Opening Men Up Emotionally

[Doctor Cringelord]

I didn't know male babies were more expressive than female

Yes, and I believe studies have shown parents will respond quicker to a female infant than to a male infant when they cry. So, essentially, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. The idea then is this becomes reinforced in children--male children therefore learn to internalize their pain and "man up" whilst female children are more likely to learn to take advantage of emotional expression which garners them attention and care. Generally speaking.

 

[Kheledon]

We teach boys that they should become self contained in their ability to deal with emotions like; fear, helplessness, loneliness, sadness, pain, distress and to self succor. We teach them stoicism, to suck it up. We teach them that their fear and pain are things that are best ignored. We teach them that their emotional and physical well being are just not as important as other things. What we're teaching that baby boy is all the things a man needs to know and feel and believe about himself if he's going go stand with a gun in front of a home intruder while his wife and kids hide. We're preparing him for the day he may have to storm a beach or charge a hill under enemy fire and we're preparing him to make a rational decision to resign himself to a sure death so that the women and children can survive. What we're really teaching them is to internalize their own disposability.

Quite, and we have been doing this for a long time. Should we not assume, given that we've been doing this for a long time, that there's a good reason for it, even if we are oblivious to what that reason is?

I think it's this. Most of us are reared by women. Women want their beloved boys to be able to find what they need in life--i.e. love and companionship. Women, very generally speaking, are NOT attracted to emotionally-expressive men. They don't want to hook up with a "wuss." So, mothers or female caregivers (either consciously or unconsciously) prepare young men for this reality by teaching them to suppress their emotional natures precisely so that their beloved boys can, eventually and hopefully, find and get the love that they need.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

It is generally understood in my world that boy babies are much harder than girl babies, but that girl adolescents are much harder than boy adolescents. And I found this to be the case, though my males still probably give me a harder time than my daughter ever did.

Honestly, school is hard for boys. Our ideas about institutionalized education needs a compete overhaul. No child should be subjected to what is analogous to an adult's full time work day at the age of 5! That is crazy. Many adults don't even work a FT job, yet we expect our growing children to endure it from the ages of 5 to 18, and beyond for college. I think it is cruel and unusual punishment, and some day our descendants are going to look back at this and be like, "Woah, I'm so glad I didn't live back then!"

Cooperative home schools, I believe, are the ideal model. With plenty of male role models (school teachers are predominantly women who need a quiet and controlled classroom) to take the kids for outings and field trips, but still be expected to do some book work and know how to mind and sit still. After all, just because males might be by nature inclined to war and battle, most of the instinct is unnecessary in our world today. Humans are higher-minded being made in the image of God and that needs to be fostered, while not losing the innate nature of what makes boys boys and girls girls.

Also, there is a (learned) burden on fathers to make their sons successful in the world. It depends upon the culture the father himself was raised in. No father wants to see his son--and his seed--fail! So they might be inclined to toughen them up, and mothers follow suit, all for wanting the best for their child, not out of maliciousness but benevolence.

A healthy, well-rounded group of parents will nurture the nature of the child (not sticking him in school all day, nor disallowing him to act out his feelings age-appropriately), while guiding the boy into being a successful man capable of raising a healthy family himself someday.


For the majority of men who fall through this gap in their upbringing, they will have many emotions that need to be expressed. That is only really able to be done in an environment of love and unconditional acceptance, such as might be found in a marriage or a healthy family, or a spiritual family. Where people are not afraid of the emotions of men.

By the way, Jesus said, "Live by the sword, die by the sword," so the Spartan way of teaching boys to be avenging warriors first and foremost is not ideal, nor is it Christian. But it is a primary tenet of thought in schools of terrorism.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

^ This.

We teach boys that they should become self contained in their ability to deal with emotions like; fear, helplessness, loneliness, sadness, pain, distress and to self succor. We teach them stoicism, to suck it up. We teach them that their fear and pain are things that are best ignored. We teach them that their emotional and physical well being are just not as important as other things. What we're teaching that baby boy is all the things a man needs to know and feel and believe about himself if he's going go stand with a gun in front of a home intruder while his wife and kids hide. We're preparing him for the day he may have to storm a beach or charge a hill under enemy fire and we're preparing him to make a rational decision to resign himself to a sure death so that the women and children can survive. What we're really teaching them is to internalize their own disposability.

Right this is why in a life and death scenario it would seem most men are thinking 'protect the women and children.' On the Titanic most of the lifeboats were filled with women and children even in a supposedly 'misogynistic culture' back then. I guess drowning/freezing was the epitome of male privilege back then.

 

[SpankyMcFly]

Quite, and we have been doing this for a long time. Should we not assume, given that we've been doing this for a long time, that there's a good reason for it, even if we are oblivious to what that reason is?

Right. Male disposability, which is really just a manifestation of gynocentrism has served our species well and we've since become the dominant species on this planet. With 7 Billion humans on this planet the question becomes is it needed anymore? To what extent?

I think it's this. Most of us are reared by women. Women want their beloved boys to be able to find what they need in life--i.e. love and companionship. Women, very generally speaking, are NOT attracted to emotionally-expressive men. They don't want to hook up with a "wuss." So, mothers or female caregivers (either consciously or unconsciously) prepare young men for this reality by teaching them to suppress their emotional natures precisely so that their beloved boys can, eventually and hopefully, find and get the love utility that they need.

FTFY

An interesting take on the matter indeed. I'll look into this further. One related area of research into the role women have in how boys are raised is Maternal Gatekeeping The Relationship between Maternal Gatekeeping, Paternal Competence, Mothers' Attitudes about the Father Role, and Father Involvement (it's behind a paywall though) My interest is in understanding the human condition and my concerns are for the future and it's a discussion that I'd like to see more men engage in, lest 'society' determine what is appropriate vs. the individual, or worse, some interest group.

By society constructing men to be valued for their 'doings', utility and self sacrifice/disposability they are made more maleable. The male identity/ego construct is very fragile & sensitive to criticism from others since it is based on others valuations of their efforts and hence susceptible to manipulation/influence, often to the detriment of the individual. However we have civilization as a consequence of society harnessing excess male productivity.

 

[Poki]

I dont like the article , but i do agree that men should be pushed to be emotionally open, but also to learn to deal with them. Emotional extremes should be extreme cases, not everyday as it really causes unhealthy rollercoaster.

 

[SpankyMcFly]

So how to open men up while factoring for gynocentrism and male disposability, among other things, hmmm... This is the discussion 'we' should be having but first understanding the nature of the 'issue' is important and in that regards articles like in the OP and discussions like these need to occur. People only change when they have to.

Sidenote: One of the things about male disposability that poses a conundrum is warfare and the nature of it. Until we get a biological upgrade to how it's conducted we are pretty much stuck, imo, with men doing most of the dying due to male competence in conducting warfare. FTR I'm all for women fighting in wars and dying alongside men. Powered exoskeletons come to mind and our military industrial complex is working on this as we speak HULC · Lockheed Martin

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

^ Ugghhh.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

So how to open men up while factoring for gynocentrism and male disposability, among other things, hmmm... This is the discussion 'we' should be having but first understanding the nature of the 'issue' is important and in that regards articles like in the OP and discussions like these need to occur. People only change when they have to.

Well first we can stop this:

While elements of modern society may view the role of males as disposable and fluid the data suggests that diminishing male presence is causing all kinds of clusterfucky problems.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

*cough* casual sex hookups *cough*

 

[ZNP-TBA]

*cough* casual sex hookups *cough*

Yep there's always a greater risk but people don't even wrap it up
The penalties for a mother having an unplanned pregnancy with no stable partner in life has diminished with the rise of the welfare state since the 60s. Single motherhood has been incredibly subsidized and just like with anything else in economics, the more you subsidize something you increase it. The welfare state in combination with family courts has removed the necessity of a male contributor.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

In our state, when moms apply for welfare, the state goes after the dads and forces them to pay child support. Problem is, the dads aren't going to contribute enough in this scenario, compared to if they lived with their family and were a part of it.

Men can't have it both ways. It's like they wanna have casual sex hookups, ejaculate inside, and then continue on as if nothing happened.

Seems to me they are too open in this way. A little repression would be good.

But we live in a world where our feelings/drives dictate our actions, after all.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

Men can't have it both ways. It's like they wanna have casual sex hookups, ejaculate inside, and then continue on as if nothing happened.

Seems to me they are too open in this way. A little repression would be good.

Yet this puts 100% of the moral responsibility in the laps of men. Obviously there are deadbeat dudes out there but it's women that have the most to gamble with concerning pregnancy so I think they should be held to some degree of responsibility in terms of choosing who they sleep with.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Yet this puts 100% of the moral responsibility in the laps of men. Obviously there are deadbeat dudes out there but it's women that have the most to gamble with concerning pregnancy so I think they should be held to some degree of responsibility in terms of choosing who they sleep with.

They do. The rest of their lives when they become pregnant.

Men make a mistake and continue on with their life. The women and orphans own it the rest of their lives. One 'mistake' for them equals a lifetime of consequence.

Just doesnt seem fair.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

They do. The rest of their lives when they become pregnant.

Men make a mistake and continue on with their life. The women and orphans own it the rest of their lives. One 'mistake' for them equals a lifetime of consequence.

Just doesnt seem fair.

In the society we live in a mistake with impregnating a woman opens up a man to have most of his resources ceased even if he wants to be part of the child's life.

What's up with women wanting to limit the father's influence on their children's lives just because they personally do not like the father but are just fine with taking his resources?

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

In the society we live in a mistake with impregnating a woman opens up a man to have most of his resources ceased even if he wants to be part of the child's life.

What's up with women wanting to limit the father's influence on their children's lives just because they personally do not like the father but are just fine with taking his resources?

That is not what I see with my single pregnant mommas. Most of them can't get their men to be involved, leaving them to make ends meet and rear their children alone, often relying on their own parents. Even the ones who have involved men, the men are fine with them getting resources because they don't have to work as hard. Thank God for state resources for these women.

But, yes, where there are men that are willing to get involved, I disagree with state resources. Unless the men are really disabled mentally or physically, they should be providing for the families they make.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

Thank God for state resources for these women.

By considering women the victims of these bad choices (while simultaneously considering men the culprits) and rewarding the women with state welfare absolves them of any responsibility for their decisions and only creates more welfare recipients. Look at the graph I posted that demonstrates the welfare cliff for single moms that it's in fact better to work for less money to maintain exorbitantly high benefits. As with most government programs I'm sure some people think they are well intentioned good ideas but end up creating perverse incentives.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

That is not what I see with my single pregnant mommas. Nearly 100% of them cant get their men to be involved, leaving them to make ends meet and rear their children alone, often relying on their own parents. Thank God for state resources for these women.

I think in these cases, the cause of the problem is not just deadbeat dads, but the disappearance of the extended family in western civilization. I think there have always been deadbeat dads and single moms, but often extended family filled the support role now filled by the state. I don't necessarily advocate that we all return to a traditional Waltons way of life, btw.

I have to agree with ZombieNinja's chart above, that to some extent, the welfare state has incentivised single momhood for some women. Surely not every single one of the fathers in these cases has been a deadbeat.

Sorry, kind of going off-topic from the OP.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

The sharp rise in births by unmarried women since the implementation of the welfare programs in Lyndon Johnson's 'Great Society' expansion.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Now I want to link to that Coltainne vid that Spanky shared with me a while back.