Big Boys DON'T Cry!

[StevePanker]

9 minutes ago, azoth1267 said:

Exactly correct.

We are all flawed weak creatures, admitting that weakness and moving on is in fact where strength comes from.

 

I initially thought we would never come to an agreement on this, but here we are.

 

Just goes to show what you can accomplish when you have an adult exchange of views, rather than the sadly dominant "you're wrong." - "NO! YOU'RE WRONG!" discourse most internet discussions devolve into

[Bazinga]

1 hour ago, azoth1267 said:

Tears of joy is a little more on topic as its another emotionally charged response (though one that i personally think is just theatrics for the sake of it).

It is still a show of weakness (ie a lack of control) but it is not frowned at as much or at all really.

Wow, just wow.

 

Can't remember the last time I cried out of pain or joy though. Maybe when my grandpa died? I think I cried there.

I mostly cry from hysterical laughter, on most of the other stuff I'm too rational maybe? Often feels like that gets in the way of actually enjoying life but I can't change who I am that easily. I still manage to sometimes shed a single tear on very emotional movies though. Weird. Guess I don't analyze stuff that much when watching a movie plot unfold, that always kept in the way of enjoying it so I just go with the flow there. And I don't usually do that irl unless I'm drunk.

 

Other than that I don't give a single fuck about your mannerisms and if and when you cry. I only care about what you say and do.

That also defines if you're strong or not. There are enough male "pussies" out there who never cry and strong women who cry a lot.

[StevePanker]

9 minutes ago, winny257 said:

5 Reasons Why People Who Cry are Emotionally Strong

 

 

Although some of what they write in that article is true and backed by actual research, I hope you're not linking to that site to make a scientific argument...?

[Darkpig]

Now this is just speculation but:

 

Crying is definitely something that can definitely lower morale in a public setting. Read a newspaper and you can almost feel the tears pouring out of it.

 

      History was made up of people doing hard manual labor with often very little to show for it. A normal conversation between father and son might go like this: "We have alot of work to do son and by the lords name if you start crying there will be a beatin yhear?"

It was generally males who got beaten for things like crying or was it? Today we would call it domestic abuse. The fact is that kids will cry about the stupidest of things as do adults but punishments were way more harsh back then than they are now and at the time it seemed fair. If people were so busy crying then no work would be getting done and they would be more likely to avoid the task altogether.

      I think it was when men went off to war that hammered home the "Big men don't cry" phrase because crying could end up hurting troop morale which could lose troop support and in extreme cases the war. Now it was generally men who went off to war while women were likely giving birth and or taking care of the ones she has. And to all those hacks that think that women can go to war sure but you shouldn't go to war with a baby you crazy?!

 

It isn't a good reason but people were stupid then so whatever.

[Ernest Lemmingway]

Fear of showing weakness is a weakness itself.

[Darkpig]

4 minutes ago, Ernest Lemmingway said:

Fear of showing weakness is a weakness itself.

Emotion is a contradiction. Why can't we all think logically like Spock?

[StevePanker]

3 hours ago, Ernest Lemmingway said:

Fear of showing weakness is a weakness itself.

 

A weakness that - sadly - many men throughout history have tried to compensate for by being overly macho, sometimes resulting in extreme violence.

 

"I feel like crap and I don't like that, so now I'll make someone else suffer," is a largely male phenomenon.

[Cynical Misanthrope]

I have no idea where the retarded notion of "men shouldn't cry" comes from. Such statement is clearly a social construct (and a very old one at that), because if it wasn't, nature wouldn't had given men the ability to cry at all.

However, I can absolutely see the point in which in some situations crying as a man is actually counterproductive as fuck. Such as war, police, firefighter and other extreme conditions where you need to have a firm mind under stressful situations.

Although some men can probably turn off their emotions with ease, or let them build up inside for a very long time (which likely comes from constantly being indoctrinated from childhood to manhood), I like to think that most of us, would have to train to be able to completely shut them out on command.

 

But without ever venting them from time to time is clearly very dangerous as well. Being told that as a man, crying is for pussies will only reinforce negativity in the long run which I will get to later.

 

Suppressing or turning off your ability to cry like you turn a switch is not really normal. That would be like turning off your laughs or any other emotion. I mean how many times haven't you heard a joke, and you just exploded with laughter?

Now imagined if such behavior would be "unmanly". Sounds pretty fucking stupid. Crying is no different. But although you can suppress it (in this case) sadness/crying, for a period of time, sooner or later - that shit wants to get out.

And how you let it out it's up to you. You can either shed some tears, to clean the system or talk to someone to get new perspective, or beat someone up, whatever. Whatever choice you make. it carries a grave responsibility which only you can face.

But of course, a lot of us react differently as well. Maybe crying is just no your thing. And that is alright. As long as you're honest with yourself, and not pretending.

 

Also maybe men can suppress crying much easier because we are also naturally more aggressive and thus can vent some of the frustration out in other ways, but I can't say if it's natural thing or simply so fucking ingrained into our psyche.

 

In the past, we lived in a very different life and likely had a lot of ways to release some steam. So from a logical view, it kinda make sense to some extent. But now we really don't. At least not in the same way. And yet, we are supposed to be the protector, the provider, strong and confident in every situation and this and that. And at the same time, we are also now being taught that masculinity and simply "being a man" is toxic and not to mention that we are constantly accused of crimes we haven't committed just because

"we are all inherently born that way."

Boys at young age are now also taught to act like girls, and women are now taught to act like men. Wut? How the fuck does that make any sense?

 

And then we also have the few things we use as tools (games, music, movies and other forms of art) to release our steam, but it's also constantly under attack from moral faggots and hypocritical cunts.

 

Myself rarely cries, but the few moments I do, it's often when I have watched animal abuse videos. That shit gets me in tears every time.

I also get a little frightened by myself these times, because if I would get my hands on someone abusing a animal, I'm not sure I would be able to hold back my anger and hate.

 

I also cried for almost a week when my cat died. I will not go into details about it, but she was at the time, the only reason I wanted to live.

 

Back to what I said at the start about suppressing your emotions. It's no wonder that some simply snaps and loose complete control and goes on a killing spree. And it's also no wonder that men is leading by miles when it comes to suicide.

And it's no wonder men are turning away from a lot of things that often involves the other sex as well.

And there is basically zero help for men when it comes to certain if not all our issues. And yet we are still supposed not to show emotions and be strong and confident. Yeah, no.

 

Being a man for me means just so much more than just being the "protector" and "provider". I would say it's way more "manly" to be truth to yourself and show all emotions and not just a selective few.

Someone who is literally a fucking pussy-man and who doesn't dare to show sadness and who doesn't dare to cry doesn't sound that manly to me. Sounds more like a weak sheep. But of course, no one likes a fucking crybaby either.

Find the perfect balance between having a thick skin and cry when needed. Nature gave you different emotional tools to handle different situations. Don't ignore them.

 

// EDIT

 

I was fucking high when I wrote this, so have now gone back and made changes to make sense of my mess lol.

 

 

[Reginald_001]

I feel really bad for anyone that thinks that crying is a sign of weakness. I don't have words.... I feel genuinely bad for you guys..

I wish there was a way I could show you that to let go of your emotions is to control them.. But I guess this is a lesson that each person has to learn for themselves.

 

Press 'A'...

[StevePanker]

2 hours ago, Cynical Misanthrope said:

I have no idea where the retarded notion of "men shouldn't cry" comes from. Such statement is clearly a social construct (and a very old one at that), because if it wasn't, nature wouldn't had given men the ability to cry at all.

 

 

So many other things you said in your post are undoubtedly true, but I'll just run with this one for a moment.

 

If it's generally "weak and counterproductive" to react in perfectly natural ways to perfectly natural human feelings and needs, then the only reason any of us are here is because our ancestors were weak and counterproductive. They gave into thirst, hunger, sleepiness, fear, anger, love, lust, curiosity and a whole host of other "feelings". We didn't get and retain these emotions if they weren't somehow useful to our survival. That's how evolution works. The traits that ensure the success of your species are passed on to the next generation and the traits that don't are eliminated from the gene pool as the individuals who suck at surviving die off.

 

Some say that the only "unnatural" thing we humans really do is to constantly try to control and deny ourselves these perfectly natural feelings and needs. I don't agree with that. If the need to feel in control wasn't just as natural as all the other things I just listed, why do we all seem to have that need? Sure, trying too hard to control things that we really shouldn't can be bad for us, but so can giving in to our most basic needs as soon as they arise.

 

Imagine what would happen if none of us had any self-control whatsoever. If we just ate whenever we felt a little peckish, laid down whenever and wherever we might feel drowsy, ran away from anything and everything that startled us even the slightest, went into a blind rage whenever something annoyed us a bit and so on and so forth, would we be any more evolved than our primate cousins? Would we even be human?

 

Many properties of homo sapiens have been propped up as being what sets us apart from all the other animals on the planet. We have the ability to show empathy. That's surely unique! No... Many other animals do that. Well, we have social rules that govern how we interact with each other. That must be a distinctly human thing! No... Again, any animal that lives in a pack, herd or flock exhibits some form of that behavior. In fact, bonobos seem to be even better at social balance and conflict resolution than many humans are (the secret is letting the females run the show and to use sex as a tension reliever - these guys are AWESOME! ). When it comes right down to it, we can't even really say it's our intelligence that makes us different, because if we measure the brain to body mass relationship, which seems to be an indicator of intelligence (or at least potential for it), the only thing that kept dolphins from evolving way beyond us is the fact that they're stuck in the water and don't have hands.

 

If you ask me, what really sets us apart from every other species on this planet is delayed gratification - the ability to reign in our immediate needs in favor of better things later on. If we didn't have that ability, we would all give in to every basic need as soon as it arose and we wouldn't be able to plan long term. We wouldn't be able to cooperate on anything more advanced than getting the next meal or making sure our babies didn't die. I'm not even sure we would have developed language, because what language does is communicate ideas in abstract terms and who needs that if you're only concerned with your next drink/meal/sexual encounter and aren't planning ahead?

 

The need for control is as engraved in all of us as much as any other emotion, but as with all the other ones, too much self-control can be damaging. Just as eating too much will make you fat, sleeping too much or being too fearful will lead to never getting anything done, giving into your anger or lust too easily will make you hurt other people and so and so forth, too much self-control - and especially the need to try to control others - can lead to some pretty bad things as well. Basically, any form of extremism you can think of is based on the desire to control others. Racism, sexism, gay-bashing, child abuse, religious extremism, terrorism - all of them are manifestations of attempts to make the world do what you want it to do taken to an extreme and destructive level.

 

All emotions and reactions to them we can have are natural, including crying and trying not to. It's the ability to weigh the long term consequences of our actions and choose when to do what that makes us human. Balance is key and never allowing yourself to cry when you really need to is no more a sign of emotional balance than wailing over every little thing.

 

*Steps off soap box*

[gregathit]

I think it is more a matter of timing and situation.  As has been stated, in battle or a stressful situation, crying would equate to weakness.  Men are expected to shit or get off the pot so to speak.  Meaning, instead of sitting around crying, do something.  

 

However, at a funeral, birth or wedding, crying would most certainly not be considered a weakness.  I've watched grown men cry at times like these and never thought for a second that they were weak.  How could anyone think that a dad is weak for crying at the first site of his new born or giving his daughter away at her wedding?

[Cynical Misanthrope]

4 hours ago, StevePanker said:

[...]

I agree with everything you said here.

[Guest]

To the men arguing that crying is a "sign of weakness", spend six months off testosterone and see what your body does. Crying is a physiological response. It can't be assigned a value judgment any more than, I dunno, "goosebumps in the cold" can. That's just plainly stupid.

 

If you spent enough time crying, you'd recognize that 1) it's unavoidable and 2) it does not prevent you from getting things done (except maybe driving - and I'd dispute that as a car-crier). You can cry while you work. You'd probably be able to cry on the battlefield (though admittedly your aim and your stealth would be compromised - perhaps leave it to the trenches). Crying isn't an expression of helplessness, it's an expression of being overwhelmed in the moment. 

 

Also, as an aside, men, if you think being an emotionless, stony wretch makes you sexy or otherwise desirable? It doesn't. It makes you seem inhuman. It's not strength, it's literally carving out pieces of yourself because you're too weak to deal with them.

 

Cry more. Human is the best thing you can be.

[Ernest Lemmingway]

I'd rather be a crier than some emotionless drone. You may not feel any pain if you successfully suppress all emotion, but you also don't feel any pleasure. I've actually felt what it's like with the latter. It's a psychological condition not uncommon in depression known as anhedonia. Besides, 98% of my male peers growing up treated me like a constant pariah or manipulated me for their own ends because of the Asperger's; easy target and all that. I learned to stop caring what they thought of me at an early age.

 

The women in my life actually like that I'm comfortable crying. Several have remarked that it makes me "more approachable" than guys who try to act invincible all the time. Unfortunately none of them are willing to start dating me for fear of "ruining the friendship."

[StevePanker]

2 hours ago, zexari said:

To the men arguing that crying is a "sign of weakness", spend six months off testosterone and see what your body does. Crying is a physiological response. It can't be assigned a value judgment any more than, I dunno, "goosebumps in the cold" can. That's just plainly stupid.

 

If you spent enough time crying, you'd recognize that 1) it's unavoidable and 2) it does not prevent you from getting things done (except maybe driving - and I'd dispute that as a car-crier). You can cry while you work. You'd probably be able to cry on the battlefield (though admittedly your aim and your stealth would be compromised - perhaps leave it to the trenches). Crying isn't an expression of helplessness, it's an expression of being overwhelmed in the moment. 

 

Also, as an aside, men, if you think being an emotionless, stony wretch makes you sexy or otherwise desirable? It doesn't. It makes you seem inhuman. It's not strength, it's literally carving out pieces of yourself because you're too weak to deal with them.

 

Cry more. Human is the best thing you can be.

 

Besides your point about emotionless men not being desirable - which I've heard from pretty much every woman I've ever discussed the topic with, so you're definitely not the only one with that opinion - there are several things I disagree with here.

 

1. If crying was really as uncontrolable a physiological response as getting goosebumps, there wouldn't be any point to this discussion at all, would there? There would be no stigma to talk about. After all, have you ever heard of anyone getting shamed for getting goosebumps when it's cold...?
    
2. Crying is not "unavoidable". Maybe it feels like that for you. Maybe you're just a very sensitive person and you have no control over it and that's okay. You do you. But again, if it was like that for everyone, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
    
3. Getting things done while you're sobbing may not be impossible, but it's certainly impractical and I'm frankly a little worried that you don't have a problem driving while you're all teared up. Operating a vehicle while your vision is impaired is downright dangerous. There's a reason why people who need glasses can get ticketed if they drive without them.
   I suspect you may attempt to make the argument that it doesn't impair your vision, but since you clearly live in the same universe as the rest of us, the laws of physics apply as much to you as they do to everyone else. Excessive amounts of fluid in your eyes will cause some degree of visual impairment, whether you'll admit to it or not (unless you have some weird genetic disorder that basically gives you fish eyes, which would then require you to wear some sort of water-filled goggles all the time to prevent your eyes from drying up ). It's a part of living on this particular planet, in this particular universe, with our particular physiology and there's nothing you can do or say that will change that.
   The fact that you call yourself a "car-crier" tells me you've done this many times, so you may have learned to compensate for it, but that doesn't mean your vision is any less impaired, just as a blind person compensating by using sound and touch to navigate the world doesn't make them any less blind. Or any less fit to drive a car...
   
   Getting back to the impracticality of getting things done while crying, vision impairment isn't the only problem that comes with it. Whether you're driving or doing something else, being fraught with emotion while you're doing it will undeniably take away some of your attention and concentration. After all, if you were fully focused on what you were doing, you wouldn't be crying, because you wouldn't be thinking of whatever made you sad to begin with.
   
   I could see all of these things being a problem if you've got any old regular job, but now you're on a battlefield. Your vision is partially impaired, at least some of your focus is elsewhere and your breathing is probably also somewhat irregular. Combine all of those factors and your coordination is likely to be affected as well. Now you're required to aim and fire a rifle. Or relay an important radio message during an intense mortar barrage. Or navigate a street full of debris while under heavy machinegun fire.
   
   See a problem here...?
   
   Besides the physical aspect, mercplatypus made an excellent point on the previous page about morale and how breaking down during a battle could negatively affect the people around you. That goes for trenches as well as on the open battlefield (not that classical trench warfare has really been a thing for almost 75 years now...) Fear, despair, panic and other emotions that might make you cry can be contagious. As a soldier, keeping your emotions in check and trusting your training isn't just a bunch of macho bullshit. It's literally a matter of life and death, not just for you, but for the men and women around you as well.

You said, "spend six months off testosterone and see what your body does".

 

I'll counter with this:

 

Go to a war zone and see if you'll even survive for six months if you cry every time you witness something disturbing.

[Guest]

On ‎5‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 11:11 AM, KoolHndLuke said:

I was allowed to cry when I was a baby. I think I even cried a few times as a boy of 4-5 yrs old. But, sometime in my young life, someone (my dad?) told me that boys crying was not acceptable. I think I asked him why and he explained that crying- for boys or men- shows weakness. He was right in that it was not acceptable behavior for "big" boys or men. Any man can testify to this since you would be called "pussy", "weakling", "momma's boy" or any number of other insults intended to humiliate and "educate" you.

 

It is so ingrained into my psyche as a man that I cannot cry! Sometimes I want to and can't. Sometimes I feel weak and pitiful. I remember as a "baby" when I could cry, I usually felt better afterwards- not because my mom said it was okay and consoled me- but, because I was letting out frustration. After I learned that I "couldn't" do this anymore, I started to break and destroy things, get in fights, and join in persecuting any other "pussies".

 

So boys and men are not allowed to show weakness? Where did this completely fucked up idea come from? Is it preferable to see an angry young boy or man who is bent on destruction? Where do you think some of that anger comes from if not from suppressed feelings of pain or sorrow? Does it make a man "less" to feel sorrow or self pity in trying times and show it? Can a man that shows vulnerability from time to time still be considered "strong" or "masculine"?

 

 

I have to self-edit tons, sorry about that, but you reminded me of all the times in my childhood I was punished for having an inappropriate emotional response.

 

I still wince at movies that torture people, especially when the victim cracks and laughs.

Creepy.

ew.

 

I had a flashback to a time I was discussing a movie "When a man loves a woman", starring meg ryan and the godfather-guy,

and I started crying uncontrollably because the character was placed in a corner, with no way to make his wife happy.

Their marriage was worse than doomed, and there was nothing at all he could do.

(So I *know* I can cry, but not always at the right times)

[Cema]

On 12/05/2018 at 8:11 PM, KoolHndLuke said:

So boys and men are not allowed to show weakness? Where did this completely fucked up idea come from? Can a man that shows vulnerability from time to time still be considered "strong" or "masculine"?

 

 

Weaklings should be crushed !

 

 

 

On a more serious note the idea of men not crying can be easily explained by how biology distributed the roles between men and women in the very first societies.

 

Facts : Men have on average twice as much muscular mass than women for the same weight but women can give birth.

 

Consequence : Men ended up beeing the protectors of the family, the reliable one, the one in charge of fighting the enemy and the beasts, and finding food. In short, men had to be strong and women had to be fertile. Hence the criteria for men were physical strength, intelligence and confidence, for women they were beauty and youth. Vulnerability is the reverse of strength so it was more like something that would eliminate you.

 

Things didn't change much. Men are still attracted by young and pretty women and women are still attracted by self confident men and not crying sissies. It's true society did change, we're not fighting wolves in the forest anymore but every time there is a war or any type of fight this natural order is brought back because of this simple biological fact : men can fight.

 

Deal with it or change this world.

 

 

 

edit : On a sidenote I have a very deep respect for my father because I only saw him cry once : for the death of his own father.

 

[AKM]

20 hours ago, StevePanker said:

 

A weakness that - sadly - many men throughout history have tried to compensate for by being overly macho, sometimes resulting in extreme violence.

 

"I feel like crap and I don't like that, so now I'll make someone else suffer," is a largely male phenomenon.

 

Which brings up the question: Why is it a largely male phenomenon?  Could it be the lack of another, less dangerous, outlet for the stress they are dealing with.  An outlet like say... crying, perhaps?  Just a thought.

[KoolHndLuke]

5 hours ago, Cema said:

change this world

This will happen whether you want it to or not- and the rate of change is assuming we maintain the same trajectory and velocity in time. Things in society have already changed drastically in the last hundred yrs or so. Do you think you would even recognize humanity in several more centuries? I don't. How it changes is what can be influenced today. But, it will surely change. Evolution- as far as we know- is a constant, ongoing process. Do you really believe this is the pinnacle of humanity? Our inconsistencies and fallacies prove there is much room for improvement.

[Cema]

4 hours ago, KoolHndLuke said:

This will happen whether you want it to or not- and the rate of change is assuming we maintain the same trajectory and velocity in time. Things in society have already changed drastically in the last hundred yrs or so. Do you think you would even recognize humanity in several more centuries? I don't. How it changes is what can be influenced today. But, it will surely change. Evolution- as far as we know- is a constant, ongoing process. Do you really believe this is the pinnacle of humanity? Our inconsistencies and fallacies prove there is much room for improvement.

 

I definitely think I would.

 

If you judge the evolution of humanity by the evolution of New York city and its people in the last 100 years ... yes ok the world is changing fast at the moment. But if you go 100 km away from any capital city what do you find? Farmers, people tiding crops, small villages, small shops, craftmen, men marrying women ... in short nothing really changed since the beginning of Neolithic 10 000 years ago.

 

Besides, having lived through a civil war myself I can assure you there is nothing as fragile as your "civized way of life". I have already seen everything crumble in 1 day. People saying hello one day and assassinating each other the next one, men women and children lying in their blood. Going to the anniversary of  a friend one day and waking up in the night and seeing the wall of your house swaying because a freaking TANK is firing in the street on the house next to yours is definitely something quite unique I can tell you.

[flutie]

I think human evolution is matching video game npc's, WE just follow, give us a navemesh , we walk the wrong way 

[Bazinga]

2 hours ago, Cema said:

 

I definitely think I would.

 

If you judge the evolution of humanity by the evolution of New York city and its people in the last 100 years ... yes ok the world is changing fast at the moment. But if you go 100 km away from any capital city what do you find? Farmers, people tiding crops, small villages, small shops, craftmen, men marrying women ... in short nothing really changed since the beginning of Neolithic 10 000 years ago.

 

Besides, having lived through a civil war myself I can assure you there is nothing as fragile as your "civized way of life". I have already seen everything crumble in 1 day. People saying hello one day and assassinating each other the next one, men women and children lying in their blood. Going to the anniversary of  a friend one day and waking up in the night and seeing the wall of your house swaying because a freaking TANK is firing in the street on the house next to yours is definitely something quite unique I can tell you.

But that won't be the way social "evolution" will continue in the future. At least I hope so. Mankind should conquer the stars, not fight petty wars over imagined truths or centuries old feuds.

And we should use all the potential there is, meaning gifted women should be able to be more than fertile and pretty.

I really hope that technological progress won't be through blood and iron like in the first half of the 20. century, that would be a shitty future for our children to live in.

[StevePanker]

7 hours ago, AKM said:

 

Which brings up the question: Why is it a largely male phenomenon?  Could it be the lack of another, less dangerous, outlet for the stress they are dealing with.  An outlet like say... crying, perhaps?  Just a thought.

 

That was sort of the point I was trying to make

[Psalam]

Men have cried throughout recorded history, and probably before. The idea that men should not cry comes from modern Western, industrial ideas that make people into cogs in the machine.

Achilles wept over Patroclus in the Iliad (in front of the troops by the way).

Jesus wept is the shortest verse in the New Testament of the Bible.

There are countless historical examples.

Choose if you want to cry or not and when you want but don't blame it on biology (but rather, as others have said, on training).

[SimpleSpectre]

If we're judging what the future may be like in the future I would say that there will be a great deal of regression in the way of social advancement. The present that these "superpower" nations exist in is one that will prove to be completely unsustainable after a certain amount of time. Too many people, too much consumption of material, not enough arable farmland, no feasible alternatives to petroleum based energy and it's industrial uses, etc. At best humanity will likely go back to smaller agricultural settlements, or it will be total anarchy with the only law being that of who is strong enough or ruthless enough to survive.