More proof that the only emotion we're comfortable with men showing is anger, I suppose.

My father's always cried quite openly around my sister and me [23 and 20, respectively] since before I can remember. Many of my friends find this very strange, but it's certainly made me more comfortable with most any emotion that someone presents to me.

I don't get the big deal about men--or anyone--crying. its an emotion. everyone has 'em. I like the photography. It's really amazing.

BWrites: "More proof that the only emotion we're comfortable with men showing is anger, I suppose."

Ugh. It's sickening, right? I never really thought about it like that. But god forbid a woman show anger!!!!!

I'm uncomfortable with men crying, but not because I think it makes them "pussies."

See, my dad was a cop and when you're a little girl (and a daddy's girl at that), you think that makes him Superman. But when I was in elementary school, my folks were going to get a divorce (they didn't), and the very first time I ever saw a man cry was when they were breaking the news to us. So you add in the surprise of the news, the pain, the surprise of the first time seeing a man cry, and the realization that my dad wasn't what I thought he was....

Basically, I am uncomfortable seeing men cry because it calls up associations with a painful and unhappy time of my life. Maybe I shouldn't feel that way, but I don't think it's going away anytime soon. But I would never deride a man for crying, or think it made him less of a man. I just don't want to watch it.

Thanks for this post, Courtney. The notion that men who cry are somehow less masculine or not even seen as worthy of being men in the first place is a glaring example of hegemonic masculinity -- the idea that there is only one way to be a man and that is through physical and emotional strength. As these piece suggests, however, looking at masculinity in the plural form (-itiES as opposed to -ity) demonstrates that there are lots of ways to be men. It's no surprise, either, that the ones who embody resistive masculinities are often pro-feminists --my favorite.

To me, seeing a man cry makes me think of him as almost more manly because of the perception that it takes courage to be comfortable letting go like that. I'm sure this thinking doesn't help. It would be better to just see them as people with a need to cry at that moment.

My husband is very open with his emotions and I've seen him cry a few times. He also freely tells his male friends he loves them and it has been a real eye-opening experience for me.

one of the most beautiful moments i have ever witnessed was a the bris of the newborn son of my boss/teacher/friend. he was giving a small sermon, and near the end, he began to cry. this continued to happen periodically throughout the rest of the ceremony. it was truly touching.

I know I should just stop getting riled up by Maureen Dowd already. At this point, it's my problem. But her op-ed in yesterday's NY Times was just too much. She asks her (mostly male?) readers: "Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back to the White House?" and argues that "in the end, Hillary had to fend off calamity by playing the female victim, both of Obama and of the press." To suggest that crying inherently implies victimhood--and some sort of manipulative game--is shameful.

Both my bf and best guy friend are very emotional, cry at tender moments in movies and such, and frequently express their love. I rarely cry and am actually somewhat uncomfortable when anyone, male or female, openly expresses such deep emotion (which is my own deal). That being said...I think it's wonderful when men reject stereotypical ideas of "masculine" feelings as limited to anger and lust, and instead are willing and eager to experience the entire range of human emotions. I admire this photographer's attempt to confront us with this, to make us realize, hey, dudes got more than a couple emotions. And I find it sad that so many people are still unwilling to let men cry or express anything less than stoicism or rage.

I'm with Olivia, the only men I've seen cry are so comfortable with themselves that they don't feel the need to hide how they feel just to impress others with their masculinity. Somehow that actually comes off as more masculine to me, and it certainly doesn't make me uncomfortable.

My father cries when he is overcome with happiness. I remember looking out into the audience at my high school awards ceremony and seeing him crying because he was so proud of me. His tears conveyed more than words ever could.

Its not just men who lose out when society teaches them to bottle their emotions but the people they love as well.

Last summer, my SO's two brothers died within 3 months of each other. The shock and trauma of the situation was unbearable. If he and his remaining brother had not cried and wailed I would have been surprised.

He also tells his friends that he loves them. I guess I'm lucky that a) he's open and in touch with hie emotions and b) I don't "mind".

But, I see emotions as necessary. Like sophia86, I think people need to healthily express themselves. It's when we don't that we end up in terrible situations with violence, resentment, and hatred.

Society is uncomfortable with men crying.

Society is uncomfortable with men telling the police that their wives has beaten them up.

Society is uncomfrotable with men going to the hospital to get check-ups.

There is a lot of work we need to do as a society. We need to teach men that it is ok to cry. We need to teach men to get out of a relationship if they are being abused. We need to teach men that they need to get life-saving health checkups.

I've never had a problem with seeing dudes cry. That picture, I keep getting distracted. Poor Benicio!

But more to the point - this has always kind of struck me, in reading about feminism and whatnot. Actually, when reading Full Frontal Feminism. These gender stereotypes and rules, they're not just screwing over women. Men are totally getting the shaft as well, in the restrictive rules they're 'supposed' to conform to. I think that shifting the that way might help everybody - gender stereotypes suck, let's toss them out.

Discussion, that is. Shifting the discussion that way. Can it please be the weekend now?

Do MRAs tackle this issue the way feminists do?

Or is expressing valid human emotion not a "right" they're agitating for?

Anyway, I WISH my boyfriend would cry. I have known him for almost eight years and been dating him for five, and I have never seen him so much as well-up.
I often wonder if he would cry at my funeral. I honestly don't know what it would take.

i know feministing posted something similar to the 'hillary incident' a few months ago. It was a congressman (i don't remember who) standing and giving a speech with his wife by his side, and he got all teared up. it was really touching- i think it might have had something to do with sexual orientation or with infidelity or something. does anyone remember this? if so, can you post who it was? thanks.

I would really like to see this exhibit...

I just stumbled upon this blog yesterday and have been reading it obsessively for the past 24 hours! I am so excited to see all these informative articles and the comments they draw--it's so refreshing after reading (and witnessing) such discouraging behavior on a daily basis.

With that said, I do think that an important point, which stanna touched upon, is that we should not spin this to only represent women. I don't think anyone commenting necessarily meant to do that, but the truth of the matter is, society not being able to handle men cry has a lot to do with...society. Which includes the women in it. Sure, perhaps it is still unacceptable for society to see a woman show anger without being labeled a bitch, and that is wrong...but what is just as wrong is men AND women in society being unable to accept a man's tears. We really do just need to step up as a people and agree that it is perfectly okay for ANY person to express ANY emotion...because we are human, and that is what we're supposed to do in life.

I hope this was eloquent enough for my first comment...I was quite nervous writing this! But I can't be left out of this intelligent banter...incase I haven't made it clear, Feministing, I love you already! And it's only been one day =)

hotpinko -

I think you may be referring to the post about the conservative mayor of San Diego reversing his stance on gay marriage because his daughter is a lesbian.

As far as men crying, my father never cries and my former long-term bf used to cry all the time. On the whole, it makes me pretty uncomfortable because I am just not that used to it, but my opinion depends more on WHY a man cries than on IF he cries.

Is anyone else frustrated that this "incident" has been portrayed as crying? There were no tears, no sobbing, nothing that would imply a breakdown. She had emotion in her voice. That is not crying. Many male candidates give impassioned speeches with emotion in their voices, they might even have a poignant pause and drop their heads for a moment before continuing talking. Is that ever considered crying? No. I am frustrated by the double standard. A few more reasons this whole thing is soooo annoying.

#1 I feel like this entire episode has been manufactured by the press. (I am not going to comment on the entire media debate of whether it was planned or not, because no one can know and it shouldn't be important, and that debate is part of the reason I see this as manufactured by the press), but I do think that the media have zeroed in on this moment and it is that attention that has given the moment any importance.

#2 I am frustrated every time I see the word "cry". She did not cry. Her voice was full of emotion.

#3 I am disappointed in edwards saying that this expressed a moment of weakness and subtly suggesting that this shows she isn't strong enough to be in the white house.

#4 I am not even voting for Clinton in the primary, like the person who asked her the notorious question, I plan on voting for Obama. But, I am very frustrated at how this has been framed. I have seen other comments on this site saying that people feel like they spend more time defending Clinton b/c she is a woman running for president than they do actually talking about the candidate they are going to vote for.

Sorry this is kind of ranty and rambly, but this issue has really gotten under my skin.

This just strikes me as one of the many things men can't do because it's a "woman thing". It's easier for women to cross into the "men's realm" and be outwardly strong and opinionated, I think, than it is for men to cross into what would be termed feminine. The gender binary isn't just two distinct poles. It's hierarchical and manichaean in the sense that masculine behavior is valued over feminine and seen as "the good". For example, it's more likely to hear a traditionally "boys name" used for a baby girl than a "girls name" being used for a boy. The binary is harmful because it values one gender over the other. So how do we change that? Do we need to work to get rid of the gender binary altogether or work within it to change what it emphasizes?

Courtney, I think you nailed it. When a society that treats grown women like children, their tendancy is to appoint other people the adults, the daddies, those who must protect them and make everything ok. How scary for them to discover we are all vulnerable, even our husbands, fathers, and leaders.

I wouldn't want my husband to be the type to cry frequently, just as I wouldn't want a pal to cry frequently. But my boyfriend is able to cry comfortably when it is emotionally appropriate and to me it just makes him stronger. Emoting sadness is part of being a healthful, relatable person, and prevents real "breakdowns" that result from years of repression and rigidity.

There is a GREAT clip from the Daily Show on Alternet about Jon Stewart looking at the clip of Hillary choked up and saying "That's IT?" Awesome. Jon deserves a "Feminist Chicks Dig Me" shirt too!

There is a GREAT clip from the Daily Show on Alternet about Jon Stewart looking at the clip of Hillary choked up and saying "That's IT?" Awesome. Jon deserves a "Feminist Chicks Dig Me" shirt too!

Say what you like, but I personally haven't shed so much as a single drop in over 20 years.

I'm happy with that. I think tears ARE a sign of weakness, and not at all masculine, no matter the definition.

There's nothing respectable, remarkable, or "strong" about breaking down and basically admitting to anyone that can see you that you cannot handle a situation.

I heart Jon Stewart. That clip is hilarious. Everyone should watch it. I especially loved the guiliani bit. And the male montage.

Seriously, something is fucked up when the media thinks men are "sensitive" and "caring" for crying, but when hilary shows a little bit of emotion, they call her an unstable, emotional bitch. Double standard at its best...

It's not just anger men are allowed to express. They can cry, if their sports team loses the big game (there will be tears a plenty after the Super Bowl), as someone pointed out earlier, they can cry at the birth of their children, death of a family member. Or when they're super passionate about something. Then society steps back and goes, "Okay, I get it," and some would even applaud men for their "passion" or what have you.

However, if it's a woman then we're only crying cause of the hormones or something, so it's nothing special.

Benico (if that is how you spell his name) is super attractive in that photo -- thanks for the post!!

88mph, why do you think tears signify that 'you can't handle a situation'? People cry for all sorts of reasons-- when their sports teams win, as UltraMagnus says, when emotional of physical pain is overwhelming, when they are overjoyed... it's hardly a sign of surrender.

After seeing the photos I'm coming back to point out (sorry if someone has already said this) that if people see men crying then it's usually taken as a sign that something is Seriously Wrong and must be paid attention to, unlike with women who are expected to cry on a dime for every little thing. Cause we're hormonal and all. Not to mention women;). /snark

Just seems to me a complete loss of control, and an admission that something is too much for you.

I find it weak.

Also, to Ultra, you can't really deny that women do, on average, cry more than men.

GottaBeMe,
Thank you for the clip! It's awesome.

"There's nothing respectable, remarkable, or "strong" about breaking down and basically admitting to anyone that can see you that you cannot handle a situation."

If what Hillary did is a breakdown to you, then - quite honestly - you are a joke.

Moreover, this view is heartless and cold. Is there no acceptable "situation" where a man can cry and not be seen as weak? I gotta say you come off as very insecure about your manhood if you believe that it can be questioned with a little salt water...as others have pointed out, it actually takes guts for a man to show emotion and contest such rigid definitions of masculinity.

"If what Hillary did is a breakdown to you, then - quite honestly - you are a joke."

Who's talking about Hillary? I wasn't. This article, and posting was about men crying. No one is talking about Hillary.

"Moreover, this view is heartless and cold. Is there no acceptable "situation" where a man can cry and not be seen as weak?"

No. None. I would respect *myself* less for it, just as much as I'd respect someone else less.

"as others have pointed out, it actually takes guts for a man to show emotion and contest such rigid definitions of masculinity. "

Weakness takes no guts. It takes guts to stare in the face of pain and trauma and exceed it. Crumbling in the face of it like a child is not strength.

Weakness is not the new strength, no matter how you'd like to redefine it.

I don't find that "heartless and cold".

I cry pretty often and am not ashamed of it. I also use anger excessively, so go figure. I agree with a lot of the points folks are making here. Society places way too many restrictions on the emotions men are "allowed" to express. I want to teach my boys a different outlook. With the advancement of women in our society, our roles have to change, too. We are now expected to express a full range of emotion and should look at that as liberating.

No more hiding behind a rugged exterior.

I'm not uncomfortable with anyone crying, but let me qualify that a bit. I've gone to school and worked with people who can be set off my any slight, whether real or imagined. I very strongly object to the idea that no one is allowed to show "weak" emotions or cry. We all have bad days. However, dealing with people who are very quick to tears, or quick to anger for that matter, can be very frustrating.

88mph - Weakness is not strength, true, but neither is hiding your vulnerability behind a neatly constructed, stoic, rugged exterior. Hiding your emotion is a not only a sign of weakness, but also a sign of no integrity.

I always admired my father because he showed a range of emotions - including tears when appropriate.

Now, as I navigate the dating world I'm struck by how few men are comfortable sharing their emotions - and to be intropective enough to reach the places inside ourselves that conjure up sadness, and pain and depth. (As well as true joy, happiness, and delight).

I like Courtney's take: nonviolent and authentic. But you gotta get those emotions out there.

Well, some of us are less vulnerable than others.

Being strong enough to *not* break down like a child and bawl isn't weakness.

The crying is what's weak.

"Now, as I navigate the dating world I'm struck by how few men are comfortable sharing their emotions - and to be intropective enough to reach the places inside ourselves that conjure up sadness, and pain and depth. (As well as true joy, happiness, and delight)."

You're actually surprised by this?

88mph - you mean some of us pretend to be less vulnerable than others?

"88mph - you mean some of us pretend to be less vulnerable than others?"

Insinuate what you like, but you'd be wrong.

88mph - you mean some of us pretend to be less vulnerable than others?

Sounds to me like you're saying that hiding one's emotions is a sign of maturity. Are you really serious?

How is crying weak?

88 - I know a hider when I see one. I used to hide myself.

You're not fooling anyone.

I had depression for quite a long time, which of course lead to very dry tear ducts. I went so long in fact in such a deadened state that as I was finally coming out of it and cried for the first time (in a VERY long time) it was quite astonishing. It made me happy to know that I could feel again, that I was actually interacting with the world again.
I think there has to be a certain amount of balance. When I was a kid I could soak up negative emotion like I was breathing it in the air. I had to desensitize for a long time just to protect myself (hence the depression). I went from one extreme to the other. I wouldn't suggest either.
From my experience I have gained a very strong respect for emotion. It seems almost laughable that people think they can control their emotions without consequence. Better to let it out then keep it in.

"Sounds to me like you're saying that hiding one's emotions is a sign of maturity. Are you really serious?

How is crying weak?"

No, I'm not so much saying hiding them. HAVING the urge to cry is just as bad as doing it.

It's weak because you're crumbling in the face of a problem, instead of facing it. It's an action that means you admit defeat, you admit you fail, that you cannot handle the problem at hand, and your only response is to break down.

"88 - I know a hider when I see one. I used to hide myself.

You're not fooling anyone."

Like I said, believe what you want.

"From my experience I have gained a very strong respect for emotion. It seems almost laughable that people think they can control their emotions without consequence."

Life is all about control. If you have no control over your own life and your own self, what do you have?

There's nothing respectable, remarkable, or "strong" about breaking down and basically admitting to anyone that can see you that you cannot handle a situation.

Meh. I'll grant that there could be an argument in this direction but you miss the point, 88mph. If you break down sobbing for little reason, sure that's pretty weak. But welling up during a poignant moment is hardly failing to handle a situation. Its also wrong to assume that not cyring is a sign of strength. Regardless of your personal experience, there are many men who do not cry during various experiences that they are none-the-less quite unprepared to handle. Crying, in private or public, as a way of releasing emotion to allow yourself to better handle a situation is just prudent.

Lets me make my point thusly: crying does not usually prevent you from handling a negative situation, if you mean taking a positive action in response. In crying while happy cases, its hard to see what your point is at all. If you argue that crying demonstrates weakness, all that amounts to is the claim that you, personally, don't need to use crying as a technique to release emotion. But since crying doesn't necessarily limit one's ability to take a positive response to a negative situation, and an emotional response to a negative situation can prevent you from responding positively even if you avoid crying about, it means that we can reject the claim that crying is a clear indication of an inability to respond positively in a negative situation.

You might claim that some people still cry too much, but I don't agree that you can positively differentiate between never cries and rarely cries.

"It seems almost laughable that people think they can control their emotions without consequence. Better to let it out then keep it in."
I just wrote that but I realize that I should explain my self better.

I know there are people out there that just don't ride emotion's waves. The human mind works differently in everyone. Some people may understand and interact with their environments mostly through their intellect or their physical senses, while others interact through their emotions.

I guess it comes down to how things are triggered in our head. When I see something beautiful, I tend to feel it emotionally thereby recognizing its beauty. Someone else may see it and think it is beautiful. Everyone is different and there isn't a better or worse way to be. To say that it is better be more emotional or more intellectual smacks of mind control to me.

But for those who are more emotionally inclined, to repress is rarely a good thing.

"Life is all about control. If you have no control over your own life and your own self, what do you have?"

Is it really all about control? Because an important person in my life is a huge control freak with every single aspect of life, and this person is incredibly unhappy, petty, selfish, calculating, cold, unemotional, and, at times, cruel. Control isn't always a bad thing, but not stepping back for a second to take a breather and perhaps show emotion? Not too healthy either.

88 - I'll get away from the ad hominem crap. Sorry about that. I'm not advocating crying and losing your shit at the drop of a hat, nor am will I concede that being an emotional charlatan to assert one's "strength" is the answer either.

Crying is not a symptom of being unable to handle a situation. Even if one loses control temporarily, it's possible to regain that control and forge ahead, solving the problem. One displays a lack of coping skills, not by crying, but by running away, giving up, or supplanting a real solution with an addiction (i.e. "running to the bottle"). Avoidance, amigo, not crying, is a sign of weakness when it comes to rolling one's sleeves up and getting down to solving a problem.

No pursuit in life comes without obstacles. It's pretty naive to judge someone as "weak" who expresses frustration, remorse, sadness, or any emotion with a good, strong cry.

I cried.

When I got home from my honeymoon, I got a page and called my dad and learned that my mother had terminal lung cancer and months to live. I didn't cry when I sat with her in the hospital, and she used her mostly paralyzed right hand instead of her unaffected left, and took an hour to feed herself a bowl of soup because she was too tough to quit. I didn't cry when the steriods brought on psychosis and she raged in delusions in her bathrobe. But when I heard the news, I cried.

And I cried in September of 2001 when, on the summit of West Mountain in Rockland County, I caught a surprise view all the way down the Hudson River and saw the twin column of smoke rising from the open wound in my city. I didn't when I watched the planes hit, or when I saw the bodies fall, or as I checked off the list of downtown friends to make sure they were all still alive. There was too much to be done. But out in the fall air, where it seemed like a million miles away and I didn't expect to think about it, it took me by surprise and I cried.

I didn't cry when we listened to diagnoses and picked through the surgery options and surgeons for a five week old boy. But when the worry that the condition wasn't isolated and might come with retardation overwhelmed me, I cried.

Anyone who has never experiences something overwhelming, who has never felt the tears spill out unbidden, is either damaged and incapable of normal emotional response, or so blindingly lucky that they should get busy counting blessings and not run their mouth.

That one's for you, 88. Some of us measure our strength by whether we show emotion. Some of us have more important ways to measure it. Life isn't about control, and only control freaks think it is. Life is about people and relationships. I do right every day by my spouse and children; my colleagues and clients; my charity, my village, my friends. That's the yardstick I use.

I cannot believe women have such sexist attitudes like that! (Well, I can, but still.) My boyfriend is totally comfortable crying in front of me and I wouldn't want it any other way. I like seeing his vulnerable side and holding him up in the same way he supports me.

I agree it's the whole "tough guy" persona that these girls want - someone who will be strong so they don't have to. It's an unfortunate cop-out some women take because they aren't strong enough to deal with things on their own or even in a supportive partnership. It's sort of how some guys hide behind the fact that they're male to avoid commitment or be completely sleazy - some girls hide behind being female as though their gender somehow makes it excusable to be emotional while their partner is denied that ability.

Wow, I'm angry. I feel bad for men everywhere. I truly believe feminism aids both men and women equally and it pains me to see either gender hold the other back in terms of personal development. Yes, men do it to each other - dads telling their sons to "suck it up" and "be tough" - but as Courtney's students proved, girls do it to them as well. Argh.

I am uncomfortable when men cry, not because I think they are weak, but because something has to be really messed up for them to cry. (at least the guys I know) My father died when I was sixteen, and the only time I saw him cry were in the later months of his illness, when the cancer was eating him from the inside and he had absolutely zero energy to hold back tears and frustration. But my mother was just as stoic and rarely ever cried throughout her battle with cancer and eventual death a few months ago. Same with my boyfriend. If he is upset, he usually goes stony and waits to sleep on whatever he's mad about, but the few times I've seen him cry were absolutely unnerving, because whatever made him that upset had to be terrible.

Liz - Agreed. On all counts. Sounds like you and your boyfriend enjoy the same mutuality my wife and me enjoy.

thomas - I like what you said, too.

88mph, I kinda feel sorry for you. Any psychiatrist would tell you that not expressing your emotions is unhealthy for both your mental and physical health - we all need a release sometimes. Have you never loved anyone enough to cry for them? Been so overcome with emotion that tears sprang up in your eyes? Felt so passionately about something, whether it be a sports team or a political cause or anything else in your life that you cried in frustration or anger when it didn't happen how you planned it? If not then you're missing out on life's full range of experiences simply because you're convinced you won't be "tough" anymore if you cry. Believe me, I already know men aren't as tough as they like to claim - they're flesh and blood just like every other living being on this earth, frail and mortal and fully capable of getting harmed. Stop playing the überman à la Nietzsche and start being human.

"Is it really all about control? Because an important person in my life is a huge control freak with every single aspect of life, and this person is incredibly unhappy, petty, selfish, calculating, cold, unemotional, and, at times, cruel."

What to you seems cold, unhappy, selfish and cruel to others seems perfectly logical, sensible, and efficient.

Oftentimes people mistake those things for coldness.

"Crying is not a symptom of being unable to handle a situation."

To me it is. For people that cry, it's an uncontrollable (to them) reaction. That in and of itself implies having no control.

"Avoidance, amigo, not crying, is a sign of weakness when it comes to rolling one's sleeves up and getting down to solving a problem. "

Or, instead of wasting time crying about something, you simply solve the problem.

"Life is about people and relationships."

To you, perhaps. Life is mostly about taking the most comfortable, yet efficient route to your death, that provides the least inconvenience and problems possible.

Also, to Ultra, you can't really deny that women do, on average, cry more than men.

Um, could that be because MEN AREN'T ALLOWED TO? I know other people have been addressing what you've said about crying being a sign of weakness but have you not been paying attention to the points that are being made? Men are not allowed to just "cry" in society like women are. If there's a man crying the perception is that there better be a damn good/socially acceptable reason for it or else he'll be deemed a "pussy" as Courtney pointed out. If there was no emphasis on when men should be allowed to cry, or that it's expected of women to be emotional, then we'd probably see a balance.

I am a man and I have cried over the fact that I didn't go to a prom at any point in my high school years. I have struggled with crying episodes and depression for nine years now.

And as for you 88mph, I think that you should rename your handle to 0mph.

Liz - I think we're wasting our time. 88 is clearly one of those utilitarian types who reads too much Ayn Rand.

88mph - crying is a way of handling a situation. It may not always be the best way i.e. crying at work if it's overwhelming, but in many situations it's a great way to relieve stress, saddness, frustration, etc.

There are many examples in my life when I have felt better and much more able to handle something because I had a good cry about it.

"And as for you 88mph, I think that you should rename your handle to 0mph."

? I really have no idea what you mean.

"Liz - I think we're wasting our time. 88 is clearly one of those utilitarian types who reads too much Ayn Rand."

I actually haven't read all that much Ayn Rand. I just act and think in what I deem the most efficient, least wasteful manner.

"88mph - crying is a way of handling a situation. It may not always be the best way i.e. crying at work if it's overwhelming, but in many situations it's a great way to relieve stress, saddness, frustration, etc.

There are many examples in my life when I have felt better and much more able to handle something because I had a good cry about it."

That might be you, but I still view it as weakness. It's reacting to what a situation makes you feel, rather than attacking the situation directly.

True, emotions can hit hard when we humans once again face the reality that so much in life is out of our control. I can see what you mean, 88mph, that crying can at times be a sign of weakness (sometimes it is) when we feel impotent. I just don't happen to believe that it always is such a sign or in fact that weak is a such terrible thing to be now and then. I think people want to live their lives enjoying it, not preparing themselves mentally for any possible catastrophes. But maybe this is getting into Buddhist discussions and other belief systems on how we should handle human impotence.

Changing the topic just a little:
Screaming to release emotion is another act that can make people uncomfortable. (Not yelling at someone but just screaming.) I have talked with people who thought the end of "Garden State" was a little stupid because the three characters scream into the abyss. I totally get what they were feeling though. There is nothing really like screaming our heads off for a few seconds that lets everything out (often more effectively than crying). Unless you are at a concert or something, it just isn't socially acceptable at any time, is it? (God, I love concerts.)
Also, I hate the idea of "emotionally appropriate" moments.

"It's reacting to what a situation makes you feel, rather than attacking the situation directly."

Ahh, the old active vs. reactive debate.

I believe the old archetype at work here is that man were traditionally seen as active/positive while women were traditionally seen as reactive/negative. For example, look at the philosophy behind ying and yang.

The point of the matter is not whether active or reactive is better than the other but that everyone (male and female) has the potential for both.

"Or, instead of wasting time crying about something, you simply solve the problem."

"...attacking the situation directly."

Do you not realize that people cry sometimes because there is no solution. Most of the times that I cry, I'm crying because I'm 21 and I've had to watch both of my parents die slow painful deaths to cancer. What about that situation can I "attack directly." How do you solve the problem if the problem is, "I'm upset because my parents are dead and it was extremely painful to watch." There is NO solution to that problem, no way to attack it and find the route. And I spend a lot of my time "in control" and not being upset, but sometimes, you have to stop repressing every single thing and let it go for a second. God, you are freaking inhuman.

See, I watched my father die, in my living room, when I was 11.

I get ever-so-tired of people always going on with the "You're so inhuman". Darn. I'm sorry, I don't cry, I don't give people sympathy hugs, and I think excess emotion is wasteful. I just do.

An easy way to attack the situation of death is stop seeing death as a super-tragic event. Death is the natural conclusion to life. It's not preventable, you can't stop it, it will happen to everything and everyone. Accepting the immutability of this fact goes a long way towards moving beyond it causing you constant distress.

You know what they call people who don't experience emotion? Sociopaths.

"You know what they call people who don't experience emotion? Sociopaths."

If I had a way to express that I was rolling my eyes, I would.

3-5% of the population have antisocial personality disorder. It is diagnosed more often in men then women. Those with antisocial personality disorder tend to have superficial charm and good intelligence and display shallow emotions and lack of empathy, guilt, or remorse.

I tend not to have much to do with those who practice armchair psychology.

"You know what they call people who don't experience emotion? Sociopaths."

Wow. Even I think that's pretty extreme and a great way to over simplify. But maybe I am assuming too much here.

I actually agree with you 88mph, but with only half of the last bit you said. I don't cry either and I do get annoyed at the "you're so inhuman" stuff, but to insinuate that you are better because of the fact that you don't show emotion just irks me. Different people have different ways of showing emotion (some, a lack thereof). I could respect you if you offered the fact that you don't cry or show emotion, but not while dissing people that do.

I'm allowed to think what I want, though.

"and I think excess emotion is wasteful. I just do."

you hit on it, 88mph. the difference between you and those you are arguing with here is that they don't think that there is an "excess" emotion in some situations. love, death, these are big things, no matter how much "big picture" and context we can construct around them. sometimes an appropriate level of emotion is well, a whole hell of a lot.

that said, i am generally uncomfortable with intense displays of emotion and i don't handle crying people very well because i feel powerless. it's just a personality trait.

sarahMC--maybe your boyfriend needs a release of bottled up emotion and maybe he just grieves differently than you. i have never cried at a funeral. funerals are silly to me and they don't really resonate with me emotionally. that doesn't mean that i don't grieve the loss of a loved one--i just prefer to do it away from a public spectacle and not necessarily through crying at all. everyone deals with sadness differently, so don't be to quick to judge him because he doesn't express himself the way you do.

"love, death, these are big things, no matter how much "big picture" and context we can construct around them. sometimes an appropriate level of emotion is well, a whole hell of a lot."

They aren't "big things" to me. Like I said earlier, death is something that has a lot of social context to a lot of people, you're taught from birth that it's the most horrible thing ever, and it's really just part of life. Love is simply a nonissue and not of any real importance in the grand scheme.

What's big to one person is minor to another. It's all in your perspective.

clearly that's true, but to act like you are somehow better than other people because you can face death coolly is silly.

and come on--love is a nonissue? you can't deny that love is...THE issue for nearly all people at one point or another and i'm sorry if you've yet to experience it, but it's not something to brag about.

sorry, but you're opening yourself up to being called inhuman when you summarily dismiss things that are of the utmost importance to practically the whole of humanity. obviously people are different and i'm not calling you inhuman for being different, but it shouldn't shock you that other people aren't understanding.

"and come on--love is a nonissue? you can't deny that love is...THE issue for nearly all people at one point or another and i'm sorry if you've yet to experience it, but it's not something to brag about."

Yes, I find it a nonissue. Is that so wrong? For it to be "THE" issue for so many people, or to consider it of the utmost importance is sort of, well, pitiful. For a fleeting chemical reaction to be the most important thing in your life seems odd to me.

I don't mind that people consider me inhuman, it just annoys me that they have to mention it.

i never said it was wrong, i said it was uncommon. as for its importance, i have to disagree with you. i do think that romantic love is built up too much in western society, particularly in america as the end-all be-all of human existence, but just because it's overrated doesn't mean i don't think it's pretty important.

i find a meaningful, adult relationship to be a most fulfilling experience. it's hard to see how someone who has had one could think otherwise, even if it didn't turn out well.

anyway, i wasn't even just referring to romantic love--love of one's friends, family, etc is also a huge part of life. really, do you think your love of your mother or your best friend is a "fleeting chemical reaction"?

do you realize that human culture wouldn't exist without love to inspire us to create? emotions have an important place as a driving force of human creation, so however little you might want to do with them, you have to acknowledge this fact.

bottom line: you think we're "pitiful", we think you're "inhuman"--call it even?

"but just because it's overrated doesn't mean i don't think it's pretty important."

Well, I don't happen to find it important.

"i find a meaningful, adult relationship to be a most fulfilling experience. it's hard to see how someone who has had one could think otherwise, even if it didn't turn out well."

I don't see why people would want to waste years of their lives trying to find one.

"do you realize that human culture wouldn't exist without love to inspire us to create? emotions have an important place as a driving force of human creation, so however little you might want to do with them, you have to acknowledge this fact."

Necessity is the mother of invention. Emotions didn't inspire the telephone, the computer, the airplane. Need did.

i meant creation in the humanities moreso than technological innovations.

music? art? literature?

anyway you didn't answer my questions about love apart from romantic love.

also, the effort isn't "wasted" when you find the right person. it makes the struggle worth it.

i think people usually find love when they aren't looking for it anyway. it's not like we're all spending our lives desperately searching and ignoring other important things, so your whole "years of wasted effort" reference is bunk. sure, some people do that and i think those people ARE kind of pathetic, but the rest of us aren't like that at all.

"anyway you didn't answer my questions about love apart from romantic love."

I always felt as though familial love is "love through obligation". I'm not going to have some abundance of emotion for someone just because society says I should.

"also, the effort isn't "wasted" when you find the right person. it makes the struggle worth it."

I don't believe in such saccharine Hallmark card sentiment, no offense.

" so your whole "years of wasted effort" reference is bunk"

Actively engaging in dating and such is wasting years. That's what I mean.

i feel sorry for your family members if you only "love" them out of a sense of obligation. what about your friends?

i'm not one for gooey hallmark bullshit either, but it sounds like you've never experienced something like this for yourself. love is real for a lot of us, even if you believe it doesn't exist.

and i addressed the waste issue before. considering it working toward a goal--finding the right person, at which point the achievement of such goal makes the search worthwhile. some people actually like dating and social interaction anyway so it's not always unpleasant. i certainly haven't spent what adds up to "years" going on bad dates.

I'm not even going to touch the love discussion.

But in the defense of emotion, I have to say that the one thing I think is important in my life is mental stimulation. Coming from the mental/emotional/sensual wasteland of depression, anything that is stimulating and pushes my mind and emotions or whatever to work and adapt and to just plan think is very, very good. My grandmother has dementia, and believe me, seeing someone's mind deteriorate really pushes you to want to use before you lose it. I don't mind feeling weak or emotional if there is a period afterward where I then adapt to the new situation/information or whatever that caused the emotions to come forth. I see emotions as tools for instruction on how to better handle things later on, because I am in no way perfectly capable of handling everything.

Regarding too much emotion in public, seems to be a cultural/social thing to me. One society may see it one way and another group another way. The socially acceptable (or "appropriate") level of emotional display in public or private may be pretty arbitrary.

"i feel sorry for your family members if you only "love" them out of a sense of obligation. what about your friends?"

I just said I don't approve of the concept of society saying you "have to" love a family member.

I keep very few friends. Most people aren't worth the time it takes to stay in touch.

"i'm not one for gooey hallmark bullshit either, but it sounds like you've never experienced something like this for yourself. love is real for a lot of us, even if you believe it doesn't exist."

Well, your statement was fairly gooey. I just don't care for the "oh, you don't know how wrong you are because we've experienced it!". Meh. Chemical reaction is a chemical reaction.

"and i addressed the waste issue before. considering it working toward a goal--finding the right person, at which point the achievement of such goal makes the search worthwhile."

Meh again. I consider it to be wasting time, because it could be better spent on anything else. Besides, there's a strong chance you will *never* find this magical person. Then what?

"some people actually like dating and social interaction anyway so it's not always unpleasant. i certainly haven't spent what adds up to "years" going on bad dates."

I am always baffled when people say they enjoy dating.

Everyone in my family, including my father, and my boyfriend, cried quite a bit after my mom's neighbor poisoned a litter of three kittens that we had raised since infancy. I would have been disturbed if either one of them hadn't. I believe that sometimes before you can take any other course of action to resolve the situation, you have to allow yourself time to feel, if necessary. If your head is clouded with emotions that haven't been released, it's hard to solve a problem effectively or rationally.

Leave 88mph alone. It's not his fault he is actually a Vulcan who had the grave misfortune to be born on a planet full of illogical, over-emotional humans (yay Star Trek TOS!)

and i'm baffled when people say they don't want to find love.

it may be a chemical reaction but that doesn't mean it's not powerful. i can understand intellectually what LSD does to a person's perception without taking it, but i can't really say i fully grasp the experience. it's not meant as an insult, but an observation.

like i said, call it even?

kjalepepper - i think the emotions-tools comment was well put.

actually not to get all star trek nerd on you, but it's not that vulcans don't HAVE emotions, they just control them almost all the time. vulcans are capable of love and other deep emotions. 88mph is more like a robot.

88mph, you seem to be under the impression that people only cry when they are frustrated with a challenging situation - that is only occurs because people are unable to "solve" X, Y, Z.

But most of the situations in which people cry are not "solveable."

There is no way to solve missing a deceased friend or relative. But sadness or grief is intense, so some people cry.

There is no way to solve the joy one feels at a wedding, or birth, or graduation, etc., etc. When you consider these scenarios it's ridiculous to apply the "solve the problem" command, because there's no problem to solve!

People cry when their feelings have been hurt. What are people supposed to do? Somehow make their feelings unhurt?

I can't imagine looking someone living in a war-torn country and telling them to quit crying because it's unproductive.

Crying is not a decision people make as an attempt to solve problems. It's absurd to consider it such.

If men cried more often they might not shoot up schools and shopping malls.

Thanks, rileystclair. It may have taken me six posts to say it, but I think that pretty much sums it up for me at this point.

Meh. 88 has pretty much demonstrated what happens if you cut yourself off from the expression and experience of deep negative emotion: you are then unable to feel deep positive emotion. He may find the trade-off worthwhile, though I agree his self-righteous rhetoric about "wastefulness" and "fleeting chemical reactions" (which, so what? Humans are made up of chemicals--everything we experience is down to a chemical reaction. That doesn't make it less moving or significant) is really obnoxious.

But he really is a case in point. In order to prevent yourself from suffering true grief and true pain, you have to convince yourself that you have nothing valuable to lose, cutting yourself off from perhaps the most basic human sources of joy, fulfillment, and pleasure. Example: his nonsense about death only being bad because we're told it is. I call bullshit. I wasn't socially conditioned into thinking that my best friend's death was bad. At a relatively early age, I watched a woman I'd loved for ten years die. What that meant was that she did not get to live her life, and that I lost someone who had supported me through bad times and whom I had supported, someone whom I loved to spend time with, someone with whom I shared significant memories, etc., and no amount of "death is a natural part of life" crap makes that loss any less (and death is not a natural part of life: death is the end of life). One way to have cauterized that pain and to ensure that I never felt anything like it again would have been to decide never to become close to or value anybody again.

That's a very limited way to go through life, though, and provides you with a very limited and flat experience: it's an emotional retreat. And that's why crying is a sign of strength: it's a sign that you are strong enough to feel and bear the pain that comes with life rather than running away from it and barricading yourself in a small room.

There are abused children who cope with their pain by cauterizing that part of them that feels; an adult of my acquaintance who was abused as a child once told me that she found that she didn't feel things as deeply as other people she knew did. That wasn't a sign of strength; it was a sign of deep trauma and damage which she has been in counseling to try to undo.

And this is what can happen to men who absorb the lesson that their full range of emotion is unacceptable. In order to cut off the lows, they have to cut off the highs, and they find themselves not only with a very limited capacity to engage with the world and other people, but also very few resources to draw on in times of crisis.

Did anybody else hear read Beloved? There's a really moving bit where Paul D reveals to Sethe that Halle had witnessed what Schoolteacher's boys had done to her and had a mental breakdown as a result. She's furious that Halle had seen what had been done to her and "let them go on sucking air." Paul D finally tells her that "a man ain't a goddamn ax. Chopping, hacking, busting, every goddamn minute of the day. Things get to him. Things he can't chop down because they're inside." I do think that the idea of a man as an ax is one of the perfect metaphors for what we, as a society, expect men to be: active, single-purposed, violent, rigid. And a man who tries to fit himself into that mode--well, the more rigid something is, the more often a strong blow will crack it.

I mean, really, instead of getting upset, take a look at 88's philosophy of life: life is about getting through the time to death with the least amount of inconvenience and trouble? That sounds...really boring. I'll take some inconvenience in exchange for fuller experience--hell, I'll take some serious pain in exchange for actually feeling every minute of my life. Taking some time to cry wastes time? I'm not in such a big hurry (to do what, one wonders) that I can't spare half an hour to cry when I need to. Life is about control? Not for me. What is exciting and revivifying about life are precisely those elements that I can't control: what other people do, think, say, and create; the sudden and unexpected snowfall that sticks; the feeling of being drunk (I like being drunk--sue me). I can control a bunch of stuff, fortunately: enough to make my life feasible, but not so much that I have any illusions about my overall level of control. And I think that's the real terror for a lot of men who are rigid and who do cut themselves off from emotion: admitting emotion into your life means being strong enough to accept that you can't control life, and that the loss of control need not annihilate you.

and as usual, EG says it best.

Oh--one more thing. It seems like nobody has yet touched upon crying as a communication. Crying isn't always, or even mainly, about sitting alone, facing unhappiness. Crying can often communicate something important that the person in question doesn't have any other way to express.

That, by the way, is why babies and kids cry so much more often. It's the only way infants have to communicate; once they can say "I'm hungry," they no longer have to cry, because they can communicate that urgent bit of information to their guardians without crying, and I don't have to cry when I'm hungry because I can go get myself some food.

When an adult cries, it can communicate that he or she really needs some support and kindness and compassion from those around him or her; it can communicate that he or she is in intense pain and needs for that to be relieved; it can communicate that an experience was unbelievably powerful (surely others have encountered or experienced the phenomenon of crying after particularly intense sex? No? Never mind, then.); it can communicate a combination of pride and nostalgia (at a beloved child's graduation, for instance).

Crying is like laughing; they're both partly involuntary and partly controllable, depending on the situation; they both can communicate a wide range of emotions and messages to others present; they both demonstrate the way that the mind-body split is false, as they show how experiences perceived and understood by the mind have a direct bodily effect; they can both be induced by physical stimulation (onions and tickling, for example).

Aw, riley. You make me blush! (another sign of weakness, no doubt!)

Beautifully written, EG. I couldn't have said it better myself. (And I think we've been reading each other's posts for long enough that you know I really couldn't. But I did want to say something along those lines.)

"Aw, riley. You make me blush! (another sign of weakness, no doubt!)"

Hehe.. AND laughing.. AND smiling.. those must all be weaknesses, right 88?

I think it's kind of hilarious to read your posts. I feel bad for you. I'll probably get quoted in one of your posts, but it'll make me smile. :)Unless smiling is INDEED a sign of weakness, GOD FORBID I be weaker than 88mph!!!!!!

"There is no way to solve missing a deceased friend or relative. But sadness or grief is intense, so some people cry."

I addressed that already.

"There is no way to solve the joy one feels at a wedding, or birth, or graduation, etc., etc. When you consider these scenarios it's ridiculous to apply the "solve the problem" command, because there's no problem to solve!"

The only time I went to a wedding, all I felt was drunk. ;) When someone has a child, I'm completely indifferent, leaning towards irritated at yet another population increase. Graduations are generic meaningless, yet expected congratulations.

"People cry when their feelings have been hurt. What are people supposed to do? Somehow make their feelings unhurt? "

Well, actually, yes. That's it exactly. You figure out what is causing this reaction, and you, for lack of a better word, repair it.

"If men cried more often they might not shoot up schools and shopping malls."

Low blow. I could easily say "If women cried less often they might not drown their children."

Neither statement is accurate or relevant. Let's avoid using them, shall we?

"Meh. 88 has pretty much demonstrated what happens if you cut yourself off from the expression and experience of deep negative emotion: you are then unable to feel deep positive emotion."

Controlling your emotions is far more productive than being controlled BY them.

"Example: his nonsense about death only being bad because we're told it is. I call bullshit."

I don't. If the entirety of society taught you that death was not something to be mourned, and created an entirely different appearance of it than we currently do, you WOULD inevitably see it differently.

Instead, we're taught that anything and everything must be done to preserve life for 5 more minutes, that death is the worst possible thing in the world, and more. Especially considering how dour funerals are. I hate them. They should be a celebration of that person's life, not a mourning of their death.

"and death is not a natural part of life: death is the end of life"

Which makes it part of the natural progression OF life. Everything dies. Do you face the reality with tears, or do you face it with the knowledge that the time you spent was worthwhile?

" One way to have cauterized that pain and to ensure that I never felt anything like it again would have been to decide never to become close to or value anybody again."

A worthwhile endeavour. After all, the only person who will truly never leave your side is the one in the mirror.

" And that's why crying is a sign of strength: it's a sign that you are strong enough to feel and bear the pain that comes with life rather than running away from it and barricading yourself in a small room."

I see it as a sign that you're unable to contain yourself and have the restraint, control, and experience of a child.

"That sounds...really boring."

Well, if you want to really bring it down to tacks, the entire purpose of life is to reproduce and then die. Adding human intellect changed that dynamic, so, we seek to reach that end with as little problem as possible.

"That, by the way, is why babies and kids cry so much more often."

Which is also why adults shouldn't use a baby's form of expression.

"(surely others have encountered or experienced the phenomenon of crying after particularly intense sex?"

I think you're alone there.

"Crying is like laughing; they're both partly involuntary and partly controllable"

I beg to differ. *Completely* controllable, and totally voluntary. I really have no idea if I've ever laughed at something involuntarily. I "laugh" when socially expected, just to grease the wheels and avoid people staring.

"I think it's kind of hilarious to read your posts. I feel bad for you."

And why is that?

" I'll probably get quoted in one of your posts"

Yep, right there.

Sorry for the giant, huge, supermassive post.

Controlling your emotions is far more productive than being controlled BY them.

When did these two choices become the only options? Many people have made the distinction between expressing emotions through tears (or other means) and being so overwhelmed by those emotions that you are unable to function.

And thanks, Courtney, for the original post! I've been thinking more about constructions of masculinity and the way our culture's anti-feminist conceptions of gender affect men, so I really appreciate the photo project and the conversation around it.

I really have no idea if I've ever laughed at something involuntarily. I "laugh" when socially expected, just to grease the wheels and avoid people staring.

And...I rest my case. 88 not only can't feel intense joy, he can't even enjoy basic social interactions. And he feels that the point of life is to be "productive" and to reproduce with little trouble.

And so I ask you: aren't some tears worth not ending up like that?

"And...I rest my case. 88 not only can't feel intense joy, he can't even enjoy basic social interactions. And he feels that the point of life is to be "productive" and to reproduce with little trouble."

Well, not precisely. I personally have no desire to reproduce. I was simply saying that the entire concept of life, from us, right down to the least complex organism on the planet, is to simply make more of itself and then die.

Basic social interactions are, for the most part, means to an end.

"And so I ask you: aren't some tears worth not ending up like that?"

Simply because you find my personality inexplicable, or different from your own, does not mean it's something you "end up" like, nor does it mean that it's incorrect, bad, or wrong, thanks much.

Though, as an addendum to that:

I've seen people after a break-up screaming, wailing, sobbing, miserable, clutching a bottle of liquor tighter than they held their partner, alternating between regret, anguish and self-loathing, and leaping to the phone to beg that person to take them back.

So I ask, are a few tears worth ending up like that?

It is abnormal. And it is "wrong" in the biological sense. Human beings, biologically, are geared to have empathy towards other human beings and be social animals. If we are talking about life being basically, live, reproduce, and die. Human beings are intended to cooperate and empathize with each other so as to further the species. If you do not share that empathy for other human beings, then something didn't go quite right.

I've been known to have tears well up over a particularly moving performance of a symphony. I fail to see how that makes me weak, and I fail to see why I should clamp down on my enjoyment of the experience by working to suppress something so harmless.

Don't even start about the tears I shed at my wedding. God forbid I should let my wife see the depth of feeling I have for her!

88mph, your experience of emotion is apparently so foreign to the most of the rest of the people you interact with that you lack a frame of reference to judge their strength or weakness.

Steel, glass, stone, string, willow withies: all are strong in their own way. Water, wind, sunlight, sound: each has a strength its own, daunting to face in its fullness.

Do not presume your strength is the only strength.

"It is abnormal. And it is "wrong" in the biological sense."

It's not up to you to decide that I'm "abnormal" or "wrong".

In the biological sense, all my organs function properly, my bones and all other components are formed correctly. Ergo, in the biological sense, I'm perfectly normal.

". I fail to see how that makes me weak, and I fail to see why I should clamp down on my enjoyment of the experience by working to suppress something so harmless."

I can enjoy something for it's merits without such expressions.

"Don't even start about the tears I shed at my wedding. God forbid I should let my wife see the depth of feeling I have for her!"

Many women I have known have said they could never look at their husband the same way if he had cried at their wedding.

It makes many people, myself included, incredibly uncomfortable when people do it.

"Do not presume your strength is the only strength."

Do not presume that, as I said earlier, "weakness is the new strength". It is not.

It isn't up to me to decide that you are abnormal, no, but since normal, is well, the "norm" then yes, you are abnormal, as evidenced by the fact that you are different from almost everyone you come in contact with. Everyone you come in contact with = the norm. You being different from all of them while they share commonalities = abnormal. Having an IQ of 145 is abnormal, because the norm or median range is below that. Abnormal doesn't have to necessarily be an insult, but you are certainly abnormal.

I really have no idea if I've ever laughed at something involuntarily. I "laugh" when socially expected, just to grease the wheels and avoid people staring.

This gave me chills. And not in a good way.

Anyway, you are setting up a false dichotomy when you claim that if one is not putting all his/her energy into remaining "in control" of one's tears, s/he must be "out of control."

No. Sorry. There is a huge range that lies between.

"It isn't up to me to decide that you are abnormal, no, but since normal, is well, the "norm" then yes, you are abnormal, as evidenced by the fact that you are different from almost everyone you come in contact with."

By that logic, gay people would be "abnormal" according to you, right?

We both know that they aren't abnormal, so why do you persist in attempting to apply that here?

Different =/= abnormal.

"Abnormal doesn't have to necessarily be an insult"

It carries those connotations. You don't hear of geniuses being referred to as "abnormal".

Are astrophysicists abnormal because there aren't a lot of them? I doubt you'd hear them referred to as such.

See, here's the thing about 88: he doesn't experience the intensity of emotion the way most of the rest of us do. For that reason, he can't explain, by his own experience, how or why crying is important, or why we wouldn't want to give it up; the only explanation he can find that makes sense in his very limited experience is "weakness," because he actually cannot feel the rewards.

Why? Who knows? People are strange. Some things happen at a genetic level; some things happen on the level of brain wiring; some things happen as a result of trauma or other experiences. The only really obnoxious part is the way he uses his limited experience to pass judgment on the rest of humanity.

you are setting up a false dichotomy when you claim that if one is not putting all his/her energy into remaining "in control" of one's tears, s/he must be "out of control."

It's also logically inconsistent: if crying means that you're "out of control," then you actually can't control it. That means that not controlling it isn't a measure of...well...anything, because it is not possible to control it. That's what "out of control" means.

It also assumes that putting in all that effort not to cry is worthwhile. But why? What do you get out of it? It sort of reminds of that Zora Neale Hurston quotation: "Trying to live without friends is like trying to milk a bear for your morning coffee. It's a lot of trouble, and not worth much once you succeed."

Well, EG, I don't see any "rewards" in that sort of behaviour.

I've seen people post-breakup/name your trauma here, that eat less, sleep more, are less productive at work, listless at home, and generally about 50% as functional as they used to be, sometimes for weeks on end.

Are you calling that a "reward"? I'm calling that weak.

" The only really obnoxious part is the way he uses his limited experience to pass judgment on the rest of humanity."

Well, why not? You're doing the same, just at an inverse.

Tears are a reaction to stimulus. Pain, joy, grief, boredom, heck I've laughed so hard I've cried and when I get really really angry, tears are generally the next step when I'm coming down off the endorphin rush.

Yes, I think it's silly that some people cry over the simplest thing: hallmark cards, love songs, sappy commericals, but then I laugh at the silliest things so I guess it comes out even. (I laugh at just about everything, to be truthful. I even laugh when I'm arguing with someone. The thing I hear most often from people is 'you laugh too much'.)

If someone chooses tears as their mode of expressing themselves, then that is their choice. If someone chooses stoicism or anger or laughter (in my case) to express themselves, as long as they don't use that emotion to hurt another person, then that is also their choice.

When his mother died four years ago, my dad went and tore down a house. It was his way of dealing with the anger, pain and loss. It also served a purpose, since the house was an eyesore and needed to come down anyways.

To be honest, though, I don't think much of people who cry at the drop of a hat. I've been in too many situations where tears were used as an excuse not to deal with a situation or where someone let their tears prevent them from acting. See this fire? Your tears are not going to put it out. Cry later, deal now.

"It's also logically inconsistent: if crying means that you're "out of control," then you actually can't control it. That means that not controlling it isn't a measure of...well...anything, because it is not possible to control it. That's what "out of control" means."

How so? If a car is out of control, it means it's no longer being controlled, not that it previously couldn't be. It means control is *lost*, not that one could never have it.

You live life your way, and deride me for mine, and I'll live mine my way, and deride you for yours. Sound fair?

I'm going to ignore the trolls and say my piece.

I've had a very different experience of men crying and I am grateful for it. I'm a drama student and being in a conservatory acting setting, you see a lot of men cry. What's beautiful is it's not just inside the classroom. My actor friends are just as open outside acting class, and I have seen many of them cry, including the biggest, toughest, straightest ones. I don't get uncomfortable when men cry. I get uncomfortable when they think they shouldn't.

"I'm going to ignore the trolls and say my piece."

One thing I hate about this site. If you dare offer a dissenting opinion, while many might discuss with you civilly, sooner or later, someone will call you a "troll", just because you don't play status-quo.

Is that exhibit still up? If so, what gallery? It sounds really interesting.

I'm not sure how I'm deriding you by describing what you yourself have talked about as the conditions of your life.

People aren't cars; the issue is whether or not your metaphorical car could control its own actions. When it comes to people, the question is not only whether or not they can control their own actions, but whether or not doing so at all times and in all ways is worthwhile. Now, one way of being in control is acknowledging that crying is an emotionally cathartic and worthwhile experience; in that case, why would one try not to?

On the other hand, you claimed that when people describe the experience of crying to you (this is in one of your early comments), they described it as being beyond their control, overwhelming. In some cases, this has been my experience. In those cases, it is uncontrollable.

Now, extrapolating from what you have said, your experience of emotions is...thin. Not intense. (As you have indicated by claiming that feeling the urge to cry, whether or not one suppresses it, indicates weakness--I'm extrapolating that you yourself rarely if ever feel that urge.) Therefore, I suggest that your ability to control those emotions need not be particularly strong itself--after all, what is it fighting against? A very diluted form of emotional experience indeed. If you don't have much, you don't need much to overcome it. What that means is that you really haven't the faintest idea what it would take to control emotions at their full force.

Similarly, you can't feel the full force of positive emotions, including something as basic as involuntary laughter. If you can't feel the rewards--the laughter, the positive emotions, the catharsis--how on earth can you judge whether or not denying oneself those rewards is worth what would be a much greater effort than what you have to put out for those who can?

The problem is, you're passing judgment about urges you don't have.

It's like a lesbian telling a straight woman that if she had self-control, not only would she not have sex with men, but she wouldn't even want to, and she (the lesbian) could tell because she herself has never had the overwhelming desire to have sex with men.

I believe that showing emotion IS TAKING CONTROL. Who says it's letting go of control? I've never, EVER heard someone say that until now.

"In the biological sense, all my organs function properly, my bones and all other components are formed correctly."

Because the brain, emotions, and feelings are in no way related to biology :)

Which is weird, because previously 88 acknowledged that emotions were down to biochemistry!

EG: Those last two posts in a row were perfect! Why are you so good at articulating these things? :)

"

The problem is, you're passing judgment about urges you don't have.

It's like a lesbian telling a straight woman that if she had self-control, not only would she not have sex with men, but she wouldn't even want to, and she (the lesbian) could tell because she herself has never had the overwhelming desire to have sex with men."

Perfect!

88: I think Stephen Hawkings is abnormal. Do you think he is normal? He is a rare genius, and certainly well above the norm. I am shocked that you don't want to be seen as different from the norm. You seem to have great disdain for the 95% of the population that feels emotion. I feel like it would be a point of pride for you to be abnormal, as you seem to take not feeling emotion as a strength.

Hehe.. don't wanna make you blush again or anything weak like that, but you're awesome EG! hehe...

"When it comes to people, the question is not only whether or not they can control their own actions, but whether or not doing so at all times and in all ways is worthwhile."

I find that it is worthwhile. You're more effective in most every way.

"In some cases, this has been my experience. In those cases, it is uncontrollable."

Never experienced it.

"I'm extrapolating that you yourself rarely if ever feel that urge"

Correct.

"Similarly, you can't feel the full force of positive emotions, including something as basic as involuntary laughter. If you can't feel the rewards--the laughter, the positive emotions, the catharsis--how on earth can you judge whether or not denying oneself those rewards is worth what would be a much greater effort than what you have to put out for those who can?"

Because I see how I am, and I see how others are, and I see how often miserable they are, and how unappealing that appears to be.

"I believe that showing emotion IS TAKING CONTROL. Who says it's letting go of control? I've never, EVER heard someone say that until now. "

I happen to think otherwise.

"Which is weird, because previously 88 acknowledged that emotions were down to biochemistry!"

Yep, but how you respond to it is within your power.

"Do you think he is normal?"

After a fashion, yes. Part of "normal" in humans is a wide variety of intellects.

" I feel like it would be a point of pride for you to be abnormal, as you seem to take not feeling emotion as a strength. "

Shrug. Sometimes blending is more advantageous than standing out.

Hello :).
An example of men crying - the only time I've seen my father cry is when I visited him 5 minutes after he'd been called and told his older brother had died. He didn't cry at the funeral and I don't think he cried since. A year later, he blows up at a friend of the family about *her* father, who he was pretty good friends with, saying "he's not my brother and there's nothing he can do to make it that way". He's refused to talk about it since. I think crying more would have helped him get his feelings out of his system. Sometimes crying can be a way of "fixing" the emotional problems you have, by wearing them out.

On the other hand, Dad's mum (my grandmother), *didn't* cry at the funeral. Rather, she chuckled at all of the anecdotes about my uncle, and while she misses him, believes that he is still with her in memories and spirit. She didn't really understand why I got teared-up when she gave me the brick his ashes had been made into, as to her, the ashes were just what's left of the packaging.

Each to their own :).

avast2006: "I fail to see how that makes me weak, and I fail to see why I should clamp down on my enjoyment of the experience by working to suppress something so harmless."

88mph: "I can enjoy something for it's merits without such expressions."

This is, either non-responsive or else tautological.

"This is, either non-responsive or else tautological."

I don't need to laugh at a joke to appreciate it being well-constructed or relevant, nor cry at a symphony to appreciate it's composition.

88mph: "One thing I hate about this site. If you dare offer a dissenting opinion, while many might discuss with you civilly, sooner or later, someone will call you a "troll", just because you don't play status-quo."

I have to admit, my first reaction to your comments was to think of you as a troll, but after further thought, I don't think you're here to stir up trouble.

However, I think the reason many commentators are reacting so negatively to your observations isn't because you're offering a dissenting opinion. Rather, it's because you are making sweeping generalizations about "normal" and "productive" human behavior based solely on your own subjective experience. (I will acknowldege that you have also cited "biology" in your arguments, but you haven't yet responded the points many commenters have made about neurobiology.) I really have no right to say that the breadth and depth of your emotions are "wrong"*--after all you seem perfectly satisfied with your life and (as far as I know) pose no threat to anyone. But just as I can't judge whether or not you're truly happy (or content, or comfortable) you cannot objectively determine whether or not I (anyone you have listened to or observed) am rendered unhappy or unfulfilled by my "excessive" emotional experiences.**

You certainly can observe that you find demonstrative emotions purposeless; but to draw larger conclusions about the human experience based solely on a solipsistic, reductivist worldview is aggravating.

*Though I don't understand your humbrage in response to the term abnormal. I suppose no one likes to be labeled, but given your own stated impatience with the status quo, I'd think you'd take a certain amount of pride in being a member of the statistical minority

**And I have borderline personality disorder, so I'm pretty sure they are "excessive" (statistically speaking).

**I believe that showing emotion IS TAKING CONTROL. Who says it's letting go of control? I've never, EVER heard someone say that until now.

Kmari1222***

Let me be the second person, then, who says that at times showing emotion, particularly strong emotion, is a form of loosing control. So says the control freak. :)

For instance, I hate loosing my temper. All those blocks I have on my inner thoughts are gone and I will say and do things that simply cannot be forgiven. Giving in to my emotion (hate, anger, pain) is the equivalent of loosing control.

Y'know what Master Yoda says. :) Pain leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to the Dark Side. Control your emotions you must.

88mph: "I don't need to laugh at a joke to appreciate it being well-constructed or relevant, nor cry at a symphony to appreciate it's composition.

Still not seeing what I meant, I gather. You have not demonstrated why reacting to a symphony to the point of shedding tears* over it, or reacting to a joke to the point of involuntary laughter, is "bad." Describe the harm in this experience, in as objective terms as possible. All you have done thus far is to assert that it is bad, and to justify your position by saying that you don't do it and don't like it. In essence: "I don't like it because it's bad, and the fact that I don't like it, don't need it, and don't do it proves that it's bad." Sorry, but it doesn't prove anything; that's circular reasoning.

(* If it helps, this probably is not the same thing as "crying" over it in the way that I sense you define "crying." There is no particular impairment of my mental or emotional state as a result. Crying over a symphony does not make me an emotional wreck.)

Courtney- you hit the nail on the head. I grew up with a father who has cried three times in my memory and a boyfriend who has cried countless times. I prefer the latter... there's something so intimate about sharing tears with another person.

As for being nonviolent and authentic, why is that so damned hard for some people?!

It's interesting how many different kinds of crying there are, isn't it, avast? I've wept through musicals and Twilight Zone episodes that struck important emotional chords with me, and that has to do with its aesthetic achievement insofar as the reason their invocation of those themes was effective was that they were so well-constructed. But far more akin to your weeping over the symphony (thought a bit lower class!), I once found tears coming into my eyes when I was watching Derek Jeter make this play he's good at, deep in the hole between short and third, where he actually torques his body in mid-air to throw to first, because it was so breath-takingly graceful. I just love these moments where aesthetic appreciation, so often dismissed as frivolous, cause these visceral bodily reactions.

It's this wonderful continuum connecting people at all stages of life, this basic method of communication that is one of the few abilities that we're born with, and that remains an essential method of conveying distress or other powerful emotions throughout life.

And thanks Kmari and Femidancer! There're a lot of therapists in my family...I guess some insights have to rub off! (I'm enjoying quite a few emotional reactions now, to be honest--giggling, for one!)

Very interesting thread. Having read through it all, it just seems to me that no one can/should define what weakness is. Everyone has a different definition.

As a man there are times I get uncomfortable when seeing another man cry, the thought does flash through my mind "something must be really wrong", this is of course outside of obvious settings such as weddings and funerals. The thought doesnt come as automatically when I see a woman cry, dont know exactly why that is, perhaps I've seen it so much I no longer take it as seriously.

One thing lost I think, in the crying/emotion debate, is that sometimes a little stoicism can be good. During my time in the military and in warzones it was not an option a lot of the time. Perhaps thats why you see so many emotional problems when people come back. Theres no real way to fix that, you cant lose your shit over there even if your mom died, your SO left you and youre in a foreign country at 3am not knowing whats behind the door. Thats an extreme situation but what I'm getting at is I have become a little scared of people crying at the drop of the hat or the crippling emotions some of my friends experience almost constantly. I think one can be a little too emotionally open, especially towards the actions and thoughts of others and some of my friends now seem to lack the resolve to work through these issues, most cry a lot but there are other ways they deal with it as well. Its a frustrating thing that they cant seem to function without being highly emotional. Having not enough emotions is discussed often, as in this thread, but I think there can also be too much of a good thing.

In the end I dont think crying makes you weak unless it conflicts with your personal beliefs for some reason, its a great release but no healthier than a hundred other things people can do and there are indeed times where a stiff upper lip is needed, not a quivering sob. But as always, whateva gets ya high do what works for you and damn what anyone else thinks. As far as Clinton, its something she is going to have to deal with, its not right and its not fair but she knows the rules of the game as they currently are as well as anybody and will have to deal with the emotion card very carefully.

Very honestly, I think it's frightening for us to see "weakness" in someone we think is strong.

I agree, it is possible to be overwrought and hypersensitive. I also agree that there are times when emotional outbursts are inappropriate. I just think the thresholds we set for them (i.e, Stoic and Never) are too far in the other direction, especially in the case of men. We spend so much time desensitizing and "toughening" our males, and then wonder why we're all such a bunch of churlish, emotionally clueless assholes.

avast,
do you think that is because we still feel the need to toughen a portion of our society, in this case the male side, for the benefit of all?

that seems to be the case and we know all too well the downside to it, though we do often also forget some of the benefits.

as an issue overall though, I'm in agreement with the sentiment of most of the posters, crying is not a sign of weakness. everyone should be able to do what they need to to get through and if crying is what it takes, and you can do it, more power to you.

There's an interesting paradox here. People (esp men) stuff their feelings because of societal pressure. For example, they are afraid of being perceived as "pussies." (By the way, any 20-ish-year-old woman who admits to holding that belief should tear up her feminist card, don an apron and retire to the kitchen immediately. Having emotionally shut-down men is one of the hallmarks of the dreaded Patriarchy, isn't it?)

Even mph88 mentioned that as a justification. He supports men stuffing their emotions so that their wives won't lose respect for them. In other words, they are letting their wives dictate their inner lives. How strong is that?

Is it always because of societal pressure though? Can it not, at least sometimes, also be for the benefit of society?

There are people in this society who we need to be able to shut off or at least highly limit their emotions for short or even long periods.

You're right though that letting other peoples expectations of you determining your inner life is a pretty weak thing but again its not always a bad thing. People in a position of leadership often must present a facade which may not reflect their true feelings. I understand that wasn't really what you were getting at but I think we are losing the people who are capable of doing it. Its not a widespread need but it is there, we need some people to have that stiff upper lip, to be unflappable under any circumstances, we as a family, squad, town, state or society can draw strength from it.

dananddanica,

To answer your question, I think the US is still very much a culture of War. We still identify with WWII (our last great victory), the Greatest Generation, their great sacrifice, and all that. In order to get our menfolk ready to go off and kill on command, we have to desensitize them, turn them into killing machines. If we were to celebrate the masculine as authentic and sensitive, we would have to come to terms with what we are doing to the men in our armed forces. So we make that the masculine ideal for everybody, so we can pretend it's a good thing, rather than a necessary atrocity.

Not to say there isn't a reason for it. But still, conditioning a mind to be ready to kill is to make some portion of that mind insane. We have no problem characterizing it that way when a civilian prepares himself psychologically to kill. For the armed forces it is necessary, but nonetheless a warping of the psyche. (and then to top it off, we reduce veterans benefits by way of thanking them for their selfless service to God and country. Way to go, GW...)

As you can imagine, for many reasons, I am no fan of GW. I'm not sure if "warping" is the best word to use for the argument you're making but I understand it. Your premise though is I think a little off. It is rare to find a person who isn't ready to kill in at least some circumstance but I do agree that taking that base instinct and refining it is hurting one part of the psyche to bolster another to get a desired effect.

Either way though, at the end of the day we need people like that and not just soldiers and firefighters but economic warriors too, people willing to disregard simple human emotion for a greater good whether we admit it or not.
Since these people are often among our most revered it makes sense a lot of people would be uncomfortable with certain kinds of showing emotions.

The public display of emotion seems to be the issue but its just one more of those issues used to fill up the 24 hour news cycle with no real importance.

Regarding "necessary atrocity", I dont see things that way but I understand why someone would.

Hmmm. Define "economic warriors." I hope you don't mean the people who shipped my job and my inventions to India so the company stock price would go up.

Regardng leaders and a stoic presentation, personally, I would not trust somebody who never got a little misty about appropriately emotional topics. Somebody who can ship off our boys off to die and be maimed by the thousands without turning a hair looks to me like he doesn't give a damn about them. I don't trust that person to act in their best interest, and by extension, in mine.

As to twisting soldiers to get them ready to kill on command, I have to reconsider my words. Seeing how much stress they come home with after actually being called on in the moment to do the deed, maybe they haven't been hardened quite as much as I let on. (This, however, is but more evidence that the suck-it-up version of manhood is a Big Lie.)

To amplify on that idea a little more, there's a quote from somewhere that I remember, that I will hopefully not mangle too badly:

"There are brave men, but there is no such thing a a fearless man. A brave man is one who knows the situation, knows the risks, fears them, and faces them anyway, despite the fear. The fearless man is the one too stupid to understand what he is getting into."

i feel like this posits a really interesting point of discussion, bringing up the gender binary/gender roles portion of feminism which, at least in terms of mainstream feminist discourse, oftentimes seems neglected.

obviously, there is some degree of (perceived) exclusivity in how men view feminism, and it seems that in discussing what are universally experienced gender norms, men are allowed a more direct (and therefore active) voice in pro-feminist discussions. as many have already expressed in their comments, feminism is not a girls-only club, and posts like this show that men, too, can have a very active (and personal) stake in the feminist movement, which is awesome.

bravo.

thats the thing, in the example you mentioned, more often than not they do give quite a hair, only in the opposite direction. they dont get misty, they get angry and a lot of times personify the angry warrior male pathos. does it work? if by getting the short term mission done, yes. does it work long term? i would say it has mixed results but what is the alternative? both men and women are constricted by binary gender roles but those old standards, the old roles, can serve a purpose when needed, they are just modified a bit.

as to the economic warriors, you mention the ones who moved your job and work product to india. well, those people are needed too. anyone who makes an economic decision based on or influenced by emotion, when it isnt called for, is going to suffer compared to their competitors. its a harsh reality but one Americans will have to come to face with. From a feminist perspective, the new jobs in India are making quite a number of positive things happen for women, men as well. is their progress to be choked so that ours wont slow down? Perhaps though I'm not the best person to talk to on these matters as my job cannot be outsourced and nothing short of an overthrow of the government will cost me my job. my point was is that we do need people, in the economic forum, who can be completely dispassionate, we only protect ourselves and our future through innovation.

finally, i would say the suck it up version of manhood is not a lie, it has just not been fully fleshed out. those very words "suck it up" are actually, within a military context, used as what not to do all the time. that mentality needs to be used of course at times but also compartmentalized. thats the difficult issue, how do you teach someone to turn it on and off? you really cant, some people can just naturally do it, those who cant are the ones you see coming back with problems. im glad my time in the military ended last year but that culture, as the epitome of the old male paradigm is changing too and learning how to adapt the best of the old-school way of thinking with the new, it should not all be tossed out nor can it be.

88, I don't entirely understand. What do you feel? I'm not attacking you, I just don't understand.

You don't cry. You don't even want to cry, in pain or in joy. Laughter is something you do for appearances so by that description you are not moved to laughter... Ever?

You do not naturally feel affection for family members. Death does not make you unhappy. You do not take pleasure in the company of someone you're attracted to (dating).

What pleasure do you get from life then? If it's all about efficiency, what's in it for you?

I agree about death, I am not overly bothered by death itself and certainly not by my own. But the loss of someone who fills you with joy is something that is a physical and debilitating pain. To explain what I mean by pain, imagining my partner dying feels like being punched in the solar plexus hard - if you know how that feels.

I do not believe in love in the classical sense, yet I love my partner. Watching his face as he sleeps sometimes fills me with such intense pleasure that it brings tears to my eyes. When I say pleasure, I mean an intense burning sensation in my chest that somewhat resembles orgasm - I'm guessing you know what that feels like?

Hell, if we're talking pleasure, just reading an explanation for some amazingly complicated biological mechanism that makes such sense and is so wonderful in it's complicity can fill me with joy that makes me chest tight and my eyes bright and my smile uncontrollable.

I don't want children. I am completely uncomfortable with babies and am deeply freaked out by other women getting mushy and expecting me to. But I like children. Children who are so happy and excited to see you catch a fish for them to take home and look after, who smile in unabashed joy just because you gave them a little wave. And I love my little brother and sister like my own. I love them so much it hurts, and this is not familial obligation because I find it impossible to love my parents and instead feel a mixture of protectiveness and pity and resentment.

I cry too easily. I hate it. I cry out of anger, usually, because I have such a bad temper that if I had not learnt to re-route it at a young age I'd probably be in prison right now. But at one point I got so depressed I stopped crying. I stopped caring. The urge to cry just went away. And I hated it so much because I felt empty inside. No fire, no joy or passion or anger or terror or anything. I don't want to be dead inside.

I'm quite sure that humans, like every living organism on the planet, are nothing more than stimulus and response. Hormones and chemical exchange. That death is simply an ending of conciousness and rotting of flesh. But that is so not the point. If we have to be alive we might as well immerse ourselves in it. We might as well care, and fight, love and laugh and cry. What the fuck else is the point in living?

As to men crying, it makes me sad that men are not allowed to cry. My partner finds it almost impossible to cry or express negative emotions when it comes to us - he just can't talk, I don't know why, he freaks out and sometimes feels trapped in his own head unable to express himself. But watching videos about the deaths of so many dogs for the crime of being a pit bull, dogs who are so loved by so many good people, seeing them hurt and abused and starved and still being so happy just to be touched affectionately? That makes him cry. And the fact he cares that much is a large part of the reason I am with him.

Sorry for the ridiculously long post.

" He supports men stuffing their emotions so that their wives won't lose respect for them."

I don't recall saying that.

"You don't cry. You don't even want to cry, in pain or in joy. Laughter is something you do for appearances so by that description you are not moved to laughter... Ever?"

Right, defintitely right, right, and haven't yet been.

"You do not naturally feel affection for family members. Death does not make you unhappy. You do not take pleasure in the company of someone you're attracted to (dating)."

Right, right, and I don't date.

"What pleasure do you get from life then? If it's all about efficiency, what's in it for you?"

Who says it has to be about pleasure?

"I'm guessing you know what that feels like?"

I know what one is, yes. Though, not in the manner you've described.

"What the fuck else is the point in living?"

See, that's where we're going to disagree strongly. Where is it said that there has to be a point? Doing certain things has a point, a purpose, because they are in some way voluntary. Being born into the world isn't. You're a chance creation of two people having sex. It's like people who ask for the meaning of life. There isn't one.

My partner finds it almost impossible to cry or express negative emotions when it comes to us - he just can't talk, I don't know why, he freaks out and sometimes feels trapped in his own head unable to express himself.

My partner to a T. Very frustrating.
And he's told me that growing up with three brothers and a "man's man" father has something to do with it.
His dad's actually told him to never trust a woman because women are the evil of the world.

We used to take runs together. A couple times I noticed that he became very, very worn out - gasping for air and looking faint - on a run. I'd ask, "Do you want to stop?" and he's always say no. We only stopped when I became too tired, at which point he always seemed very relieved.
I asked him about this, and he told me his dad advised him to never let a woman out-run him or beat him in a race, as doing so would be akin to slicing his own balls off.

How does this model of "masculinity" not hurt men? They don't even seem to realize that they are letting it dictate the way they live their lives. My boyfriend would rather give himself shin splints & an asthma attack than let me out-run him.

Whether you pass any moral judgment on the situation or not, I'd advise staying away from people like 88mph. I've seen it before. These are the people who can crush you, either without knowing or without caring that they're doing it. Because they don't experience these feelings, they assign them no importance (as we've seen with 88mph). This translates into taking no responsibility for hurting others, because the emotional response of others is viewed as both unimportant and as the result of a choice made by the injured party to respond that way.

To put it more clearly, someone like 88mph could easily say or do something that hurts you very badly and then respond by saying, "It's not my fault you chose to be hurt by that. You have to control yourself better." Moral judgments aside, no one needs to be subjected to that sort of treatment. Nor, I think, would any of us want to spend much time around someone who is likewise incapable or unwilling of sharing life's joys with us. What would be the point?

88mph, Well, most people find enjoyment in life expressed through laughter, happiness, and relationships with other people (romantic, familial, and friendly) and since it seems you shun or do not experience these things (for one reason or another), it's hard to imagine if you enjoy living at all.

Is there anything you like?

All this talk about efficiency and making sure things go smoothly till you expire sounds..mechanic at best.

During my time in the military and in warzones it was not an option a lot of the time. Perhaps thats why you see so many emotional problems when people come back.

What's interesting about that is how common it is. People who find themselves in intensely traumatic situations that require calm action almost never have their breakdowns then--our survival instincts don't allow it. Often, people go into shock and get what needs to be done, done. It's only later, when they're in a safer situation, that they experience the full range of grief, terror, etc.

Must have misunderstood. Instant replay:

avast: "Don't even start about the tears I shed at my wedding. God forbid I should let my wife see the depth of feeling I have for her!"

88mph: "Many women I have known have said they could never look at their husband the same way if he had cried at their wedding."

Was this statement not in defense of the idea of not expressing emotion in front of one's wife? That to emote in front of one's wife is to risk rejection by her?

If you are shutting yourself down in order to not earn the scorn of your wife, you are letting yourself be run by her. Sounds like the very definition of "pussy-whipped" to me.

Hi Folks,
First off, I'm thrilled to see that our community is really hashing this one out. I think this is one of the most direct ways into a larger discussion about gender and communication, authenticity and emotion etc. You are all bringing it hard.
I also want to remind those participating in this discussion, that it is forum to build understanding. Disagreement leads to that, so I am all for opposing view points being aired here. But please limit personal attacks or overblown language. It doesn't make any of us smarter when we reduce our dialogue to "gotchya sucker" and forget our empathy and our original goal: to learn.

"My partner to a T. Very frustrating."

Well, maybe he finds you overly emotional and frustrating. It's not really up to you to determine that something within him needs to be changed or "corrected" to suit your tastes.

"I'd advise staying away from people like 88mph. I've seen it before."

Think as you like.

"Moral judgments aside, no one needs to be subjected to that sort of treatment."

How is it a good way to live, if you constantly alter your actions to avoid ever offending anyone? How strenuous.

"it's hard to imagine if you enjoy living at all."

Well, as I said, where is it written down that it's supposed to be enjoyable or have a purpose or point?

"Is there anything you like?"

Cats.

"All this talk about efficiency and making sure things go smoothly till you expire sounds..mechanic at best."

Well, it is what it is. It works for me, and so far quite well.

88 - You asserted earlier that emotion is "useless." Let's say everyone agrees that human emotion is a chemical reaction. If such a chemical reaction were indeed useless, for what purpose would evolution allow it to remain? Do you equate emotions to the appendix and the coccyx? Do you consider human emotion absolutely useless to our survival? If so, I present the most basic of emotional responses: fight or flight. Whereas, one needs fear to convince them to "flight" or the anger to convince them to "fight".

I think that 200,000 years of sapien evolution would have displaced the chemical reactions that cause emotions if they weren't useful to our survival, just as evolution has made other provisions for humans over the last 200 millenia. That being said, it's quite naive to state that emotion is useless. Furthermore, I hope that you don't think your supposed lack of emotion somehow makes you more evolved than the rest of us.

But, once I cut through all the condescending bullshit rhetoric, your argument seems to be more in favor of keeping one's emotions in check, which is something I can definitely get behind.

"If such a chemical reaction were indeed useless, for what purpose would evolution allow it to remain?"

Who knows? Why did evolution allow you to keep your appendix?

Evolution isn't a perfect process.

"Do you consider human emotion absolutely useless to our survival? If so, I present the most basic of emotional responses: fight or flight. Whereas, one needs fear to convince them to "flight" or the anger to convince them to "fight"."

Well, if that other human weren't there, using his or her anger to create a violent situation, let's say, there would be no need to consider "fight or flight". We've reached a point where we are the masters of the planet, and we're not ever exposed to situations where we have to hide from or fight predators. We are the top predator on the planet.

"That being said, it's quite naive to state that emotion is useless. Furthermore, I hope that you don't think your supposed lack of emotion somehow makes you more evolved than the rest of us. "

Well, explain to me how intense sorrow/misery/unhappiness is somehow useful to your life. Or, for that matter, romance.

"I hope that you don't think your supposed lack of emotion somehow makes you more evolved than the rest of us."

No, but perhaps more...enlightened. ;) At the very least, more efficient.

"your argument seems to be more in favor of keeping one's emotions in check"

At first, until one is able to control them to an extent that the original pre-programmed response no longer occurs.

Some of you might find a detached, ambivalent way of viewing life as horrific, or intolerable, and that's understandable, given your perspective. You can't imagine not having intense suffering and other such feelings in your life. I would think having to have them would be intolerable.

So, we each agree that the perspective of the other is alien to us.

88, you didn't answer my questions. I'm not trying to attack you, I just do not understand how it's humanly possible to feel (or not) the way you do.

You did answer this:

"What the fuck else is the point in living?"
See, that's where we're going to disagree strongly. Where is it said that there has to be a point? Doing certain things has a point, a purpose, because they are in some way voluntary. Being born into the world isn't. You're a chance creation of two people having sex. It's like people who ask for the meaning of life. There isn't one.

But apart from all that, I guess apathy is as good a reason as any to be alive.

Anyway, you did not answer my real question: what do you feel? Does anything make you feel intense joy or sorrow?

"My partner to a T. Very frustrating."

Well, maybe he finds you overly emotional and frustrating. It's not really up to you to determine that something within him needs to be changed or "corrected" to suit your tastes.
Hahaha. That is such a presumptuous comment. I made sure to make it clear that this state of affairs is not something my partner is happy with, and this is something that the other poster could relate to.

Don't project.

"Is there anything you like?"
Cats.

I think it has been established that, for whatever reason, 88mph operates at a much reduced emotional amplitude compared to the majority of the population. I reserve judgement as to whether this is from successful deliberate suppression or from neurological sub-responsiveness, but I conclude that his experience is atypical. (I hope that description was sufficiently non-inflammatory?) So I hope we can agree to move on to other topics.

I think it is safe to presume that most women do not lack an emotional response of comparatively large amplitude. Why, then, do they expect the men in their lives to lack one? Are we to be another species?

I hypothesize that perhaps partly it is what we are all used to. Men have been closing down for centuries, and women are not used to seeing anything other than closed down mode, except under extreme duress. Seeing someone who has never been like this before suddenly be like this calls into question our perceptions of him, and makes us suddenly doubt what he might be capable of when stressed. Wow, do we really know him? It does not feel very safe.

This is, of course, a vicious cycle. A man who freely expressed his emotions all the time would not present the surprise of a rare and unforeseeable outburst. The outbursts might be smaller and better handled, too, from not having stuffed it and stuffed it until you can't take any more.

Partly it is also that we all buy in, at some level, to the prevailing view on what constitutes manliness. We can examine it, and struggle against it, and reject it perhaps, but it is still there, part of the cultural atmosphere, surrounding us and informing our experiences.

I was being snarky with the comment about "put on the apron and get back in the kitchen." But the message there is the women who think that "men who cry are pussies" want a new paradigm (for themselves) while otherwise keeping the old paradigm in place. You want us to change, but, well, not really. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Asking men to be emotionally open and sensitive while remaining expressively closed down is oxymoronic, and in its effects on men, cruel.

It is interesting that the definition of manliness changes radically over time. Take a powdered-wig-wearing American Revolutionary and drop him into 2008, and he will bear very little resemblance to a man of today (other than his readiness to use weapons).

One other thing that nags at the back of my mind is the fact that the tears in the original exhibition were staged for sake of the photographic project. These images, which generate such response, are nonetheless faked. For some reason that bothers me. It's almost as if faux tears will be tolerated and examined, while the real thing is still despised.

"88, you didn't answer my questions."

My apologies. I feel like for the last few responses I've been terribly redundant, and I'm not a fan of repeating myself endlessly.

" I just do not understand how it's humanly possible to feel (or not) the way you do."

Well, it obviously must be humanly possible, as I do feel the way I do.

"The thing is, it's not like asking the meaning of life."

Well, asking for the point is like asking for there to be a meaning.

"Anyway, you did not answer my real question: what do you feel? Does anything make you feel intense joy or sorrow?"

I could swear that I've previously address this.

The answer you're looking for is "no".

"Hahaha. That is such a presumptuous comment. I made sure to make it clear that this state of affairs is not something my partner is happy with, and this is something that the other poster could relate to.

Don't project."

I was simply saying situationally, he could very well find your way of responding to things frustrating as well. Sort of an extension on the "different is not wrong/bad" concept.

"Can I just say yay? lol"

Be my guest.

Shame that this discussion seems to be experiencing it's death rattles. Twas rather interesting.

Hi, everybody. I am encouraged by the comments I see here from the women, and well, most of the men. I am a man who cries. I find it a great release, and a great relief when I am done. It's usually done among good friends, so they are supportive. My wife is old-school, and would prefer I put on a strong face for the family.

Well apologies avast2006 if you do not wish to be involved in a discussion of 88's feelings or lack thereof but I am curious. I'm not asking you to care.

As for you 88, you've made a fairly concerted effort not to actually engage what I've said but that's fine, you're not being that much of an arsehole about it.

I do see your lack of emotions as a hormonal imbalance; a genetic defect, but if you're not hurting others I suppose it doesn't matter.

Let's move on I suppose.

I just noticed the phrase about "knight in shining armor" from the original article. There's another funny one. The stories of the knights of the round table are full of knights weeping and bestowing kisses on comrades and various sorts of behavior that would be utterly shocking to modern sensibilities about masculinity. It's an interesting shift in perspective to read these tales.

Fenriswolf, no apology necessary, and I didn't mean to shut down other peoples' lines of inquiry. If you still see ground to be covered there, don't let me stand in your way.

I just came to the conclusion that I was, metaphoricaly speaking, trying to explain my love for the deep crimsons found in a sunset to someone who appears to be color-blind; once I realized that, it was clear I'd made about as much progress as I was going to.

The other thing I notice is that the original question was why society in general is uncomfortable with men crying. 88mph came up with a fairly vehement objection to crying, but now it appears that his reasons may be not representative of society in general.

Still, there is no reason both inquiries cannot proceed independently. I'll try not to tangle things up too much.

"you've made a fairly concerted effort not to actually engage what I've said but that's fine"

Well, what more would you like me to answer?

"I do see your lack of emotions as a hormonal imbalance; a genetic defect, but if you're not hurting others I suppose it doesn't matter."

Seems a bit of a cop-out to call it a hormonal imbalance. I exhibit no other traits of any sort that could be explained by that.

I also don't care for the "defect" part of that statement. It rather implies "defective".

Can we end this interview with 88mph? No offense to either side, but his viewpoint is not going to change and neither is ours.

"Can we end this interview with 88mph? No offense to either side, but his viewpoint is not going to change and neither is ours."

I think the only reason it still persists is because the conversation is almost entirely dead and forgotten at this point.

I could try to kickstart it by asking a question, though:

"I notice this site, and some other feminist sites, tend to concern themselves with redifining masculinity (especially on matters such as this), and trying to say it's up to them to change how men view it.

Well, why would that be okay, when it's not okay for men to do the same for femininity?"

How's that? Will that get people talking?

well, i think feminists are more for broadening the definition of masculinity instead of narrowing it.
that's the key- feminists are more for expanding gender roles for both men and women then dictating rigid and archaic stereotypes of feminine and masculine behavior.
if you're not interested in broadening your definition of masculinity, then more power to you.
but some of us want broader gender definitions so we can feel included even if we don't display traditional masculine or feminine behaviors.

Well, isn't it up to the individual to say what being a man, or being a woman means to them, rather than having someone else tell them what they think it should mean?

Neither of my parents cried when we were kids. My dad cried three times that I recall-- when his mother died, when my mother was in the hospital with a bad stomach bug, and when I was in the hospital after a suicide attempt. My mom cried when her father died, when I was in the hospital after the suicide attempt, and when she had a minor mental breakdown, at which point she refused to show her face to us.

So I kind of grew up thinking that crying was something you did rarely, and that it was only okay to cry when a close loved one died, when you were scared for a loved one's health, or when you really just couldn't help it because you were mentally unstable. And you know, when my boyfriend cried after a week from hell when he was stressed out I was fine with it. But when my grandmother cried at Gone With the Wind I was a bit like "uh... what the hell?"

With all adults, I expect that they will keep their emotions in check most of the time. If they truly can't help it, like the stress is too much, I don't care if they cry, but people who cry at the drop of a hat seem odd to me. I know when I cry I am useless. I can't solve my problems, I can just wail about them. When my parents cried about the suicide attempt, they still didn't shed a tear until they knew they had done all they could to save my life-- when I was at the hospital. Because if they'd been bawling on the way there, how could they help me? They'd barely have been able to see the road.

I disagree with 88mph, I think that there are times when people can cry, when it's okay to lose yourself into your own emotions. At the same time, I DO think it's weak to start bawling when you could be solving a problem that requires your attention. Fix the problem first. Set things right. Cry about things once there's nothing you can do, and make sure that the ones who see you are those you trust and love.

And I get freaked out when people cry when they are happy. I can't cry when I am happy and no one else in my family does either. First time I saw a person cry when they were happy was when I was twelve. Freaked me out no end. I know lots of people do it and I try to be nice about it, but I can't help it-- you cry from happiness, I'm going to politely excuse myself.

Also, 88mph should speak to a therapist, because at this point his self-description shows all the signs of a serial killer. Not that he is a serial killer, just that he's showing the signs of it. If he ever was connected to homicides he'd probably get convicted on his inability to feel basic human emotions alone. Any psychiatrist or neurologist would agree that that is a biological abnormality that needs to be corrected for the wellbeing of yourself and those around you. If you are truly giving an accurate description of your inner workings, you are truly abnormal in the "something in your brain is not aligned in the manner which it is supposed to be" sense. Either that or you're not giving an accurate description of your inner workings. Sorry. That's just biological fact, and anyone who studies the brain's workings will agree.

Emotion gives us religion, art. Medicine (why cure people we don't care about?) and science (passion is a powerful motivator). It gives us the ability to form communities-- that's it's biological purpose. Social animals feel emotion too, though in a less sophisticated way. Evolution has given us emotions because emotions make us form close bonds with other humans, which ensures our genetic survival because we are less inclined to drown children we don't want or be left in a field when we break our leg. A person who felt powerful love for their partner was less likely to mate with another, thus guaranteeing that the partner's genes survived, so emotional types were preferable mates.

How much emotion you show is a natural variation that comes from nurture-- learning to hide feelings. Not feeling emotion at all is a biological imperfection, a mutation if you will, like osteogenesis imperfecta or hemophilia.

If you don't like that analysis, sorry. Medicine and science disagree with you. However, it's also possible that you are simply confusing the fact that you are able to suppress your emotions with not feeling them.

"Also, 88mph should speak to a therapist, because at this point his self-description shows all the signs of a serial killer."

That is quite simply uncalled-for.

"Any psychiatrist or neurologist would agree that that is a biological abnormality that needs to be corrected for the wellbeing of yourself and those around you."

Nothing within me needs to be "corrected". Different =/= wrong/bad. I am quite opposed to saying something that does not harm anyone should be corrected, simply because it's outside of your personal comprehension. Those around me are not affected by me, and my own wellbeing is perfectly intact without any sort of "correction".

""something in your brain is not aligned in the manner which it is supposed to be""

They used to say that about gay people.

"Emotion gives us religion, art."

I don't really find religion a beneficial byproduct of emotion.

"It gives us the ability to form communities-- that's it's biological purpose."

Communities also form (and I'd argue more often for) mutual benefit.

People lived near other people because one person had or could do something that someone else wanted/needed, and the other could provide adequate (and also wanted/needed) compensation.

"A person who felt powerful love for their partner was less likely to mate with another, thus guaranteeing that the partner's genes survived, so emotional types were preferable mates."

Most male animals (outside of us) will mate with as many females as possible to ensure the survival of their genetics.

Emotional types weren't valued, healthy types were/are. The only reason emotions come into play in mating now, is because some hundred thousand years or so ago, human females dropped the heat cycle and pheromones. Something had to fill the gap.

"However, it's also possible that you are simply confusing the fact that you are able to suppress your emotions with not feeling them."

Somewhat circular. You suppress something long enough, and eventually whatever caused the reaction you suppressed will stop happening. Sort of similar to how they condition soldiers to kill without feeling.

Regardless, I highly doubt your analysis. Nothing personal. I'm not violent, and I, for the most part, do not associate with people outside of work.

I'd have to be able to hate people to want to kill them, so I find your "serial killer" description to be a little too "I watched a lot of CSI this week", and a lot less "I just finished my Phd in psych". Sorry.

88 mph:
Well, isn't it up to the individual to say what being a man, or being a woman means to them, rather than having someone else tell them what they think it should mean?

sure and sometimes a group of individuals notice something and talk about and then they go onto the interwebs and blog about and other people comment on it.
what's your point?
if you're happy with the "men-don't-cry-because-that's-weak-like-a-little-girl" mindset then awesome for you.
i happen to disagree with that notion and obviously quite a few other people do as well. so we have a dialogue.

Actually, people with no emotions don't have to hate people to want to kill them. That's why a lot of sociopaths are harder to catch. People who commit crimes of passion (i.e., hating someone) tend to make more mistakes, because they were in a heated emotional state when the killing occurred. Sociopaths (people who show different degress of anti-social personality disorder) tend to be very cold and calculating in the way they kill people. It has nothing to do with emotions.

"Psychopaths/sociopaths are diagnosed by their purposeless and irrational antisocial behavior, lack of conscience, and emotional vacuity. They are thrill seekers, literally fearless. Punishment rarely works, because they are impulsive by nature and fearless of the consequences. Incapable of having meaningful relationships, they view others as fodder for manipulation and exploitation. According to one psychological surveying tool (DSM IIIR) between 3-5% of men are sociopaths; less than 1% of female population are sociopaths.

Psychopaths often make successful businessmen or world leaders. Not all psychopaths are motivated to kill. But when it is easy to devalue others, and you have had a lifetime of perceived injustices and rejection, murder might seem like a natural choice.

The following are environmental factors, psychiatrists say, which create a sociopath:

*
Studies show that 60% of psychopathic individuals had lost a parent;
*
Child is deprived of love or nurturing; parents are detached or absent;
*
Inconsistent discipline: if father is stern and mother is soft, child learns to hate authority and manipulate mother;
*
Hypocritical parents who privately belittle the child while publicly presenting the image of a "happy family".

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/tick/psych_6.html

I'd pull out my Abnormal Psych Textbook, or my copy of the DSM IV, but I'm at my boyfriend's place.

However, despite most serial killers having anti-social personality disorder, most people with anti-social personality disorder are of course not serial killers. There are very few serial killers, and about 3% of the population has anti-social personality disorder. So, it is insulting to say that a person displaying the traits of someone with anti-social personality disorder is akin to a serial killer.

"sure and sometimes a group of individuals notice something and talk about and then they go onto the interwebs and blog about and other people comment on it.
what's your point?"

My point is that if it's not up to men to define "feminine", it's not up to women to define "masculine".

"Psychopaths/sociopaths are diagnosed by their purposeless and irrational antisocial behavior"

I do nothing that could be considered irrational.

"because they are impulsive by nature and fearless of the consequences."

I am definitely not impulsive. Every action I take is subjected to a mental cost/benefit analysis to determine if it should be done.

"According to one psychological surveying tool (DSM IIIR) "

The DSMIII is out of date.

" Incapable of having meaningful relationships,"

What's wrong with that?

"So, it is insulting to say that a person displaying the traits of someone with anti-social personality disorder is akin to a serial killer. "

Indeed.

where do you get that women are trying to define masculinity?
i think broadening definitions of masculine and feminine can only be beneficial to all of us.

Sorry that I was equating "serial killer" with "antisocial personality." That was inappropriate. I'm simply trying to convey to you something you can't seem to understand-- you are not better off for this, and humans would not be better off without emotions.

You don't like religion? Fine. What about medicine, science, and human history as a whole? Nothing we have done could have happened without emotion.

Mutual benefit and emotion are closely tied. Without emotion, yeah, I may want to work with someone who works with me, but if I get sick and stop helping them, what's going to encourage them to continue to help me? There's no guarantee I can help them again. They help me because they have an emotional attachment to me. My chances of survival go up.

Female humanoids dropped the heat cycle and pheromones because it meant they could pick mates based on other important qualities besides whoever was closest. Was he emotionally vested in their children, enough to protect said children? Was he emotionally vested in the woman herself, enough to protect her from being stolen by another male even when she was not pregnant or nursing his child? Was he intelligent and a good provider because he cared about people other than himself? The reason that we have concealed ovulation is because women with concealed ovulation were more likely to have strong, successful, EMOTIONAL children who could continue the line; the reason we have emotions is because an emotional mate is preferable to a female.

I would talk about the "have to hate" comment but FemiDancer covered it beautifully.

I am simply trying to explain to you that even if there is value in HIDING emotions, there is no value in not having emotions at all; emotions serve an important biological and social function.

You do not know any other life. Thus you are not upset about what you are missing. However, if you could truly compare how you perceived your life without emotions and with emotions, you would have a different view of them. I have had my emotions artificially suppressed. I know what it is like to not feel, and to feel. Even the bad feelings are better than nothing at all.

"you are not better off for this"

In your personal opinion. In mine, I am.

"What about medicine, science, and human history as a whole? Nothing we have done could have happened without emotion."

Conjecture.

"Female humanoids dropped the heat cycle and pheromones because it meant they could pick mates based on other important qualities besides whoever was closest."

Well, it's not as though it was a conscious choice to drop it. It was necessity to cover the evolving brain. Sentient beings that are equipped with reason would have a hard time dealing with an urge that would make them have sex with strangers. Animals that still have this, don't have such qualms.

"The reason that we have concealed ovulation is because women with concealed ovulation were more likely to have strong, successful, EMOTIONAL children who could continue the line; the reason we have emotions is because an emotional mate is preferable to a female."

No, it's pretty much the above. Would you be able to have a healthy mental state if you were aware that once a month you just started walking around on all fours with your rear in the air? Not likely. :P

"there is no value in not having emotions at all; emotions serve an important biological and social function. "

I function quite well.

"However, if you could truly compare how you perceived your life without emotions and with emotions, you would have a different view of them. I have had my emotions artificially suppressed. I know what it is like to not feel, and to feel. Even the bad feelings are better than nothing at all."

Well, that's largely subjective. As I've said, I've seen people suffering under intense emotional trauma. Then I look in the mirror, and it's easy to see which is preferable.

88mph: Talk to an evolutionary psychologist who has studied emotions and the evolution of sex (one of my professors studied it extensively). You'll find that science agrees with me, not you. The more intelligent and socially connected a species is, the more complex their emotions are. This is a fact of life. A parent emotionally invested in their child will work towards guaranteeing that child's survival to adulthood and that child's ability to pass on the genetic material. A parent not emotionally invested in their child will not provide the child with such protections and thus their genetic line has a lower survival rate. When survival rates are uneven the genotype with the higher survival rate will eventually surpass the genotype with the lower survival rate.

A person emotionally invested in the survival of someone who is not related to them will help guarantee their successful survival. The other person will do the same. This mutual guarantee helps both successfully pass on their genotypes. Emotional hominids were more successful because of their system of interdependence on a level greater than simply you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. It helped guarantee successful genetic survival of all young because there were more people emotionally attached to those young than themselves, despite the fact that the young were not providing anything to the older ones.

I also would like to note that in the course of this thread you have mentioned you don't have relationships outside work, you don't date, and you have no interest in children or even contributing to the upbringing of other people's children. From an evolutionary standpoint, no children = biological failure (NOT the same thing as an actual failure, before people jump on me, just that from an evolutionary standpoint that would be a bad thing). I'd say you're a poor poster child for the wonders of a lack of emotion.

Look, I have suffered intense emotional trauma. To compensate, I was given medications that completely erased all my emotional response. Yes, the trauma was gone. So was everything else. I was functioning perfectly fine, but I could still remember what my life was like, misery and all, when I could feel. When I was going through the trauma I wanted nothing more than to lose my emotions because I didn't know what that felt like, myself. As soon as I felt it, I realized that any amount of suffering is a small price to pay for the ability to feel emotions. Was I less likely to feel pain? Sure. But I told my psychiatrist that I would rather suffer through the pain than not be able to feel things like happiness, pleasure, and love. Also, my productivity went up astronomically as soon as I went off the medication because I was suddenly passionate about my work and my future.

Yeah, it's subjective. But you know, I've talked to many people who went through a similar experience-- having felt both emotional pain and total apathy-- and I've yet to meet one who preferred the apathy. You don't know, because you don't really know what it's like to be on the other side.

If you wish to continue believing you are better than the entire rest of the human race, fine. Just keep in mind that you don't actually know what you are talking about. You don't actually know both views, you can't, because you haven't experienced both views.

This has gotten too far off topic; the original post was about showing emotions, not feeling them. I think I should just let you continue believing what you want. Someday I hope you have a chance to feel what you are missing.

See, thing is, Basiorana:

Evolutionary psychology is a theoretical practice, not an established, legitimate science. It's very subjective.

Especially when you look at the majority of the animal kingdom that persists to this day, simply providing protection until the offspring can fight for itself, and food until it can hunt/forage for itself.

Hominids are complex, because in our currently evolved form, we have no natural weapons. No natural defense. No natural cover against cold, or excessive heat or sun. Our only evolved use for all of these is that massive brain. When instinctive use of your claws/speed/ability to hide isn't applicable, then insticts will breed out, and emotional response will come into play.

You could say the emotional hominids won out on our more animalistic ancestors, but that could also easily be said that the more emotional ones had larger, more evolved brains, and could make weapons better than their contemporaries.

As animals have shown, there is no need for emotional investment to ensure survival of others like you. It's ingrained into the deep, ancient parts of any species' brain: "Like us-good, not like us-bad".

"I also would like to note that in the course of this thread you have mentioned you don't have relationships outside work, you don't date, and you have no interest in children or even contributing to the upbringing of other people's children."

Correct. After work, I come home until I have to work again. Dating fails the aforemention cost/benefit analysis. So does having children, or looking after someone else's.

"From an evolutionary standpoint, no children = biological failure"

You could also say from an evolutionary standpoint, there is some deep-seated trigger that will kick over and make someone that won't reproduce when the species is burning out it's available space.

Most other animals on the planet have the ability to reach equilibrium with their environment. We tend not to. You could easily theorize that people that don't want kids, hell, even gay people, are an evolutionary response trigger to overpopulation.

"Also, my productivity went up astronomically as soon as I went off the medication because I was suddenly passionate about my work and my future."

I've seen people suffering in pain have terrible productivity at work. I don't have that, and my productivity is excellent, because I am unburdened.

"You don't know, because you don't really know what it's like to be on the other side."

And like I said, I look at them, and I can in no way find suffering to be preferable.

"Just keep in mind that you don't actually know what you are talking about. You don't actually know both views, you can't, because you haven't experienced both views. "

Well, regardless, it still means we are both presenting opinions based on personal experience, not any sort of testable fact.

"This has gotten too far off topic;"

It has, though this has become much more interesting than simply discussing why it's more accepted for one gender to cry than the other.

"Someday I hope you have a chance to feel what you are missing."

I find that akin to wishing suffering on another, and that's just rude.

Remember, from my point of view, I'm not missing anything except things that I *do not want*.

Though, I find your discussion interesting. Things like this are why this site needs an *actual* discussion forum, or failing that, a private message system of some type.

Though, I can understand why there isn't one, because that's just more money to go into operating it.

Still means all the interesting topics die eventually.

"Well, isn't it up to the individual to say what being a man, or being a woman means to them, rather than having someone else tell them what they think it should mean?"

You mean like, without a lifetime of brainwashing from tradition? You mean with a more open minded definition of what it means to be a person?

No, I don't see anything wrong with that.

If you'd rather, I could set up a discussion on my own blog about this.

Your point of view is very limited simply because you have not experienced anything else. Yes, this is something that is not testable. But keeping in mind that I know what it personally feels like to have an overabundance of emotions and no emotions at all, and you only know what it means to have no emotions at all, I think my point of view, while still limited, is less limited than your own.

You associate emotion with suffering because you do not understand other emotions. You don't understand how love makes a person feel, only how you perceive them acting. You don't understand what true happiness is like, or true passion, only the outward effects. Yes, productivity is decreased when one is suffering compared to someone who is apathetic. But compared to someone who is passionate about what they are working on? Great scientific discoveries are made by those who truly, deeply care on an intellectual AND an emotional level about what they are learning about. Sure, things like the telephone came from simple needs, but what about studies of astronomy? Ecology? Those provide no short-term benefits but are the result of a passion about nature, or the stars that drives one to study them. I've never met a scientist who didn't care passionately about their work. That's emotion, even if it's not directed at a person.

There is a difference between someone who doesn't care for children at all and someone who doesn't want their own children. I think the latter has an evolutionary advantage-- they are contributing to the continuation of the species and the quality of those who will continue without contributing to a population explosion. But an isolated individual who does not provide any assistance to the younger generations offers nothing to the community as a whole besides dragging it down when they become old.

When I wish you could experience emotions, it's like I'm saying I wish you could see the Earth from space, or visit the Grand Canyon-- though I suppose such things would not be impressive and remarkable to you. I want you to have a chance to fully experience life as a human being and a person both. Part of that is a chance to feel love, and happiness, and passion. And yes, part of that is to feel pain. Having felt pain, I am able to look at the world and at my own happiness as something wonderful and special, and I am better off as a whole for having experienced it. You only see the suffering, not what comes out of it. Not the strength, compassion, understanding, and passion that can only be obtained when one has felt emotional pain.

You believe you do not want it because you are focusing on it's negatives, not it's positives, and you ignore or belittle the positives. You would not say you did not want it if you actually knew what it felt like. There is more to life than a rush to the grave, and I feel bad for anyone who cannot feel that.

I think this thread is pretty much fizzled anyway, but I agree. There should be a discussion board. I wonder if the posters would contribute money to run it.

"If you'd rather, I could set up a discussion on my own blog about this."

Have at it.

"You associate emotion with suffering because you do not understand other emotions."

It's the one I see most commonly. That, in and of itself is telling.

"You don't understand how love makes a person feel, only how you perceive them acting."

Yeah, and I see love making a lot of people very, very miserable. Can't be all it's cracked up to be if it does that.

"Great scientific discoveries are made by those who truly, deeply care on an intellectual AND an emotional level about what they are learning about."

You could say that, but as I've said, cost/benefit. You don't need to be passionate to say "If I do this, it will be of great benefit to my situation".

" But an isolated individual who does not provide any assistance to the younger generations offers nothing to the community as a whole besides dragging it down when they become old."

I provide assistance to those that provide it in turn. Fair arrangement. Besides, I smoke heavily. I'm not all too concerned with getting old and being a burden.

"When I wish you could experience emotions, it's like I'm saying I wish you could see the Earth from space, or visit the Grand Canyon-- though I suppose such things would not be impressive and remarkable to you."

I have gotten fond of oxygen over the years, and no, the idea of seeing the Grand Canyon is utterly unappealing to me.

"I want you to have a chance to fully experience life as a human being and a person both."

Excepting that I'm quite comfortable with the way things are.

"Part of that is a chance to feel love, and happiness, and passion. And yes, part of that is to feel pain. "

In order: I have no need of it, general contentment is similar enough, I have no need of it, I *definitely* have no need of it.

"You only see the suffering"

That's all one needs to see to find it unappealing.

"You believe you do not want it because you are focusing on it's negatives, not it's positives, and you ignore or belittle the positives."

Well, it's like foolish people that say they'd rather have love than money. One has clear, marked benefits for improving most aspects of your life; the other is something people watch movies and read Hallmark cards to imagine.

I'll take the one with tangible, real benefits over imagined ones.

"You would not say you did not want it if you actually knew what it felt like."

You cannot guarantee this.

"I think this thread is pretty much fizzled anyway, but I agree. There should be a discussion board. I wonder if the posters would contribute money to run it."

Considering the outpouring of donations the last time money was asked for, for the operations of the site, and how many users regularly post comments on these stories, I would give a resounding "yes" to wondering if posters would contribute.

It's not a matter of thinking they would, I am quite confident that they would.

I'd attach some form of email or contact here, but I am somewhat wary of posting such things in direct public. Not for stalking worries, but more for "deleting spam nonsense is bothersome".

Click on my name under the post to go to the blog (top post). I responded to a couple points you made in your last comment in the post but if I missed anything, sorry, and feel free to repeat the point.

I'm finding this very interesting (and also useful for noticing and correcting my debating mistakes).

As nice as I think it is you all care about my right to cry--I kind of like not crying. And, I kind of like women not seeing me cry (if I did). I enjoy being a source of steady comfort for people around me, especially the women in my life. I'm kind of like the North Star.

In terms of emotion, and with the exception of our great sense of humor, the men in my family (and even my friends) are relatively stoic and, crying is saved for something like death or that once in a lifetime heartbreatk, and only done with other men around. It is odd, but it is kind of nice too.

I consider myself pretty in touch with my masculinity and would rather that one group of people not categorize me in an opposite way.

As a man, I reserve the right to cry when, where and in front of whom I want. I also reserve the right not to cry at silliness.