"Man up"

iptba

minidazzler wrote: »

I have no problem with anyone crying, but if it's crying in lieu of actually doing something to solve whatever it is you are crying about, it's a weakness of character to me.

To my mind, loads of people, probably most people, have weaknesses of character of one sort or another. Perhaps for some people it is getting emotional too easy or giving up too easy in certain circumstances; but for other people it could be being too quick to get angry, jealousy, laziness, vengefulness, greed, tendency to spread negative gossip about others/say negative things about others behind their back, etc. Are we supposed to fix all these weaknesses of character in people?

minidazzler

iptba wrote: »

To my mind, loads of people, probably most people, have weaknesses of character of one sort or another. Perhaps for some people it is getting emotional too easy or giving up too easy; but for other people it could be being too quick to get angry, jealousy, laziness, vengefulness, greed, tendency to spread negative gossip about others/say negative things about others behind their back, etc. Are we supposed to fix all these weaknesses of character in people?

I never said anything about fixing them. I just consider them weaknesses. I have some of my own that are plainly identified and I do try to limit their power over me. But I do see breaking down at small things as a weakness that is easily fixed by just shutting up and getting on with it.

yawha

minidazzler wrote: »

I'd disagree with you. Crying is an act that prevents you from doing. There would be plenty of time to cry after taking the necessary steps to sort out the problem, and even then crying may not be necessary because the problem is resolved.

I think you have it backwards. Crying is incredibly therapeutic and calming. Having a cry before acting to sorting out a problem is much more likely to leave you able to deal with it effectively, and feel much better about it afterwards.

minidazzler wrote: »

I never said anything about fixing them. I just consider them weaknesses. I have some of my own that are plainly identified and I do try to limit their power over me. But I do see breaking down at small things as a weakness that is easily fixed by just shutting up and getting on with it.

Define "easily". I don't think stopping yourself from crying is easy, and when done, it does not leave you in a good emotional state.

Saying that people should shut up and get on with things in certain instances is all well and good, but I don't think it applies very well to reality. I don't think that this is something people can really do. It's not really voluntary. Over time, having experienced bad things and built up somewhat of a tolerance that helps them deal better with them, people will often not cry or get so down over certain things, but it's not really something that a conscious decision is made about.

Wibbs

yawha wrote: »

but I don't see anything wrong with crying/showing his emotions in this instance.

Over a flat tyre?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that whinging about stupid first world problems, and the simple act of crying/showing emotion when something bad happens can be completely different things.

Oh certainly, crying from bereavement = bloody right, even welcome, crying over a flat tyre = spineless whingbag.

yawha wrote: »

I think you have it backwards. Crying is incredibly therapeutic and calming.

Maybe for you/some. GIven I'd only tend to cry after something actually tear worthy it's more a cathartic rail at the universe.

Having a cry before acting to sorting out a problem is much more likely to leave you able to deal with it effectively, and feel much better about it afterwards.

Honestly? The day I feel this to be the case is the day I shave my beard into an "interesting" shape, go to a forest clearing, sit naked, tiny peckered and cross legged banging drums and singing cum by ya with other beardie weirdies of that ilk.

Saying that people should shut up and get on with things in certain instances is all well and good, but I don't think it applies very well to reality. I don't think that this is something people can really do. It's not really voluntary. Over time, having experienced bad things and built up somewhat of a tolerance that helps them deal better with them, people will often not cry or get so down over certain things, but it's not really something that a conscious decision is made about.

Eh it kinda is. You can choose not to be self indulgent in a crisis, or in the case of MD's bloke a non crisis. We all have stray emotions on a daily basis, yet seem quite capable of guiding, ignoring, containing them. I don't see why excessive whinging is allowed nay encouraged, when excessive aggression isn't?

The Big Red Button

Yeah, but maybe they weren't just crying about the flat tyre.

Maybe they're in a situation where they're facing significant financial difficulties, and cannot afford a new tyre, and they need the car for something in the coming days, and there is literally nowhere they can get that money from.

Or maybe the tyre was just 'the straw that broke the camel's back'; something that happened on top of a pile of other misfortunate events. It might seem like such a silly thing to get upset over, but for the person, they're actually upset over a culmunation of different events ...

I just wouldn't be so quick to judge ...

Wibbs

Oh most certainly C, however some people are just inveterate whiners, whingebags and spineless and it seems to be encouraged/enabled more and more.

OK imagine your explanation above C, only exchange crying for verbal aggression. Would that be OK? I doubt it. It would be seen as a loss of emotional control.

The Corinthian

yawha wrote: »

How on earth did you get that from what I wrote?

Because it is practically the only thing you had written where it comes to explaining your objection to the term.

In this instance, the expectation on men not to show weakness and the pressure that comes with that was what i was talking about. Not really sure where there's a female issue in there.

Perhaps from the fact that you specifically objected to the inference that "being strong and not showing weakness is inherently a male trait"? I wonder what that would imply by obvious comparison..?

yawha wrote: »

Crying and being rational are not mutually exclusive.

How on Earth is crying rational?

Don't get me wrong; I agree that as an evolutionary response crying has its place; it can be therapeutic, especially as a means to deal with grief, but ultimately it is an involuntary reaction, like any evolutionary response, such as sexual arousal, fear/panic or anger and thus by definition cannot be rational.

And as with all evolutionary responses it is not always a good thing, especially if one resorts to it too easily - and I would say this regardless of gender.

chatterpillar wrote: »

Yeah, but maybe they weren't just crying about the flat tyre.

Maybe they're in a situation where they're facing significant financial difficulties, and cannot afford a new tyre, and they need the car for something in the coming days, and there is literally nowhere they can get that money from.

Then it would be somewhat understandable, but it still would not make it beneficial. A man or woman can be under significant stress, ultimately resulting in a (mini) breakdown - and while we may sympathize, I doubt any of us would suggest that a breakdown is going to help them. If a solution is time critical, then it would in fact be detrimental.

If on the other hand it were only for a flat tyre that they're crying over, then I'm sorry, but man or woman they have problems.

That men may be conditioned to control their emotions more than women and that this control may well be exaggerated, is a perfectly viable argument. But that we should have little or no control over our emotions, regardless of gender, is fundamentally ill-conceived.

I'll have to agree with Wibbs that we are delving onto tree-hugging territory here.

None of which of course has anything to do with the present thread topic and is in fact the subject of another thread here.

minidazzler

chatterpillar wrote: »

Yeah, but maybe they weren't just crying about the flat tyre.

Maybe they're in a situation where they're facing significant financial difficulties, and cannot afford a new tyre, and they need the car for something in the coming days, and there is literally nowhere they can get that money from.

Or maybe the tyre was just 'the straw that broke the camel's back'; something that happened on top of a pile of other misfortunate events. It might seem like such a silly thing to get upset over, but for the person, they're actually upset over a culmunation of different events ...

I just wouldn't be so quick to judge ...

In this instance, no, this person has very few other worries, especially financially. I know him well enough that I know when something serious is bothering him. At the time we were just having a laugh coming back from a road trip. He notices the car is pulling to the left, pull in, we see the flat tyre and breaks down.

This is NOT the first time it happened either mostly over at least seemingly, insignificant reasons. He'd tell me if there were proper problems going on.

For me, crying over insignificant things is the same as lashing out in anger at small things. Sure, it's therapeutic and makes you feel far better. "letting go" of anger does that as well as crying. But the problem with that is it feels good releases endorphin's so you do it more and more because it makes you feel good. In my much younger days I would have been a rather angry young fella, in many ways I'd lash out and do things I now know I shouldn't have.

Then I realised, I control my emotions, it's as simple as that. How hard is it really do decide to be in a good mood and then just..be in a good mood? Or at very least not act like the world is ending over small insignificant hic-ups in your life.



Oh and here is the funny bit, thought I put it in my first post, but apparently didn't...we found a spare it was up under the car rather than in a wheel well and had to be released down.

Giselle

Wibbs wrote: »

OK imagine your explanation above C, only exchange crying for verbal aggression. Would that be OK? I doubt it. It would be seen as a loss of emotional control.

Well verbal aggression tend to victimize someone else, crying is a passive thing that doesn't impact another person so its not really the same thing.

Unless you count the other person getting exasperated.:)

The Corinthian

Giselle wrote: »

Well verbal aggression tend to victimize someone else, crying is a passive thing that doesn't impact another person so its not really the same thing.

Unless the person crying is in the company of sociopaths, they're going to adversely affect those who witnesses their crying. Human empathy is funny that way.

iptba

If people want to tell people to stop crying or whingeing or whatever, I think there may be better ways than telling them to "man up", which has the added barb in it that they're not really a "real man" for doing it.

Generally people behave in all sorts of ways that I think isn't optimal, but I would tend to stay out of their lives and not point out mistakes I think they are making. And if I did want to make suggestions, I would prefer to try to do it in a way that wasn't hurtful.

Giselle

The Corinthian wrote: »

Unless the person crying is in the company of sociopaths, they're going to adversely affect those who witnesses their crying. Human empathy is funny that way.

Maybe, but the response evoked from verbal aggression is likely to be completely different to the response evoked from witnessing someone crying in frustration or whatever.

I think the earlier poster was right, its often a final straw-type scenario anyway. I think people reduced to tears by a flat tyre are few and far between.

Unless of course, they're stupid enough to have never learned how to change it.

The Corinthian

Giselle wrote: »

Maybe, but the response evoked from verbal aggression is likely to be completely different to the response evoked from witnessing someone crying in frustration or whatever.

Neither effect on other parties is likely to be terribly pleasant; personally, I'd rather face the former than the latter, any day.

Emotional control is a curious thing between the genders; men probably are brought up to control emotions too much, women not enough (it's still largely acceptable for a woman to 'lose it' and throw a drink in someone's face, for example). I do think in both cases we're slowly meeting in the middle fortunately.

I think the earlier poster was right, its often a final straw-type scenario anyway.

I would tend to agree; terms such as "man up" or "grow a pair" are largely antiquated expressions meant to invoke courage in the recipient, regardless of gender.

They're also still occasionally used for their original purpose though; to re-enforce or shame the recipient to conform to patriarchal standards of masculinity. I've noticed there's been practically no discussion of this here.

Giselle

The Corinthian wrote: »

They're also still occasionally used for their original purpose though; to re-enforce or shame the recipient to conform to patriarchal standards of masculinity. I've noticed there's been practically no discussion of this here.

Thankfully, I've never heard of, or witnessed its use in that context, so I'd find it hard to discuss it at all. I'm sure it happens, but I'm reasonably sure that if it does, its going to be increasingly considered unacceptable.

If I heard it being used to quell valid displays of emotion, I'd certainly pull up the fool who comes out with it, and I hope most would be the same.

I like to think the present generation of little boys are by and large freed from the tyranny of manning-up and boys-don't-cry. And if they aren't, hopefully when they grow up they'll realise the mistakes their parents made.

There's always going to be pockets that promote those harmful behavioural traits in boys though, just like there'll always be the little girls who get the Barbie Kitchen instead of the Lego Knnexx for Xmas.

Wibbs

The Corinthian wrote: »

Emotional control is a curious thing between the genders; men probably are brought up to control emotions too much, women not enough (it's still largely acceptable for a woman to 'lose it' and throw a drink in someone's face, for example). I do think in both cases we're slowly meeting in the middle fortunately.

I dunno TC, I'd say we're heading down the more "female"* end of the scale. The let it all hang out vibe. TBH I don't warm to it in either gender once it goes past a point personal to me.

They're also still occasionally used for their original purpose though; to re-enforce or shame the recipient to conform to patriarchal standards of masculinity. I've noticed there's been practically no discussion of this here.

Honestly? OK I'd be more the unreconstructed male in a few ways(in other ways not). I personally would tend to rate a man lesser if he acted "over emotional" without some underlying genuine emotional/mental pathology. Of course in such situations all bets are off and support is required and would be given. I'll admit I'd give a woman more latitude, though as I said before not by much, but still in fairness I recognise that's genderist or whatever of me.

Speaking of men in isolation, I would expect a certain level of emotional self control except in situations that merit that in both myself and men around me. A man like in MD's example? He would drop right down the rankings for me on the man front for crying, crying FFS over not being able to find a spare tyre? Hell I'd be scratching my head at the point where he didn't have the nous to understand that all spare tyres don't live inside the boot. I don't feel comfortable around men who are likely to buckle when the real shíte hits the fan and that kinda guff would be a warning flag for me.

I've given similar advice to women mates who've encountered this stuff with exes or potential partners and asked for my take. It's rarely a good sign. EG one mate of mine was seeing a bloke for a couple of months. On her birthday when they'd arranged to meet he disappears, only to turn up the next day all apologies for having spent the day in the pub. She naturally was a bit miffed and hurt, but calm about it. His response to this was to actually start blubbing about how he didn't want to lose her. GTFO Ted. Weak and emotional blackmail. Niiiiiice. She agreed with me but gave him the benefit of the doubt and sure enough down the line he was as much use to her as a chocolate teapot when she needed him. Though was always sure to get "emotional" after the fact. Man my arse. He needed to man up and no mistake.

Like I said I would be an unreconstructed male in this regard.



* I say female, but this stuff is as much a cultural construct, often used as an excuse to boot, by some women. Thankfully I know way more who don't do this stuff, but that's likely because I've winnowed out those who do over the years.

minidazzler

Simple as can be for me, crying should be an emotional response to an emotional problem. i.e. Someone dying or being sick. (lots of other reasons)

Crying should NOT be an emotional response to a practical problem, it solves absolutely nothing at all.

And finally, crying (or emotions in general) should never be used for the purposes of manipulation.

If someone can see a flaw in my philosophy please point it out, but saying "everyones different" doesn't really cut it, I will think less of someone who cries because of a practical problem, I just can't see the point in it.

Kooli

minidazzler wrote: »

Simple as can be for me, crying should be an emotional response to an emotional problem. i.e. Someone dying or being sick. (lots of other reasons)

Crying should NOT be an emotional response to a practical problem, it solves absolutely nothing at all.

And finally, crying (or emotions in general) should never be used for the purposes of manipulation.

If someone can see a flaw in my philosophy please point it out, but saying "everyones different" doesn't really cut it, I will think less of someone who cries because of a practical problem, I just can't see the point in it.

I think the distinction between crying for an 'emotional problem' and a 'practical problem' is a false distinction. I would see all crying as a response to emotion.

With someone dying, the emotions are sadness, fear, anxiety, loneliness, worry, whatever.

With a 'practical' problem, it can be all those same emotions which have been triggered in a way that the onlooker can't really understand. It can be frustration, hopelessness, self-hatred, fear, overwhelm, whatever.

In either case, people are crying because they feel awful. Not because there's a 'point' to it.

I know that I certainly don't choose whether to cry or not. If I feel really awful or really sad, or really overwhelmed, I sometimes cry. It's not something I do with purpose, it's just a response to how I'm feeling. And I don't see why I should try and stop it (and a lot of the time I couldn't even if I wanted to).

And I totally agree about 'man-up' being a phrase that reinforces patriarchal norms in a dangerous way. It implies that to be masculine one has to live up to certain strict, restrictive norms of behaviour, and to fall short it makes you feminine, and therefore 'less than'.

Wibbs

Kooli wrote: »

I think the distinction between crying for an 'emotional problem' and a 'practical problem' is a false distinction. I would see all crying as a response to emotion.

OK, however if someone finds some semblance of emotional equivalence between a bereavement and a lost spare wheel I think there's a distinction to be made alright. They need to get some perspective in their lives. I'd certainly trust them as far as I could throw them when the chips are down. I'd most certainly consider them weak minded emotionally if this was consistent behaviour from them.

With a 'practical' problem, it can be all those same emotions which have been triggered in a way that the onlooker can't really understand.

IMHO if as part of ones natural response to living one finds extreme emotional outbursts as being not understandable to oneself, you may need to find out why. I'd say exactly the same of someone prone to aggressive outbursts for no good reason. Most would. If the person then explained away the aggressive outbursts as "frustration, hopelessness, self-hatred, fear, overwhelm, whatever" and this was a consistent response in them, I'd say 1) maybe you need to seek help for that? and/or 2) GTFO

Again why is bursting into floods of tears more acceptable, where bursting into feelings of aggression are not? After all they're both emotional reactions that have their place. Both can be cathartic and all that. So if one is expected by society to control one, why is the other so easily succumbed to and made excuses for, even promoted as a good thing?

My take? Bursting into floods is seen as acceptable for women to do and IMHO that's actually more sexist. It suggests women are not quite in control of their emotions the poor dears and that in the background enables such behaviour and sees it as "female". It also can be seen as a get out of responsibility gaol card. Again IMHO this undermines women in a well dodgy way. To then try to transfer the acceptance of that kinda behaviour to men we've then belittled all of us, regardless of gender. We've also suggested that those who actually have some basic control of their emotions as a little "wrong".

When I hear a bloke say when a woman is pissed off with him "oh she's PMSing" or the equivalent I want to take him to task for his bullshít. However when a woman gives it as an explanation this is OK? Eh no, they're both being well dodgy for the same reason. One is rightfully out of order, but the other is not? Wut?

And I totally agree about 'man-up' being a phrase that reinforces patriarchal norms in a dangerous way. It implies that to be masculine one has to live up to certain strict, restrictive norms of behaviour, and to fall short it makes you feminine, and therefore 'less than'.

Oh certainly there's something in that, however it depends where you draw the line at "strict", some man or woman who is a flake bursting into tears over actually nothing should IMHO human the hell up.

Kooli

Wibbs wrote: »

Again why is bursting into floods of tears more acceptable, where bursting into feelings of aggression are not? After all they're both emotional reactions that have their place. Both can be cathartic and all that. So if one is expected by society to control one, why is the other so easily succumbed to and made excuses for, even promoted as a good thing?

You've made this argument before and I still fail to see the comparison.

Crying is an expression of emotion that is generally personal and very sad. On it's own it is not an aggressive or manipulative act. It is an expression of feeling, and people that don't allow themselves to cry often don't allow themselves to feel a variety of different feelings. And that is simply NOT a good thing.

Aggression is, obviously, aggressive. It is an action that someone takes that puts their own needs above those of another, and deliberately impedes on the rights of another. Crying simply does not do that. There doesn't even need to be anyone else present.

Holding in aggression is a good thing, because expressions of aggression are not positive, not cathartic, not helpful to anyone. (anger is a different thing).

Holding in crying is often a bad thing, because expressions of sadness (which for a lot of people means crying) is positive, can be cathartic and can be helpful for the person who is crying, and sometimes for the people around them.

I really don't understand the connection you are making between crying and aggression.

minidazzler

Kooli wrote: »

You've made this argument before and I still fail to see the comparison.

Crying is an expression of emotion that is generally personal and very sad. On it's own it is not an aggressive or manipulative act. It is an expression of feeling, and people that don't allow themselves to cry often don't allow themselves to feel a variety of different feelings. And that is simply NOT a good thing.

Aggression is, obviously, aggressive. It is an action that someone takes that puts their own needs above those of another, and deliberately impedes on the rights of another. Crying simply does not do that. There doesn't even need to be anyone else present.

Holding in aggression is a good thing, because expressions of aggression are not positive, not cathartic, not helpful to anyone. (anger is a different thing).

Holding in crying is often a bad thing, because expressions of sadness (which for a lot of people means crying) is positive, can be cathartic and can be helpful for the person who is crying, and sometimes for the people around them.

I really don't understand the connection you are making between crying and aggression.

Aggression can have the same effect as crying. And it IS cathartic to a lot of people. It also doesn't have to be directed at someone. Punching a wall or whatever when in the company of others when you are feeling angry will make others feel uncomfortable in the same way that crying can make people feel uncomfortable.

But this is a general discussion about crying for small things. There are plenty of solid good reasons for people to cry and there are times when that is the only thing that a person can do.

But when it's the only way they deal with anything, including practical problems, it's NOT a good thing. It hinders the solving of the problem. They could take the energy that is used for crying and put it to something positive like fixing the problem.

Crying isn't what I have a problem with. It's weakness. If a friend of mine is always crying, they won't be a friend of mine for long if the reason for the crying isn't solid. How can I really trust a man who cries over a flat tyre to have my back if something bad really happens?

Crying DOES effect those around you. You may think it's personal, but when you are crying in the presence of friends about something mundane or practical that's easily solved, it will effect them and quite possibly their opinion of you.

I'd never question a man's right to cry, he can deal with whatever he wants however he wants. But a man who cries over little things would be seen as weaker in my eyes and I wouldn't count on him for anything, I certainly would never go hill-walking or anything of the sort with him.

I'm not emotionless, I just think I have a more practical way of dealing with problems both emotional and practical in my life. Though I'll admit, I do hold in a lot of my anger and frustration, but I do redirect it to positive routes if I can.

Crying in and of itself is not very sad as you said, it's just an emotional act. The reasons for crying are usually sad, but for some people the reasons for crying are just weakness.

Giselle

minidazzler wrote: »

Aggression can have the same effect as crying.

I just don't get this equation. Aggression is threatening, crying isn't (unless we're talking tears of rage) and they simply aren't the same, except in the most basic sense that they express emotion.

I don't think crying from frustration or weariness or annoyance means a person is incapable of being supportive either. It might not be as traditionally solid looking as the grin and bear it approach, but it by no means a person isn't trustworthy or dependable.

Kooli

I guess this thread is a testament to there still being a strong connection in people's minds between crying and weakness.

Whereas I know a lot of men that are completely terrified of crying and showing weakness, so conversely for them crying becomes an act of extreme bravery and courage.

Wibbs

minidazzler wrote:

How can I really trust a man who cries over a flat tyre to have my back if something bad really happens?

This + 1000. I'd add in women in my life on this score too. When my willy got in the way of my brain I've been with a couple of women like your spare tyre guy where the littlest thing becomes a drama worthy of Marlowe and good god never again. You start off thinking you can help them, which gives you some misplaced "I can fix them" ballsology which TBH can be attractive to be seen as a "fixer", but god it gets old really quickly and it's not an equal relationship and you can end up being an enabler in this kinda guff. Luckily I've found more women that aren't flaky in such things. Indeed contrary to some popular... more than male flakes.

Giselle wrote: »

I just don't get this equation. Aggression is threatening, crying isn't (unless we're talking tears of rage) and they simply aren't the same, except in the most basic sense that they express emotion.

OK G but why is one seemingly impossible to stop, an uncontrollable emotional release, seemingly without internal dialogue and encouraged, yet the the other is expected to be managed and subdued?

I don't think crying from frustration or weariness or annoyance means a person is incapable of being supportive either. It might not be as traditionally solid looking as the grin and bear it approach, but it by no means a person isn't trustworthy or dependable.

IME it pretty much always is. When a person has a mini breakdown over feck all they're next to useless and usually rooted to the spot when a real dilemma comes along. Why? Because they're usually self involved and self indulgent emotionally which is why perspective is a difficult concept for them, so they end up being as much use as teats on a bull in a crisis that isn't directly affecting them(and even then). This types support is usually along the lines of "oh yes I went through that *sob*" followed by the convo going back to them and the crisis of theirs that elicited their response, then followed by a current crisis affecting them. That's the usual script of the emotionally self involved and self indulgent. Consistently blubbing over white whine first world minutiae usually hoists up more red flags than a chairman Mao birthday bash.

Kooli wrote: »

I guess this thread is a testament to there still being a strong connection in people's minds between crying and weakness.

No. There is a strong connection in my mind between crying for nothing with no self realised rationale behind it and crying for a damn good reason.

Whereas I know a lot of men that are completely terrified of crying and showing weakness, so conversely for them crying becomes an act of extreme bravery and courage.

Indeed. Do you wonder why? Myabe they consider the situation and then after that consideration try to keep their emotions in check for the good of the group as opposed to ignoring the group for their own needs, unless the situation actually warrants it. As opposed to the "I don't care, I feeeel it, I can't explain it mind, so let it all out and damn the group" of some. I know who I'd rather rely on. The non self indulgent flakes, that's who. That would be adult men and adult women.

minidazzler

Giselle wrote: »

I just don't get this equation. Aggression is threatening, crying isn't (unless we're talking tears of rage) and they simply aren't the same, except in the most basic sense that they express emotion.

I don't think crying from frustration or weariness or annoyance means a person is incapable of being supportive either. It might not be as traditionally solid looking as the grin and bear it approach, but it by no means a person isn't trustworthy or dependable.

Aggression does not have to be threatening. If it's not directed at anyone in particular it's not threatening, in the same way crying might not be directed at anyone in particular.

I'm not looking for someone to grin and bear it when they hear they have cancer. I do want them to do so when it's something they CAN fix. It's a shut up and get on with it approach.

I would see them as weak for crying at a flat tyre and that they are untrustworthy because picture this situation, we are up a large hill or mountain taking a hike, we have gotten lost and are losing light, lets say for the sake of argument that we have no phones. What does the guy who cries do? He breaks down and cries. Where as a guy who is in charge of his emotions and might be scared, will assess and decide.

Kooli wrote: »

I guess this thread is a testament to there still being a strong connection in people's minds between crying and weakness.

Whereas I know a lot of men that are completely terrified of crying and showing weakness, so conversely for them crying becomes an act of extreme bravery and courage.

I equate all lack of emotional control as weakness. YOU should control your emotional responses, they should not control you.

Bursting out in anger because you are a little pissed off - Weak
Crying over something that you can control or fix - Weak
Crying because you want something but are afraid to try to get it - Weak.

Crying because of bereavement - Not weak.
Putting fear aside to take care of a problem - Not weak
Controlling the situation and not being controlled by it - Strong

Wibbs wrote:

This + 1000. I'd add in women in my life on this score too. When my willy got in the way of my brain I've been with a couple of women like your spare tyre guy where the littlest thing becomes a drama worthy of Marlowe and good god never again. You start off thinking you can help them, which gives you some misplaced "I can fix them" ballsology which TBH can be attractive to be seen as a "fixer", but god it gets old really quickly and it's not an equal relationship and you can end up being an enabler in this kinda guff. Luckily I've found more women that aren't flaky in such things. Indeed contrary to some popular... more than male flakes.

I'd post the meme "I know that feel bro" but not exactly the thread for it.

For me, people like this become a project before I end up resenting them. I don't want anyone to change so I like them better, I'd just rather surround myself with people who won't fall apart at the first sign of trouble.

All of my best friends, 4 guys, I trust everyone of them to just get on with it no matter what comes our way. I wouldn't be able to include a new guy in my best friends if I didn't think he could basically man up when situations arise that are hard to deal with.

And before I say the next part, I'll point out, I'm not a fighter, not a scumbag and I NEVER have gone looking for a fight, though I have had a few. But I know, that if something happened that I was out with my friends and we got started on, my friends, none of whom have any form of training (unless you count hurling :pac:) would stand by me and wouldn't break down in tears at the time.

If they did afterwards I wouldn't think ill of them, but if any man I called a friend was too busy crying when bad things were going on, he wouldn't be a friend anymore.

There's not much more I can really say on this. The "pro"-crying for want of a better word seem to think myself and Wibbs are saying all crying is bad. I don't at very least and it seems to me neither does Wibbs, but it's a situational thing for me, there are times when it's OK and times when it's very much not and a guy (or girl) needs to just shut up and step up to take care of the problem.

jackofalltrades

Wibbs wrote:

Again why is bursting into floods of tears more acceptable, where bursting into feelings of aggression are not? After all they're both emotional reactions that have their place. Both can be cathartic and all that. So if one is expected by society to control one, why is the other so easily succumbed to and made excuses for, even promoted as a good thing?

Unchecked aggression has the potential to be very damaging to society, even destabilising it in extreme cases. For this reason it's regarded as being something that has to be tightly controlled. Crying on the other hand doesn't have the same drawback as aggression, whilst it does have a negative effect of bringing down the mood, it isn't threatening to people/society.

Crying seems to be seen as an acceptable trade-off for people who are struggling with their emotions and who might otherwise turn to aggression.

Wibbs

Oh I agree Jack, but my point is, how come it's claimed that crying is something that happens, can't be controlled and must be let out, yet anger can be controlled? How can one control one, nay is expected to(rightly), yet succumb so easily to another? You can either control your emotions or you can't.

minidazzler wrote:

For me, people like this become a project before I end up resenting them. I don't want anyone to change so I like them better, I'd just rather surround myself with people who won't fall apart at the first sign of trouble.

This.

The "pro"-crying for want of a better word seem to think myself and Wibbs are saying all crying is bad. I don't at very least and it seems to me neither does Wibbs, but it's a situational thing for me, there are times when it's OK and times when it's very much not and a guy (or girl) needs to just shut up and step up to take care of the problem.

And very much this.

Da Shins Kelly

With regards to crying, I'm one of those people who has cried over situations that are not "worthy" of being cried over. It's mainly just due to feeling stressed or over-whelmed and I just need to find a way to release that emotion and get it out of my system before I can begin to address the real problem. If I jump head-first into a problem while feeling incredibly stressed and frustrated, that's when I do stupid things and make mistakes. Usually I need to just sit and have a cry and do the whole emotional bit before I can actually start to be practical and think things through and formulate a plan. Now, I don't cry every time something goes wrong, it's usually a build up of emotion that eventually spills out and sometimes the trigger is something small and stupid that maybe seems ridiculous to someone on the outside. It's just my way of dealing though so I can properly address the problem with a clear mind.

On the topic of the phrase "man-up", I have used it and heard it used and nobody I know really takes it seriously, to my knowledge. I think people have a tendency to over-react a little to phrases that don't mean all that much. I've heard people calling each other "bitches" and "pussies" and such for not "manning-up" too. I understand the connotation, but I don't think many people are thinking of that when they use it (at least not in my experience).

That's just my two cents.

Feisar

I recently went through a really crappy break up with my GF. During one episode I burst into a big sobbing mess. Weak? Whatever, not really bothered by anyone else's opinion on the matter. It was akin to someone close to me dying and I couldn't of held it back if I had tried. My heart and soul were torn from me and I expressed how I was feeling, big deal. Must say I felt much better afterwards.

One of the first things my Dad asked when I told my parents we had broken up was did I cry!?!? Like cheers Dad! I said no and that even if I did I wouldn't tell him and at that I wouldn't care about his or anyone else's opinion. (Now I must add Dad is great and has always been there for me, he's just a bit old school.)

Crying wouldn't be the norm for me and female friends would have described me as a "mans man", whatever that is!

minidazzler

Feisar wrote: »

I recently went through a really crappy break up with my GF. During one episode I burst into a big sobbing mess. Weak? Whatever, not really bothered by anyone else's opinion on the matter. It was akin to someone close to me dying and I couldn't of held it back if I had tried. My heart and soul were torn from me and I expressed how I was feeling, big deal. Must say I felt much better afterwards.

I've stated lots of times that emotional responses to emotional situations isn't weak. If it was a practical problem like the flat tyre, or broken computer I would consider it weak. But getting emotional for a break up is not a bad time, it's not like you could do anything practical to stop it by toughing it out.

The Corinthian

Wibbs wrote: »

I dunno TC, I'd say we're heading down the more "female"* end of the scale. The let it all hang out vibe. TBH I don't warm to it in either gender once it goes past a point personal to me.

This may be largely the case, but it does not imply that women are not making a shift twoards greater emotional control also.

With the emancipation of women in the workplace, emotional control became essential. The example I gave earlier (a woman throwing a drink in a man's face), is still considered somewhat socially acceptable, and even humorous, but nowhere near as much it once was.

As the (at this stage very) old sexist joke went "if women are elected, we'd have a war once a month", highlighted a belief that in any position of authority, women would likely be ruled by emotion rather than reason. Naturally, once in the workplace and politics, women could not allow themselves to do this and so they too began to adopt emotional control techniques previously employed by men.

This naturally does not imply that men and women will inevitably meet each other 'half way' (there's a few studies in recent years that have argued that on balance we are becoming a more matriarchal society), but it does indicate that we are meeting somewhere in the middle.

Honestly? OK I'd be more the unreconstructed male in a few ways(in other ways not). I personally would tend to rate a man lesser if he acted "over emotional" without some underlying genuine emotional/mental pathology.

When I cited "patriarchal standards of masculinity", I wasn't really talking simply about emotion - this discussion appears to have become completely obsessed with this facet and crying in particular.

These standards include being socially coerced into:

• Being the sole financial provider of a family.
• Putting yourself in a position of danger (war, dangerous jobs, etc) for as to be a provide and/or protect your family or even women you've never met before (i.e. "women and children first").
• Being a father even though you don't want to be (a pressure that used to exist for women, but has been since been replaced with 'choice').

This social conditioning seems to be based upon the patriarchal model that while men were 'in charge' we had to pay for this privilege with behaviour which was often self-destructive. Thus the use of expressions like "man up" or "grow a pair" are less used in this context than they used to be, but they occasionally still are and certainly the attitudes (that a man must sacrifice himself to fulfil such standards) are still very much alive.

It's not simply about "boys don't cry".

Like I said I would be an unreconstructed male in this regard.

I don't know if you're being fair to yourself. Emotion is both understandable and often desirable and things like crying have cathartic uses, but there is a point where emotional responses become an indulgence or, frankly, an illness.

Crying, for example, is largely designed to invoke empathic responses of others - infants cry to get the attention of their parents, for example. Taken to the extreme whereby we cry at the drop of a hat, what you end up having is an individual who is still behaving like an infant, seeking assistance whenever they encounter any problem - effectively they become social parasites.

This is not to suggest that crying should always be suppressed, but to suggest that crying can be somehow less anti-social than verbal anger is frankly nonsense. Indeed, the cathartic argument can equally be applied to verbal abuse - we call it 'venting'.

As I've already said, the discomfort I feel from someone crying is far greater than the discomfort I feel from someone giving me verbal abuse. So to me, someone suggesting that crying is always perfectly acceptable, is simply seeking to justify an indulgence.