By DorianHawksmoon:
I have a very clear memory of being a toddler and my father shouting at me "Stop crying or I'll give you something to cry about!" And my mother responding with "He's only a child, what's the matter with you?". And, of course, my responding with yet more intense tears, based on the fact that I knew, even at that age, that: a) My father couldn't release his own emotions, and was deeply wounded; b) I was driving a rift between my parents; c) I was angry with my father but felt helpless to express myself at so powerful a figure; and d) I felt foolish for being so "weak".
I've struggled my entire life with tears. The issue my father raised at that very young age has never left me, and I'm now in my mid-50s. I cry a lot "for a man" and, to be honest, I think I cry "too much" for a human being.
I decided long ago to reject my father's approach to emotion. I knew early on that he was a victim of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), having gone through WW2 and the death of his brother in 1942. He never properly grieved his brother's death at all, because people never really had the time to indulge themselves in doing so. After all, you knew that your own brother's death was eclipsed by the deaths of countless others on the battlefield or at home in bombed-out homes. The deepest, core feelings of grief could never be expressed. So I think my tendency to tears came from a very early decision: I couldn't be "that" kind of person – one who couldn't grieve.
But the problem is that once you give yourself permission, there really is no holding back, And this is where things get interesting. I'm almost of the suspicion that men, given the opportunity, would cry much more than women. And you only need to scratch below the surface of the "I need a sensitive man" kind of woman to discover that, whilst she likes a man who can express his emotions, she certainly doesn't want him to express them more than she does.
So this in itself raises some interesting questions. Are men duty-bound to hold their feelings in? Is it part of a man's role to not express grief? One could certainly think so, when you consider some of the unspoken "duties" expected of men in society.
We are, of course, expected to not just carry the heavy loads, but we're expected to be the last off the sinking ship. We're expected to go to war purely because we have a pe**s. Someone invades your home? The man is the one who's expected to fight any attackers. The man is always expected to be the first line of defence.
So let's just take a look at this alone: men are expected to be on constant, 24/7 standby fight status. We might be the most sensitive beings in existence, but when the chips are down, we're still expected to "man up".
Knowing all this, what do you expect us to do? One option is to be raging lunatics. The safer, more socially accepted option … is to cry.
What Say Men on this forum?
I have a very clear memory of being a toddler and my father shouting at me "Stop crying or I'll give you something to cry about!" And my mother responding with "He's only a child, what's the matter with you?". And, of course, my responding with yet more intense tears, based on the fact that I knew, even at that age, that: a) My father couldn't release his own emotions, and was deeply wounded; b) I was driving a rift between my parents; c) I was angry with my father but felt helpless to express myself at so powerful a figure; and d) I felt foolish for being so "weak".
I've struggled my entire life with tears. The issue my father raised at that very young age has never left me, and I'm now in my mid-50s. I cry a lot "for a man" and, to be honest, I think I cry "too much" for a human being.
I decided long ago to reject my father's approach to emotion. I knew early on that he was a victim of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), having gone through WW2 and the death of his brother in 1942. He never properly grieved his brother's death at all, because people never really had the time to indulge themselves in doing so. After all, you knew that your own brother's death was eclipsed by the deaths of countless others on the battlefield or at home in bombed-out homes. The deepest, core feelings of grief could never be expressed. So I think my tendency to tears came from a very early decision: I couldn't be "that" kind of person – one who couldn't grieve.
But the problem is that once you give yourself permission, there really is no holding back, And this is where things get interesting. I'm almost of the suspicion that men, given the opportunity, would cry much more than women. And you only need to scratch below the surface of the "I need a sensitive man" kind of woman to discover that, whilst she likes a man who can express his emotions, she certainly doesn't want him to express them more than she does.
So this in itself raises some interesting questions. Are men duty-bound to hold their feelings in? Is it part of a man's role to not express grief? One could certainly think so, when you consider some of the unspoken "duties" expected of men in society.
We are, of course, expected to not just carry the heavy loads, but we're expected to be the last off the sinking ship. We're expected to go to war purely because we have a pe**s. Someone invades your home? The man is the one who's expected to fight any attackers. The man is always expected to be the first line of defence.
So let's just take a look at this alone: men are expected to be on constant, 24/7 standby fight status. We might be the most sensitive beings in existence, but when the chips are down, we're still expected to "man up".
Knowing all this, what do you expect us to do? One option is to be raging lunatics. The safer, more socially accepted option … is to cry.
What Say Men on this forum?
