johnp. said:
Women are not a standard to be copied by men.
Oh no, I wasn't suggesting men should emulate women. But emotions aren't a woman thing. Metaphorically speaking, men are just beasts with feelings, beasts that are shy about revealing those feelings. These beasts can be aggressive, arrogant, haughty, pompous, self-absorbed and egotistical. But deep inside is a person embarrassed about being known by the world. It's a woman's mission to tame the beast by bringing out the real person. Men are masqueraders. A wise, insightful woman is needed to remove the mask.
There are plenty of men complaining about being misunderstood, by the world at large. They are told that they are a disappointment, that they haven't lived up to the standard of manhood. The world has expectations of them. Women have expectations of them. But they don't want to be judged by those standards. They want to be known for who they really are as individuals. The irony is that while we do want to be understood as people, we don't want the whole world to see through us. We choose particular individuals -- people we entrust to our inner secrets.
johnp. said:
If men do not show emotion in the same way as women it is because that is normal for men, we are not lacking just because women want to talk about emotions and cry all the time and we don't.
If there is an upset what comfort is there in telling another person? Misery loves company?
But then, what's the point of having friends and companions? What happens to men in war? The man was not always meant to be a loner, going through life on his own. It doesn't always happen that way. Men do seek companions. It's not all go-it-alone. We don't keep everything to ourselves. We share our troubles with other men. Who is better at understanding men than other men? That's what male bonding is about.
It's not about crying and pouring everything out. That's not what mateship is about. A good comrade is not necessarily someone you pour your life out for, or one who does that to you. An article in the October 2005 (March 2006 issue for Australian RD) issue of Reader's Digest, "Big Boys Don't Cry" said that men do communicate their struggles, but with as few words as possible. The communication is
implicit. It's not a normal mode of a man's behaviour to go into detail about what he's been through even when he
is sharing something. So we share, but we don't provide details. We assume our comrades have been through the same thing and understand what we'd been through. We don't want to embarrass ourselves by explaining the details. So we keep our comments vague.
Reader's Digest Article:
Big Boys Don't Cry -- and Other Myths About Men and Their Emotions: Emotional Intelligence
Big Boys Don't Cry -- and Other Myths About Men and Their Emotions: The Crying Game
Big Boys Don't Cry -- and Other Myths About Men and Their Emotions: Guys, Try These
Big Boys Don't Cry -- and Other Myths About Men and Their Emotions: Women, Be Aware
The Crying Game
......As gender roles and rules have loosened, some men -- dubbed Sensitive New Age Guys (SNAGs) -- have dared to let their softer side show. But many men remain confused about how much they can dare to share. "In one breath a woman says she wants us to be emotionally open," says Westover, who is divorced. "In the next she wants us to be her rock. Women are asking us to perform these incredible emotional gymnastics, and it is messing with our heads. Men don't have a road map or a role model to show us how to be both emotional and strong."
That might be what distinguishes men from women sharing their struggles with other women. The communication, I suppose, might be more
explicit among females. Women share more details, rather than taking for granted that the other party will necessarily understand. They're also not embarrassed about pouring out their experiences.
I don't think sharing emotion is necessarily a bad thing for men. Every man has something that he is proud of, despite his shortcomings and weaknesses. It may be his dreams, ambitions, aspirations, passions and inspirations. But this object of pride is a secret that only a man knows about. It is not shared. This secret object of pride is supposed to outweigh a man's failures, mistakes and defeats when it reaches fruition, is realised and achieves its full potential. All the defeats, setbacks, weaknesses and shortcomings were merely obstacles holding a man back from realising his mission. The man wants this to be understood. But the secret is sacred and personal. A man can't share it with the world -- only to a few select people whom he trusts.
I would think of the woman as a potential confidant. Men may have other men as comrades, but I doubt whether the intimacy goes deep enough. A wife is supposed to fulfil the role of the ultimate, ideal confidant. If a woman knows what this "secret object of pride" is, the secret, sacred passion that a man harbours within him, she might find it easier to love him for what he is despite the magnitude of his mistakes. But even if she doesn't know what it is, if she at least loves him, she also
believes in him. Love is a belief in something. A belief in something wonderful and magnificent that you can't see, hence one's belief in (and love of) God. A truly loving woman believes in
that something that the man is proud of.
Every man has a dream. Weakness is just an obstacle. A man isn't defined by his weaknesses. What defines a man is what makes him proud of himself, and this is more important than the weakness that holds him back. To focus on a man's weakness is to misunderstand the man. What one must do is dig deeper, and understand men on a more personal level than superficial elements.
