I don't want in a relationship is to have to sit down on a regular basis and discuss our feelings. That'd be a deal breaker for me

Nah, not a bit of it. I'm not talking about men talking in depth about their feelings in the context of a relationship, I'm talking (and I think the original link was referring to) a view of masculinity that bound men up into acting one way and one way only, and that punished men from stepping outside the accepted way of acting. It isn't about 'relationships' at all, it is more fundamental than that.

pickarooney

I'd be of the opinion that in general men share their feelings just as much as women but in a less overt, verbose manner. I've often spent a couple of hours with a male friend and not talked for long periods or talked about (ostensibly) the most inane stuff but I'd wager I've picked up more on how he's feeling that if he spent two hours jawing about his relationship with his mother.

Wibbs

metrovelvet wrote: »

You need to repress to survive. The larger the stakes the more you need to repress.

Yea but my point is MV maybe a fair few folks out there male and female aren't actually "repressing". That's just the way they are and how they filter life.

We've been living in the emotional sphere because we are assigned childcare where reading emotional queues are necessary to the survival of the babies.

I dunno, one could argue that evolution also primed men to be aware of the emotional cues of both women and offspring. Maybe I dont quite buy that, though I do hear were you're coming from.

I think Wibbs makes a very good point though.

I have my moments .

I have seen myself and others fall into the trap of expecting or maybe assuming that you can get the same emotional support, response. exchanges whatever you want to call it, from men that you can from women and then end up frustrated and dump their boyfriends, when really the wise thing to remember [though hard to] is that you will never get what you get from your girlfriends in this regard.

OK little secret here or at least what I've learned over the years as a generally consistent thing? You want a pretty good chance at having a woman lose interest in you over time? Give her the same emotional support, response and exchanges as she would get from her girlfriends. IMHO and IME in the emotional openness arena what many women say they would like is not what they actually respond to.

Stheno

Deleted User wrote: »

One of the problems facing young men is that if you express any feelings or emotions, you are somewhat seen as being less of a man, or "gay" (while there is nothing wrong with being homosexual in any way, this can be an extraordinarily painful insult to a young male growing up, as terrible a thing as that is). So we wouldn't talk about it, or address it, or solve it and the problem grows.

Funny way to relate to it, but the bf's son (21) and I would tend to go out and booze watching rugby and we will chat about an awful lot of stuff, it's an unspoken agreement that it goes no further, not even to his father, and as a consequence he will often ask my opinion on anything from techie stuff to how to deal with particular situationsl.

@Sharrow - the piece may not be entirely sexist and possibly that wasn't the right word to choose - how about my creating a thread here detailing how women are overly emotional and whatnot. While people here are receptive, that kind of thread would not be received well and thus locked.

I've recently posted a thread about women managers and a study showing they show preference to male employees, so I would welcome a thread such as you suggest experiences of women on the forum might negate that theory

metrovelvet

You know what, on reflection, I think I get what you are talking about Wibbs- about people who do not SHUT UP. I even had to say to one of them "I think its time to get back on the couch." The weird thing is that the worst culprits I know who do this, happen to be men. Five years later and they are still going on and on an on about the same old ****...And then I know men who dont do it at all and you wouldnt have a clue what was going on...kind of like encounters with people [men and women] from the south of England if you get me.

It's cultural and generational too. There are different things we are permitted to express and things we are expected to squash down and suck up. Wasn't it once upon a time considered rude to talk about yourself? Now... forget about it. At the same time being from an open culture, I get confused by the codes even still in Ireland, where language is used to cover up, rather than disclose.

And for your last point, yes you have pointed out a weird doublebind that men are in regarding openness and emotional interactions. Give her the same emotional meat as one of her girlfriends and he becomes one of her girlfriends. Ugh an awful truth and yes wibbs you do have your moments.

Stheno

metrovelvet wrote: »

It's cultural and generational too. There are different things we are permitted to express and things we are expected to squash down and suck up. Wasn't it once upon a time considered rude to talk about yourself? Now... forget about it. At the same time being from an open culture, I get confused by the codes even still in Ireland, where language is used to cover up, rather than disclose.

Imo you've got it in one here, I remember when I bought a house in an area in my hometown that my parents would have considered highly desirable and their reaction was "they will let anyone live there now" as opposed to pride.

Another example is my current job, it's client facing as a consultant and trainer. The part I hate the most? Not having clients challenge me on my knowledge or ability, or students give me scenarios and ask them to explain them, rather the 10 minutes or so in each case where I give a quick bio in terms of work and then talk about my qualifications.

For my generation that's boasting, once I stutter through telling people my background and qualifications and get into the meat of what we are doing and it's not about me, I am so much happier.

donfers

Why is there an assumption that talking about your feelings makes you a "free man" or is the preferred way to go?

Let's make the important distinction here that what is key is talking about your feelings IF it helps you deal with your issues, if you can't do it in that scenario then yes by all means jump on the "let it all out" bandwagon, but what the emotional cheerleaders sometimes fail to acknowledge at times and as others have pointed out in this thread - is that often people don't think that blurting out their concerns to all and sundry is how best to deal with their issues - maybe the oprahfication of modern communication trends particularly in the US has led to the myth that revealing all is always the best way to deal with your personal issues. It is not. I am a free man and that means I am free NOT to tell my nearest and dearest about every personal concern I have. I would hate to be expected to do that, or indeed judged for not doing so as if it were unhealthy and damaging to me. Some amateur psychologist trying to emotionally blackmail me into baring my soul under the pretense that it would do me good is pretty far from my definition of what a free man is. But that's just me, yes employ this strategy for those guys and gals who really feeel it would do them good to verbalise their emotional concerns but remember always that some of us have alternative ways of dealing with this stuff and find it a little patronising to be expected to have our psyches shoehorned into doing something we don't really want them to do just because it works for you.

I know of people who went on retreats and felt almost violated into revealing personal stuff by the groups there even going so far as to invent stuff so that people would stop asking them to "share the pain" and hoping the invented story was of sufficiently dramatic scope so they'd be pestered no more.

I also know of complete strangers who have sat beside me on long journeys or met me on nights out and told me the most personal details about their life-story including stuff about suicide attempts and being abused and all this to some random eejit like me they'd just met - perhaps it made them feel better, i just felt pretty awkward about the whole situation and unsure what to say.

so yes if verbalising your emotional concerns is your preferred way of dealing with emotional issues and you feel unable to do so then yes yes yes you should buy into this stuff about repressed masculinity and overcoming that by developing the skills to be able to talk about your baggage with others.

However let's not assume that all men need this, let's not assume that talking about it is always the best way to deal with stuff, let's not assume that being a free man means being able to emote (many of us can do this if we want but just can't bothered sometimes as other ways work better for us), let's not assume that all women are emotional freaks and all men botted-up enraged repressed savages (both genders are more than capable of doing both), let's not assume we are aware of some school of thought or some magic formula that works for all the many weird and wonderful and varied and unique individuals out there