3 ms·
There is two sides to this equation. Men need to be taught to express their emotions, but society needs to be taught to be just as accepting of a man who expre
by Lawtonfogle 11y ago
There is two sides to this equation. Men need to be taught to express their emotions, but society needs to be taught to be just as accepting of a man who expresses his emotions as one who is stoic, if not more accepting. As it stands, you can teach men to express their emotions all you want, but as long as the stoic man is valued more, we are going to have problems.
- airtonix 11y agoNo, just no. You're asking people to act weak and unstable. You're promoting a path that leads to unconscious confidence in decisions you make. Every decision is wrong, but it's your job as the one who has their shit together in the shit-storm to choose the least fucked up choice.
- gress 11y agoExpressing emotions doesn't imply weakness or instability.
- Lawtonfogle 11y agoThe problem is that socially it is seen as doing such even if it doesn't actually.
- gress 11y agoWhen society is wrong about something, we make progress when those who know better act to change things.
- theorique 11y agoPart of the issue is the question of who moves first - individual or society. A man who expresses his emotions, in a society where this is not valued or honored, is going to lose social status. I would not want to teach my son to be that "first man" and take that risk. Additionally, the specific emotions being expressed matter a lot. I would lose a lot more respect for a man if I saw him crying inappropriately in a business situation (assuming the situation didn't warrant it) as opposed to if I saw him get angry and shout inappropriately.
- Lawtonfogle 11y agoThere is a cost of the man to move first. There isn't a cost for society to be more accepting. Seems like society should move first.