Men showing emotion are "whimps"!

The Corinthian

py2006 wrote: »

Corinthian, if you are fed up with this thread please move on. I was kind of hoping for some discussion on the topic in general and to read peoples experience of it.

Actually, discussion on this topic would be interesting, but if all we're going to do is limit ourselves to discuss what is already a given, we're really not going to go anywhere interesting. Hence my first post here.

But it's your thread, so fair enough - I'll bow out.

Sauve

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, discussion on this topic would be interesting, but if all we're going to do is limit ourselves to discuss what is already a given, we're really not going to go anywhere interesting. Hence my first post here.

But it's your thread, so fair enough - I'll bow out.

Mod

Corinthian, if you have nothing to add to a thread, please refrain from posting in it.
Belittling others' discussions of an event or topic because it doesn't interest you is not acceptable.

Guyanachronism

iptba wrote: »

Unlike some people, I think there are some average differences between heterosexual males and heterosexual females; I don't buy into the tabula rasa (blank slate) theory that heterosexual males and heterosexual females all start out the same and it is due to socialising that all differences can be explained (where, for example, does homosexuality fit into this - I don't believe homosexuality is socialised).

Anyway, the point I want to make is I don't see that crying should be seen as more female than male.

[while I do think something like playing and watching contact sports is something heterosexual males enjoy more on average than heterosexual females and similarly I think dancing and watching dancing is something heterosexual females enjoy more on average than heterosexual females and that this isn't simply due to socialisation].

It's a big issue and you're crossing numerous aspects of people. Gender is what you're concerned with, which yes the idea that it is a purely social construct is now quite widely accepted. It's a debate I've had many an evening over pints. But I don't get what homosexuality has to do with it, except if you're resorting to sterotypes. There are a lot of behaviours we can point to that are social conditions, the gendered divison of most labour, men having to initiate when dating etc. There might be a bedrock of genune gendered behaviour, but then again is it a product of breeding based on gender roles or genuine product of ones sex.

The dancing one is also an odd choice because anthropology would say that females dancing became a way to display assets consciously and subconsciously to prospective partners. There is science to back it up, best dancers have symetrical bodies meaning they're healthy. As well as women having to be attractive etc.

It's obviously a big debate but I don't think expressing emotion is anything but a socially constructed gender norm, everyone is emotional but we are conditioned into thinking whether or not it is acceptable to express particular emotions at particular times.

But as other posters have said, celebrity culture has gone to the point of milking emotion and people expected to be over emotional. The reaction to the death of princess Diana being a prime example. But that said men are more constrained about emotional expression that women, although women in the west don't get free pass either. But you see in other cultures, at tragedies women are allowed wail and moan while the men are expected to remain stoic and silent.

So I don't know how I want to society to deal with expressions of emotion but men are more constrained when it comes to expressing emotion.

py2006

With regards Mrs Osbourne being a feminist, I thought that was a given? Not necessarily because of her comment on Sat but in general that was something I always thought she was. Perhaps I was wrong?

With regards to the general issue of men showing emotion, I do recall the subject coming up in conversation some years ago with some colleagues. One woman made it clear that she didn't want to go out with a 'girl' and that her boyfriend was a real man. She 'had enough for her girl friends crying on her shoulder without a man having to do it'. I didn't really think much of it at the time.

Admittedly, the males present shifted uneasy in their chairs, cleared their throats in a manly way... haha

pwurple

Sharon Osbourne's moronic comment aside, it's pretty brutal that the program must stress people out so much, that they are in tears at all. It's completely meaningless, and yet it's the end of the world when they go from one round to the next?

D'Agger

pwurple wrote: »

Sharon Osbourne's moronic comment aside, it's pretty brutal that the program must stress people out so much, that they are in tears at all. It's completely meaningless, and yet it's the end of the world when they go from one round to the next?

Don't think the OP is looking to discuss the merits of the show tbh - different things can spark different emotions in people, the query by the OP is whether men are subjected to being considered weak for showing such emotions.

Legs.Eleven

py2006 wrote: »

With regards Mrs Osbourne being a feminist, I thought that was a given? Not necessarily because of her comment on Sat but in general that was something I always thought she was. Perhaps I was wrong?

I thought you weren't going to bring feminism into it?


She's only a feminist if she considers herself one. You can't just slap that label on any woman whose actions you don't like. I've never once heard her state she was a feminist and I don't know many feminists who would support men bottling up their emotions (I certainly wouldn't). Sounds like she has very traditional ideas of what a man should be and I wouldn't call that feminism as feminism usually goes against what are considered to be "traditional roles". I'd say feminists would be very much in support of men being in touch with their feelings as opposed to a stereotypical macho man.

Ash.J.Williams

Sharon Osborne is whatever they agree will be better for ratings in the pre show meeting, there is nothing real or genuine about her...seriously if you want a proper discussion forget about sharon and x factor.

Legs.Eleven

As Corinthian stated, whether she is a feminist or not is irrelevant - men are just as intolerant of other men showing emotion as women.

iptba

Guyanachronism wrote: »

It's a big issue and you're crossing numerous aspects of people. Gender is what you're concerned with, which yes the idea that it is a purely social construct is now quite widely accepted.

Which I'm not convinced it is i.e. lots of people may think it's a purely social construct but I'm not convinced it is.

Guyanachronism wrote: »

But I don't get what homosexuality has to do with it, except if you're resorting to sterotypes.

Do you think there are no average differences in any areas in terms of interests between heterosexual and homosexual men? Just because something is a stereotype doesn't mean there isn't something to it.

As I subsequently explained, the reason it is useful to bring it up is that I believe it can bring noise to data. So in some things, if one strips out gay men, differences between heterosexual men and women will be more pronounced. Of course, some people don't want that as the answer so may not make much effort to analyse data as well as they might if they were more convinced of the goal e.g. a medical treatment.

Guyanachronism wrote: »

It's obviously a big debate but I don't think expressing emotion is anything but a socially constructed gender norm, everyone is emotional but we are conditioned into thinking whether or not it is acceptable to express particular emotions at particular times.

I'm inclined to agree.

iptba

The Corinthian wrote: »

Should it be acceptable for men to not repress their emotions to the degree that we presently do. Absolutely; the standard of almost Vulcan-like endurance to emotion that men are expected to keep a 'stiff upper lip' to is exaggerated and most likely unhealthy psychologically.

Given this, and I'm going to turn this around, neither should men be as open with our emotions as women are presently encouraged to be. And nether should women.

While suppression of emotion is not always a good thing, neither is no suppression. Breaking down crying the moment the slightest disappointment in life hits you is little more than an abdication of responsibility, a cry for help, whereby someone else will solve your problem for you - after all, that's what crying was designed for on an evolutionary level.

So, should men show their emotions more? Sure. But women should show theirs less also, with both genders arriving at a reasonable and healthy middle ground.

It perhaps might be useful to draw distinctions between different scenarios when people cry.

If one is crying because of a sad movie, for example, one isn't looking for anybody to fix it, it doesn't seem to be a cry for help.

Also, if one were to start crying after being told one had a very serious illness, that is perhaps different from crying every single day afterwards, which might suggest depression/a lack of adaptation to the new situation one found oneself in.

Guyanachronism

iptba wrote: »

Which I'm not convinced it is i.e. lots of people may think it's a purely social construct but I'm not convinced it is.

Do you think there are no average differences in any areas in terms of interests between heterosexual and homosexual men? Just because something is a stereotype doesn't mean there isn't something to it.

As I subsequently explained, the reason it is useful to bring it up is that I believe it can bring noise to data. So in some things, if one strips out gay men, differences between heterosexual men and women will be more pronounced. Of course, some people don't want that as the answer so may not make much effort to analyse data as well as they might if they were more convinced of the goal e.g. a medical treatment.

Name a behaviour of Women/Hetreosexual Men/Homoesexual Men that you think is an inherent product of their sex/sexual orientation and not their socialisation? I think the absolute majority of gendered behaviour is socialised and there might be a certain amount that is genuine but I am not sure. There is no humane objective way to prove it.

That goes for gay men. They will be socialised differently and react to different expectations and pressures from their peer group and environment.

If there is a underlayer of genuine naturally gendered behaviour it still kind of irrevelant. What are the real world implications? It still wouldn't be right to force anyone who deviates to conform to gender norms.

Tabula rasa in principle has no apparent harms.

clairefontaine

Sharon's Osbourbe does not represent humanity.

Men can express emotion as long as they don't include fear, sentimentality, anything mushy, or vulnerability. No whining. Big no no.

But on the other hand , women are also expected not to or they"ll end up in the just another irrational or hysterical woman box.

iptba

Guyanachronism wrote: »

That goes for gay men. They will be socialised differently and react to different expectations and pressures from their peer group and environment.

This is why I think gay men are interesting. One can claim men and women are socialised differently, but I think the point is much more debatable with gay men.

I think differences between gay men and heterosexual men start emerging before any peer group and environment. Gay men invariably are brought up like straight men.

Guyanachronism wrote: »

If there is a underlayer of genuine naturally gendered behaviour it still kind of irrevelant. What are the real world implications? It still wouldn't be right to force anyone who deviates to conform to gender norms.

Tabula rasa in principle has no apparent harms.

That might be the stock phrase people are thought in their sociology class or whatever but I remain to be convinced although haven't fully thought it through.

We have an interesting example in this famous case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer
where his penis was accidentally destroyed in a circumcision and he was brought up as a girl but it didn't work out well.

py2006

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

I thought you weren't going to bring feminism into it?

I didn't initially but I was interested in the responses claiming she wasn't one. I genuinely thought she was

She's only a feminist if she considers herself one. You can't just slap that label on any woman whose actions you don't like.

As I said earlier, my assumption was that she was a feminist and not based on her remarks.

The reason I initially wanted to avoid the feminism angle was I don't this thread turning into another feminism debate. Lets not go down that route as different people have different views on what it really means.

Lets get back on topic...

Legs.Eleven

py2006 wrote: »

I didn't initially but I was interested in the responses claiming she wasn't one. I genuinely thought she was



As I said earlier, my assumption was that she was a feminist and not based on her remarks.

The reason I initially wanted to avoid the feminism angle was I don't this thread turning into another feminism debate. Lets not go down that route as different people have different views on what it really means.

Lets get back on topic...

Either did I. You're the one who asked the question though so I answered it and actually your first post was looking to put the blame squarely on Feminism, which had to be challenged as judgement of men displaying emotions comes from both genders.

iwantmydinner

py2006 wrote: »

I didn't initially but I was interested in the responses claiming she wasn't one. I genuinely thought she was



As I said earlier, my assumption was that she was a feminist and not based on her remarks.

The reason I initially wanted to avoid the feminism angle was I don't this thread turning into another feminism debate. Lets not go down that route as different people have different views on what it really means.

Lets get back on topic...

You blamed feminism ("this strand of feminism") for telling men what they should and should not do/be allowed to do. That is not an effective way of avoiding the "feminism angle" and as Legs said, has to be challenged.

SO has never, to my knowledge, identified as a feminist. I really can't see any connection between her awful remarks and feminism.

She's clearly just a misandrist idiot.

Pawwed Rig

Mod note
Lads - The Op has already says he wants to focus on the topic at hand rather than Feminism (which is actively being discussed in other threads). Please stay on topic.

py2006

To me it appears (to some) that the only socially acceptable display of tears from men is at funerals and even then its only when they simply can't hold it together any more.

I remember when my mother passed I didn't cry and I didn't cry at her funeral. Actually, I didn't even feel I needed to so it wasn't a case of holding it in as I am a man or whatever. That always stuck me as odd and at times I felt guilty for it.

iwantmydinner

py2006 wrote: »

To me the only socially acceptable display of tears from men is at funerals and even then its only when they simply can't hold it together any more.

I remember when my mother passed I didn't cry and I didn't cry at her funeral. Actually, I didn't even feel I needed to so it wasn't a case of holding it in as I am a man or whatever. That always stuck me as odd and at times I felt guilty for it.

I'm not being facetious here, I'm genuinely confused. You're slating Sharon Osbourne in the OP for insulting a man who showed emotion ... And you're now saying that men should only be allowed show emotion at funerals??

Am I missing something?

py2006

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Am I missing something?

Post edited, sorry came out wrong.

iwantmydinner

py2006 wrote: »

Post edited, sorry came out wrong.

Oh, okay.

I'm so over the arbitrary rules about displays of emotion. Men must be strong; women can bawl away and fall apart. Makes no sense to me. It's a horrible double standard perpetuated by both men and women which I think is really damaging.

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

It perhaps might be useful to draw distinctions between different scenarios when people cry.

Not really. Civilization is all about people suppressing their impulses and emotions, otherwise I'd get punched way more often than I do.

What py2006 is talking about is why is it OK for women to be emotional and do things like cry publicly, and not for men, regardless of the reason for crying. So why one cries is irrelevant. Emotional control is what matters.

What it comes down to are the patriarchal roles that have traditionally been ascribed to each gender and how they're imprinted during childhood. Men are supposed to be in control, dependable, the veritable strong silent types, where loss of emotional control would be seen as weakness. Women are supposed to be vulnerable, weaker and considered damsels in distress, so naturally we can't expect them to be able to control their emotions - poor little things can't help themselves.

Feminism has little or nothing to do with this issue - at worst it could be accused of not having done enough to get women to reverse this prejudice against them, but that's about it.

I doubt if any man cannot recall a story from their childhood where 'boys don't cry' will have been said to them by a parent or relative. Or seeing how other boys would quickly adopt the view that crying was for girls and punished boys who cried accordingly.

Of course, it's a double edged sword too. While we are seen as being better in control of our emotions (which frankly is true, given we're ruthlessly trained to do so in childhood), we also can't turn on the waterworks to elicit sympathy, as some women will notoriously in scenarios such as the courtroom. For a man to be tolerated crying, his entire family has to be killed in a freak lawnmower accident first, and even then people will be uncomfortable with the sight.

And as I already said, personally I think it should be more acceptable for men should to let go of our emotions more, but conversely I also believe that it should also be less acceptable for women to let go of their emotions as much as they presently can.

Being overly emotional is an indulgence that can only be afforded in a society where someone else suppresses theirs so you don't have to.

Galwayguy35

I cried when my parents died and yeah I did feel foolish when people saw me doing it. I've never seen my brother cry, it's not that he wouldn't feel sad but he would never let anyone see him shed a tear.

I don't know about other men but but in my own case we never spoke afterwards about how we felt or anything like that.

It would just have felt awkward.

claypigeon777

This scene from The Godfather shows how one fatal slip can lead to a disaster.

This is why men MUST at all costs guard their emotions and keep them hidden and under control.
Your emotions betray what you are really thinking.
With family and close trusted friends by all means be free with your emotions but with NO-ONE ELSE unless you are a fool and you have no responsibilities.
As Don Corleone says women and children can afford to be careless but not men.
What is true for a mob boss is true for every man in every walk of life.
You obviously will not end up with a real bullet in your back but if you are too free about what you are thinking you will find you will not advance in life.

iptba

claypigeon777 wrote: »

This scene from The Godfather shows how one fatal slip can lead to a disaster.

This is why men MUST at all costs guard their emotions and keep them hidden and under control.
Your emotions betray what you are really thinking.
With family and close trusted friends by all means be free with your emotions but with NO-ONE ELSE unless you are a fool and you have no responsibilities.
As Don Corleone says women and children can afford to be careless but not men.
What is true for a mob boss is true for every man in every walk of life.
You obviously will not end up with a real bullet in your back but if you are too free about what you are thinking you will find you will not advance in life.

What he scolded his son for was for sharing what he was thinking. Not exactly the same as sharing emotions. I'm not sure men get a strong message not to share what they are thinking (although perhaps they get it to an extent?); it is more specific about not crying or some other sorts of emotional displays.

Frito

I don't buy into emotionally guarded=emotionally controlled, much less do I consider it mentally healthy.

There is a difference between feeling an emotion and acting out a behaviour. Both men and women are emotional; this thread has highlighted:-
a)what are socially acceptable behaviours (constructed along gender lines) when dealing with emotions, and
b)which emotions are socially permissible per gender.

OP I think it's improving, but not by any great leaps. Crying as a behaviour for men is a little more acceptable (for every Sharon Osborne moment, there is a One Born Every Minute clip). However I think for a man to be sad is still discouraged (unless, as TheCorinthian said, there's some god-awful reason).