- Registrado
- 4 de Feb, 2018
In most traditionalist and socially conservative circles you will find a strongly held belief that men should never cry. According to these communities men should do everything they can to appear as a stoic rock that never wavers and always try to appear emotionally distant. For them tears of sadness are weakness and tears of of happiness are a sign that a man cannot control himself. This belief is often based on the idea that this is men in their natural state or that this is the behavior that has created all of the Great Men of history. Some add that caveat that men should never cry in public or never cry infront of women, but this is often only after some argument. Is this the case? Should men never cry? Does this create the ideal society or is this just the natural state of things? I would argue that this whole idea is a retarded opinion and that male sentimentality is a good thing. This faux stoicism is not traditional or healthy.
This view is simply not traditional or natural because it appeared recently and came from the top. Read any work or historical document from before the 1970s and you will find emotional men doing great things. Robinson Crusoe, King Solomons Mines, Lord of the Rings, Stranger in a Strange Land, the Bible/Torah, Greek/Roman texts and many more famous texts are full of very emotional characters who cry. Read the letters and speeches of stuffy 19th century leaders and poets and you will also find emotion, especially amongst evangelicals in the US who valued tough guy masculinity the most. The "Greatest Generation" that won the second world was also quite openly emotional. This "never ever cry" mindset is not traditional and I find it suspicious that this idea appeared in the west the 60s and 70s with cowboy movies alongside the decline of the social gospel and rise of neoliberalism/consumer capitalism.
This view is not healthy. Suppressing important feelings and emotionally distancing yourself from your loved ones to look tough? That is a good way to not address problems, harm all of your relationships and leave yourself feeling isolated. Being emotionally absent is basically still being absent as a person can have two parents and still be basically raised by a single mom. Associating all emotion with femininity and declaring it to be unmanly also has other consequences. A man that cries? Have you considered that maybe you are transgender? You must cut your penis off to solve all of your problems. You feel alone? Stew on it like a badass until you go crazy. We are causing social harm and setting up dangerous and insane precedents
Does this mean that men should cry because they cannot open their soy bottle, or that boys should cry over having their XBox taken away for bad behavior? No. Mastery of emotions is important, but the complete suppression of any emotion is retarded. Should men control their rage? Yes. However, does anybody really believe that righteous anger is not a thing? Never ever be angry in public is a retarded viewpoint in the same way that never crying in public is. Will women respect a man less for crying in public? Perhaps, but why care about their opinion?
TLDR: The death of male sentimentality and its consequences has been a disaster for men. It has destabilized society, made life unfulfilling, has subjected men to indignities, and has led to widespread psychological suffering.
This view is simply not traditional or natural because it appeared recently and came from the top. Read any work or historical document from before the 1970s and you will find emotional men doing great things. Robinson Crusoe, King Solomons Mines, Lord of the Rings, Stranger in a Strange Land, the Bible/Torah, Greek/Roman texts and many more famous texts are full of very emotional characters who cry. Read the letters and speeches of stuffy 19th century leaders and poets and you will also find emotion, especially amongst evangelicals in the US who valued tough guy masculinity the most. The "Greatest Generation" that won the second world was also quite openly emotional. This "never ever cry" mindset is not traditional and I find it suspicious that this idea appeared in the west the 60s and 70s with cowboy movies alongside the decline of the social gospel and rise of neoliberalism/consumer capitalism.
This view is not healthy. Suppressing important feelings and emotionally distancing yourself from your loved ones to look tough? That is a good way to not address problems, harm all of your relationships and leave yourself feeling isolated. Being emotionally absent is basically still being absent as a person can have two parents and still be basically raised by a single mom. Associating all emotion with femininity and declaring it to be unmanly also has other consequences. A man that cries? Have you considered that maybe you are transgender? You must cut your penis off to solve all of your problems. You feel alone? Stew on it like a badass until you go crazy. We are causing social harm and setting up dangerous and insane precedents
Does this mean that men should cry because they cannot open their soy bottle, or that boys should cry over having their XBox taken away for bad behavior? No. Mastery of emotions is important, but the complete suppression of any emotion is retarded. Should men control their rage? Yes. However, does anybody really believe that righteous anger is not a thing? Never ever be angry in public is a retarded viewpoint in the same way that never crying in public is. Will women respect a man less for crying in public? Perhaps, but why care about their opinion?
TLDR: The death of male sentimentality and its consequences has been a disaster for men. It has destabilized society, made life unfulfilling, has subjected men to indignities, and has led to widespread psychological suffering.
