Part I
of Three Parts on
Boys and Men
Our sons. When they’re born, we hold them in our arms, stroke them, soothe them and take them to our breasts. It’s the only time in their entire lives that they are permitted to be openly content in their helplessness, universally approved of in their total reliance on another human being and a female, at that.
By the time they’re two, they’ve heard it at least once, even if it’s not their parents who say it:
“Boys don’t cry.”
If they haven’t absorbed that message by the time they’re seven, even the most nurturing, liberated parent begins to worry: “Other boys his age seem so much ‘tougher.’ What if there’s something ‘wrong’ with my son?”
By the age of nine, for sure, he’s got it down – the adults say fighting is not good, but they can handle that so much better than if they see him cry, any day. He’s also learned that in order to be a boy, he can’t just be. No, there are things at which he should excel, and other things he must deny, in order to prove he is what he is: a male. Throwing a ball hard is good, being afraid of bugs is bad. He can always hide the fact that he’s afraid of bugs, but the boy who can throw the ball fastest, will always be the better boy…every time.
By the time he‘s thirteen, society’s expectations have completely rent his psyche in two. He’s understood for years he’s not allowed to cry, but now he also knows, not only from his parents and teachers, but from his friends and even the girls who have become a big part of his life, that he’s not allowed to show when he’s sad, worried, or scared. By any means possible, he must never show he’s scared. Far better to be alone in fear and heartbreak, than be taunted for displaying these same.
He longs for affection, but that’s another outlet of sentiment he’s denied. His mother doesn’t holds him anymore, hasn’t since he was a young child. Not because he doesn’t want her to, but because he mustn’t let anyone see that he still needs her touch. And now, just the smell of the young woman sitting next to him in school, stirs longings. Of buried memories, long-ago contentment and new desires he’s only just beginning to recognize run deep inside him. But he has to suppress those, too.
By the time he’s seventeen, what it is to “be a man” is so set in him, he no longer thinks about it. He has completely accepted his only two choices: to be impenetrable, or just pretend, with all his might, to be. He also thinks about war. What it means, and whether or not he should, or will be forced to, fight in one.
And by the time he’s thirty, when the woman by his side, his love, asks him, “What do you feel for me?” He so much wants to tell her, but he can’t, because he’s never learned how.
Or maybe he no longer knows.
*** ****
* The title, “In Danger From The Outer World” is taken from the poem of the same name by Robert Bly.
Somehow I highly doubt your boys lacked for their mother's affection.
Ha! you got that right. I sometimes wonder if I was born with an overactive mothering gene. My sons are all so grown now, between the ages of 20 and 25, that I have to keep it toned down a little. Believe me – it's very hard for me to do that, but for their sakes, I try. My husband helps me.
Part of the 'absent father syndrome,' I think, comes from the way men learn to communicate and relate to each other. I know my husband, who loves his sons dearly, has trouble talking about certain things with them. Luckily, we provide a balance for each other, because, as I was telling Toe-Knee, I'm sometimes too much the other way. But, Hubs always worries that he will be 'interfering' if he sits down with them and has a heart-to-heart. He feels a more hands-off approach fosters independence and he has a point. But, if its over done, it can also foster distance, loneliness and confusion as to what it means to be a loving man. (How come you got your links to work so well and mne are still screwed up on my previous post? You're so much better at this than I am.)
Get your husband Wild At Heart….its my husbands FAVOURITE book. He has read it several times. He grew up with a father who worked all the time and didn't really get a chance to start knowing his father until he was an adult. As it is, his father has a hard time expressing himself……mainly because he grew up with an absent father…..and so on.
Its a cycle of madness because each generation is doomed to repeat because no generation is equipped from the previous generation. That is how I came to forgive my parents because I took at look at the parents they grew up with and so on….and realized that all parents are trying to do the best they can with what they got given. I know a lot of fathers are trying to find their way in the dark.
it's easy to forget that men have it hard too… i still say women have it harder, though 😛 we have to put up with them, you know! 😛 hehehe…
You're such a naughty girl, Grrrace. You really are. LOL. ; )
Seriously though, when I was young, I thought we had it harder than men. Now that I have been around five sons/stepsons, I realise their struggles are just as hard, if not harder in some ways than our own. This piece is one of three parts, the last part describes when we lost our son( mystepson) Greg. Every man in the family, including my husband's three brothers was devastated. Yet out of nine men, only three of them succumbed to tears, through they'd struggled hard not to.
"Its a cycle of madness because each generation is doomed to repeat because no generation is equipped from the previous generation. That is how I came to forgive my parents because I took at look at the parents they grew up with and so on….and realized that all parents are trying to do the best they can with what they got given. I know a lot of fathers are trying to find their way in the dark."
Such a compelling commment. I will search that book on Amazon and see if it is something I can get my husband to read. if not, I can always give it to my sons. Thanks for the recommendation.
i am bad. i know 😛 hehe.men really do have it rough… especially having met steve, i really do respect men a whole lot more than i used to.
Yeah, we found two nice ones. But, of course some out there are real d**ks! : )
oh, you don't have to tell me that! 🙂 hehe.
I know, but it's all in the past for us now. (As they say,"Good riddance to bad rubbish.")
amen. 🙂
I love where your heart is Partricia. This post is wonderful and speaks to the general breakdown of the family unit in our society. However, I wonder if people here might be able to agree that Western Culture is at a much bigger crossroads on this issue than one of say, absent father syndrome. You see, I believe that our whole concept of 'family' is being tested and I also think it is a good thing. I feel that western thought promotes the conjugal family as an ideal and that a patriarchal presence is essential for optimized rearing of young boys (and even girls). I guess this is where my lack of social conservativism rears its ugly head because I simply don't buy into that notion. I believe that in other societies, matrifocal and consanguineal familial configurations have proven their worth. And in these types of families the male is not as dominating a factor in a child's upbringing as the strength of the extended family or social circle. I'm sympathetic to Max Weber's (among others') thinking that modern marriage and thus family structure was a product of religious-cultural values provided by Christian and Roman Catholic Canon Law which dictated a family structure. One could argue that religion has killed any thought that other ways of rearing children might actually work. I'm not posting to argue religion as a reason for the propagation of a faulty family structure, but it certainly is a potent idea. Ok, so I hope people don't misunderstand, because I really think that a male presence is definitely necessary to any child. If I thought otherwise I would be saying that male's weren't necessary; which I'm not. I'm simply saying that as western society stress-tests the historical and moral constraints of Christianity, Judaism, and Roman Catholicism we, as a whole, need to start taking responsibility for finding alternatives to providing positive male influence in our children's lives. Why do we assume that a father is the only means by which a young boy (or girl) can receive valuable physical and emotional support and guidance. Not every child will have the benefit of that one positive male influence. In fact I would say even in traditional conjugal families that is a rarity- so how? It must be possible. So lastly, one thing I think would help is if we at least began by concentrating on broadening and strengthening our familial kinships as well as working at 'community' and better community strength. If we did at least that might have the beginnings of something powerful. Men will be men, and as animals we are still set up like hunter and gatherers (to be cliché). We can choose to fight evolution or we can work with it. No? Ha! Well, perhaps in this way-too-big-of-a-comment I've had something thought provoking to say, or perhaps I'm simply full of it. Hopefully it's the former- LOL!!!
Umm.. that last sentence… "Men will be men, and as animals we are still set up like hunter and gatherers (to be cliché).", yeah, that should read "Men will be men, and as animals they are still set up like hunter and gatherers (to be cliché)." – yeesh.
Sad but true. Hopefully it will change one day
"One could argue that religion has killed any thought that other ways of rearing children might actually work."
One could indeed, and I'm not afraid to say it. Though I mean (and I think you do, too) organised religion. as opposed to a belief in a God. Your comment is valid and well-thought out. My idea is our entire societal structure is dysfunctional. We really have assigned only certain allowable emotions to males an certain ones to females. We all go along with the idea of the "strong" male, to a greater or lesser degree. Perhaps it does go back to our prehistoric ancestors and perhaps it developed for other reasons. The thing is: it's no longer valid and time for a change. Other structures do work, you're right there as well, in my opinion, anyway, and role models can be found through different avenues But, the media is at fault too, and many of our young men find too many of their role models there. BTW- This post is Men as Victims. My next post is Men as Aggressors (bullies) and the last is Men as (trying to find) Heroes
Got it.No worries. It was a brilliant comment.
I hope so too. Unfortunately, if it happens, it happens too late to save all the men we now know and love….. : (
I'm going to have to think about this one. I've raised 4 sons and a daughter pretty much by myself, and one of the things we all longed for was a greater presence and participation by their father. I think it's too easy to blame religion, organised or not, for men being victims of society's expectations of acceptable male behavior. Men were the workers. Women bore the children. Let me think some more. I almost know where I'm going.
Yes, organised religion, you got it 🙂
No, one is separate from the other, really. I know and understand exactly what you mean. One is societal expectations and the other is familial obligation.You have children and you are responsible for caring for them, whether you are male or female. period. If your ex didn't do that, he was negligent. What Michelle and I are talking about is how did these mores discussed in the post evolve and why do we accept them when they are no good for either sex?
Oh… just to clarify, I wasn't trying to blame organised religion. I stated that blaming organised religion would be a potent argument or idea. My comment was really directed at how our traditional ideas about family are changing as people test the value system put in place by those religions. That is quite different from blaming. For example, think about same-sex spouses (female) for a moment… I wonder what they would have to say about the lack of male presence in a family.
I knew what you meant. It makes sense and as I said to Beaner, we were not discussing any of these as a replacement for, or an excuse for not needing a father's love or attention. Whether a boy has his father's love or not has nothing to do with this separate social male issue. Foxsy's remark also had to do with men not being able to express their love, not for those who ignore thier responsibilities…..
Yes, whether they don't know enough to express or they can't express are both things that, I think are part of that cycle of madness foxy was talking about. I think about many European and middle Eastern cultures where males hugging and kissing affectionately whether it be friends or family is quite commonplace. They do this to show love, familial love, the kind of love that says "I care about you, you mean a lot to me". I maintain that nuclear families (which we're seeing less and less of) might tend to isolate males generation-to-generation propogating that self reliant never-let'em-see-ya-cry way of being. I really do believe that greater social circles and exteneded family would see more men finding their emotional roots again. 🙂
This is a great post and you indicate very well how boys and men have to follow certain stereotypes ordinated by society. Even though I live in a Greek family where my mother still hugs me and shows me her sentiments, my father lives up to the "role-model" of The Man with some exceptions. For an instance, it's common knowledge that in the Meditteranean countries, we express our feelings more openly than other "civilized" countries. I know I do, because in the end what counts more? A "sanitized" life or a full one?
I could never keep my emotions a secret, yet I have kept my manhood. Being a man doesn't mean that I have to live without emotional expressions. Yes sometimes I haven't shown my fear, but only to protect the people I love and due to a certain sense of responsibility.
I believe that a man is mostly defined by his lifestyle and how he keeps up to his obligations, his responsibilties and his dreams. A man is the person who makes a statement with his life, who makes things work his way and is not afraid of his emotions. Embracing our sentiments can make us full and it has nothing to do with being a macho man, a metrosexual, a retrosexual, a homosexual or an asexual.
You are right to a point I think.We aren't allowed to express emotions but, whilst I know you are saying it nicely and with our best interest at heart there is a difference between the sexes that can't be denied.I can say that a lot of men feel like we are being neutered right now. It isn't so much that we aren't allowed to show emotions but that we are being replaced in almost every arena by women.We used to have tribal areas that we could call male to vent our feelings – football is a prime example – but now that we are forbidden from expressing the testosterone fuelled aggression and once male dominated areas are populated by women no matter how much they are unwelcome – the fear that is in every man and that needs release is trapped. As a result we are in danger of becoming one of two things – either emasculated shadows or rampant sexual and physical predators.Let us be men and we will do it right. Make us women and we become monsters.A TV series I saw recently defined bravery as a guy who wakes in the morning – looks at his wife and kids and does not run away. That is the root of our fear. We all want to run away. No one likes responsibility. Thats why role models are becoming scarce – we no longer have a role to play in many households.
This is such an interesting point, if you read Ilias K's comment directly below yours. In case you don't know him, Ilia is from Greece and is 25 years old. I was will impressed by the insight and depth of his comment, regarding manhood. And I think he's a great example of the point you're making!
Sometimes when I read your blog, I know you're going through some normal, age-related struggles right now, asking yourself questions about who you are, what you want and where you are going in life. But, believe me, you know more about life than some fifty year olds, if you can write a comment like this, that, to me, displays an incredible insight. My favourite parts are, " What counts more? A "sanitized" life or a full one?" and" Being a man doesn't mean that I have to live without emotional expressions. Yes sometimes I haven't shown my fear…..due to a certain sense of responsibility…. a man is mostly defined by his lifestyle and how he keeps up to his obligations, his responsibilties and his dreams. A man is the person who makes a statement with his life, who makes things work his way and is not afraid of his emotions."
It's also true that, as you say, some of this suppressed emotion is cultural. One of the reasons that I was at such a loss when my stepson died was that everyone in my husband's family put as much into trying not to show their grief as they did into feeling it. I've been at Greek and Italian funerals where everybody is carrying on like bit part actors in La Strada or Zorba the Greek. I think it's healthier to express one's feelings at at time like that. On the other hand, having been associated with my husband's family for several years now, their stilted ways do not mean that they feel things any less than those who are more open. In fact, you and I both have probably met that Greek or Italian who expresses effusive joy at seeing us and then promptly puts a knife in our back. You can't tell how deep a person's feelings run by displays. But, if one feels it, I think it birings more rewards and maybe in some cases, more sorrow too, if you express it. As you say, the ups and downs of that lead to a fuller life. At least, for me, it does.
As I have no feminine attributes at all, (confirmed by a test) I cant relate to this. I also have no fear, not even of death, so I think these people should come out of the closet, they are in so deep they are crushing the Xmas presents. Its strange that when tested for my eq and iq I got 100% for empathy and 0% feminine Oh well 🙂 i guess that makes me a poor judge for this kind of article
Hi, Baria. I'm not sure if I completely understand what you're saying. You're making a few different points here, I think. What do you mean, for example, when you say, " football is a prime example – but now that we are forbidden from expressing the testosterone fuelled aggression." Are you talking about the constraints the football association has put on its fans now, trying to cut down on hooliganism? Or do you just mean that women are fans now and when you sit next to one in the stands, you don't feel comfortable to scream and swear? If you mean the second thing,than I can see where that would be annoying. Your desire to be a gentleman in front of a female wars with your desire to express yourself for your team. I say, you shoud go for it. Especially because most women who are avid fans of football (like me, for instance) woud probably be out there carrying on along with you.
On the other hand, I understand that there are certain "male" and "female" arenas that some feel are being violated by both sexes. This is just a matter of adjustment, I think as times change. For example, I have never felt comfortable discussing certain subjects, like smy personal sex life, with male buddies and I really get uncomfortable when women I know do that with men in front of me. Yet, I'm confortable talking about the same subjects with my girlfriends. I think this probably makes me a dinosaur in some ways. Man and women are coming into each other's arenas whether you and I are ready for it or not. We all work out at gyms together, there are men who now go to the same hairdresses as their wives, etc. It is strange and I do hear you. But in the long run, I think this will lead to a better understanding of each other and how each sex thinks. But, I think anyone over forty is probably stuck in the transisitional phases of that.These blurring of sex lines will be much easier for the next generation, At least I think so.
The part of your comment that made me sad, though is the part where you state, "A TV series I saw recently defined bravery as a guy who wakes in the morning – looks at his wife and kids and does not run away. That is the root of our fear. We all want to run away. No one likes responsibility."
Because that's exactly what I'm talking about,If men felt comfortable to express that out loud to their wives, they might not feel so scared once its out and can be acknowledged. There was a film with Robert DeNiro in it, "A Bronx Tale" where he plays a bus driver. His son is embarrassed by his father's job, because he thinks the gangster on the block has the better, cool tough guy job. The best line in the film was when DeNiro says to his son, " you think a guy holding a gun is tough guy? No- the guy who gets up early everyday and goes to work,then comes home to his family, that's the real tough guy."
Women feel like this sometimes, too, believe me. I love all my sons, I love my husband so much , but every once in a while ( and I know this is hormonal at my age) I sometimes think, "What if I hadn't had children or gotten married? " What would l be doing? What did I miss out on ?" That's not man or woman- based. That's just human.
But, like I say, maybe I haven't understood what you meant.
We really have assigned only certain allowable emotions to males an certain ones to females. Males and females operate in fundamentally different ways at a biochemical level. Perception of events, reaction to stress, competition among peers…of course we've assigned certain emotions to men and women, because they feel them to differing degrees. I don't think a questioning of the fundamentals of our society is in order.
Well, I guess that means you're happy with the "fundamentals of our society." That's great for you. On the other hand, if these emotions were felt by the two sexes to the differing degree you suggest, than everyone would be happy with the way we've been taught to function as men and women . In fact, we wouldn't even notice that the emotions each sex is allowed to express have been artificially 'divied up.' But, that's just my opinion.
This is hilarous. Thanks. I needed a light-hearted comment. I just got up an hour ago and haven't even finished my coffee yet, as I reply to the things everyone has said.. I'll have to come over to your blog more often. I want to know what a" 0% feminine, 100% empathetic," male writes.
LOL I know, what a bizzare score. the guy said he had done these tests for years on thousands of people and never seen a score of 100% for anything especially empathy, I cant remember the exact score for femininity it might not have been o but it was very very low 2 or 3 % or it could have been 0. Anyway enjoy your coffee, I like my coffee espresso short no sugar, I get all the sugar i need from people like you 🙂
artificially 'divied up.' my contention is that it is not an artificial thing. My statements were general. There are of course specific cases, many I'm sure, of women who are emotionless and men who are crying gasbags. But I'm willing to go out on a limb here and say that most women and most men are comfortable with their "assigned" gender roles and feelings. Who knows why? But I read some comments questioning organized religion's role in male expression and thought it was a little ridiculous. As far as we know, men and women have always been in the same complementary roles when it comes to emotional expression. I find myself agreeing with Baria (who I'm sure has blocked me at some point before, so you can understand that this is very strange) that men should be allowed to be men and women should be women.
I am aware that you don't think it's an artifical thing and that your statements were general. In fact, you're not "going out on a limb" at all. You're one hundred percent comfortable and unstoppable when you generalise and speak for all of humankind as you state that "most" men and women are comfortable with their "gender roles" and the ones who aren't are "emotionless" women, or "crying gasbag" men. I'm also aware that you said that Michelle and my discussion on organised religion and its role is "ridiculous," " because you don't think anything with which you disagree merits any discussion on anyone's part or mulling over on your part. We're all entitled to your opinion and you'e perfectly willing to educate us all. I'm not surprised that Baria blocked you. Please don't compare yourself to him. He answered this post with respect and I gave his response the respect it deserved.,too. As I did Michelle's and everyone else who gave me the honour of writing their own opinion, which may or may not be different from my own. You just got the respect your comment deserved, too. Please come back and visit me again,only next time, bring your hat. It must be quite unusually large and I'd be interested to see it.
Yep. the empathy score shows, my friend. Thank you for this comment. I will enjoy my coffee.
because you don't think anything with which you disagree merits any discussion on anyone's part or mulling over on your part. I think it's far too easy to blame the demon of organized religion than question the role our individual failings play in all this. A man might be negligent and emotionally crippled not because of anything anyone did to him, but because he's a selfish jerk and no amount of Sesame Street ever made an impact. Stranger things have happened.Just offering a challenge to your theretofore unchallenged assertions. If that's not what you'd like, I can respect that, but your argument certainly won't get any better.I don't wear hats.We're all entitled to your opinion and you'e perfectly willing to educate us allReally, I just didn't want to sound boring.
No need to worry, you don't sound boring. My assertions are challenged all the time and I welcome that. What you haven't learned is how to go about stating yours.
Your comment, A man might be negligent and emotionally crippled not because of anything anyone did to him, but because he's a selfish jerk has great merit. It has nothing to do with what Michelle said about organised religion, however. She never used the word, "demon" The "Sesame Street" reference, "unchallenged assertions" are two more examples of sarcasm, the lowest form of argument.
Whether you know it o rnot, you do wear a hat and like I said, it's a big one. And in your case, "Size" does make the man.
I do hope you prove me wrong, however.Some of your posts are interesting and thought-provoking. But I can read thema nd disagree without being insulting not only to the blogger, but to the people who leave comments. It's bad manners, Scio. Shame on you. You should know better.
As you can see, we share a common cultural heritage that has befriended emotional expression.And yes, back-stabbing exists. Yet, everyone, expressive or not, is a potential backstabber. I just tend to believe that people who are not afraid to talk and show their emotions are more sincere ; probably due to my so far experience But, your writing goes beyond culture and touches every man.In our globalized society, don't we need to re-define our stereotypes? Isn't this a matter of social survival? In my life, I have met powerful men who in the same time are so miserable because they haven't learned how to express their sentiments.Nevertheless, the majority of contemporary Greek men define themselves by "size" ; of wallet, car, house, work and of course "endowment". They forget that there are other "sizes" that need care. In their pursuit to find "happiness", they compromise what truly matters, because, People, when you will be ready to leave this world there is not a bank account that big to replace the people who are supposed to love and care about you!Anyway, to sum up, every man, even if he doesn't admit it or he is just a "jerk", cries and becomes emotional. The reasons? Many! It can be out of happiness, desperation, betrayal, love, success, failure. Stereotypes are not only to follow but also to challenge and this is a fact we need to remember! Besides, the men we remember through history are the men who challenged our way of thinking, like Socrates,Plato, Jesus Christ, Galileo, Tesla, Martin Luther King, JFK, Montesquieu, Da Vinci, Machiavelli, Napoleon Bonaparte, Karl Marx, George Seferis, even Hitler.
I really love the way you write.
The men we remember through history are the men who challenged our way of thinking, Socrates,Plato, Jesus Christ, Galileo, Tesla, Martin Luther King, JFK, Montesquieu, Da Vinci, Machiavelli, Napoleon Bonaparte, Karl Marx, George Seferis, even Hitler.
I have a feeling that one day, your name will be added to that list, Ilia. I'm not joking.
Yet, everyone, expressive or not, is a potential backstabber.
I hope I didn't give you the impression that I trust people less who are open and emotional. It migt have sounded that way, but you're right that someone's demeanour is not indicative of whether he plans to betray us or not.
I just tend to believe that people who are not afraid to talk and show their emotions are more sincere ; probably due to my so far experience
Oops. be careful there. We were just saying we can't really tell by this. You'd have to meet my American husband. My son Nick, (whose father is Greek) said something that made me laugh once. He said, " In Greece, I used to grab all my friends, hug them, kiss them, slap them, etc. Here in California, if I did that to my friends, they woud be worried that I was trying to hit on them and when I hug my own stepfather, his face turns red. Yet, he's guy in a milllion. He'd do anything for me anything to help anybody"
Interesting, no?
By the way, what do you think of George Soros? I noticed his name wasn't on your list. I'd love your opinion of him when you have a moment.
Okay, I guess I was trying to take the religion aspect off the table; Michelle's comment seemed to be saying exactly what she said she wasn't trying to say–if an institution propagates an ideal, then isn't it by default to blame? Regardless, I understood what she meant. My question is how far do we want to take the exploration into what constitutes appropriate male and female roles? Do you go to the biological imperative argument? I think that was Barla's point. Or follow the development of primitive societies and their mores and then follow those societies as more and more technology/exploration/cultures are introduced? And what does that mean to us? It is true that the traditional family structure is not necessarily the only or best for childrearing, but only recently when women were allowed to move into the higher paying workforce and therefore able to support those children, primitive matriarchal societies notwithstanding(those were, I think, based on the idea that the mother wasn't in doubt, the science of conception being unknown). How this all ties into the emotional expectations we have of men, how those expectations have changed in the last 50 or 60 years, could fill a semester of a Sociology/Anthropology course. Aaarrrggghhhh, I have to go to work and leave this for later.
I have a mantra I try to tell my son every day. I stop him in his pereginations, and, when I've got his attention, I say the following to him:
You're Strong and
You're Handsome and
You're Smart and
You're Funny and
You're Resourceful and
You're Funny.
You. Are. The.
Best Boy in the Whole World.
And I Love You.
Then I kiss him.
I must admit, he needs a good reason to cry. I don't tolerate tantrums. If he starts to tantrum, I say: Tell it to the judge.
But I fully embrace emotion.
I was a touchy-feely child. They used to say I had the "kissing bug". I actually gave my kindergarten bus driver mumps, because I kissed him every day when I got off the bus. I am very affectionate with Evan.
I know. We could discuss this for ages. (And if you read some of what's been going on on this blog this morning, it's been so fascinating, that I haven't gotten any work done.) The bottom line is: things are changing fast and men and women are having trouble adjusting. Having said that, all human beings will always have responsibilities to one another, whether societal or familial. Some people, (like our exes, for example) just don't want to live up to them and they'll find any excuse not to, even a sociological argument that has nothing to do with why they behave like narcissistic a**sholes. If we excuse their behaviour based on this argument, than any reprehensible act, by anyone, has to be excused, if their particular sob story garners sufficient sympathy. My post was really not about any of these type of men. Darn – I must be a worse writer than I thought. : )
Okay, now…let's get back to work, especially since our deadbeat ex-husbands left us to pay all the bills! ( Joking. Really)
Evan may be the best boy in the world, but he's also one of luckiest to have one of the best fathers in the world. (He also gets his "smart, strong, funny and handsome" genes from his dad.)
Well, you are right about the sincerity issue. Maybe, sometimes I over react! I tend to forget that my best friend is a very "locked" person on terms of emotions. Yet, I can't imagine my life without him in it. Thank you very much for your kind compliment. It really boosts my "manhood"!!
Have a look here: http://www.amazon.com/Bubble-American-Supremacy-Correcting-Misuse/dp/1586482173/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200431205&sr=1-19
And, he also wrote a book about The Cyprus Conspiracy and Henry Kissinger, concerning the invasion(or aybe I have that confused with someone else.) I have to look up the info. It does prove that enormous wealth and affiliation to the Republican Party do not always go hand in hand. Soros also started an organisation in the United States to educate the average citizen on US foreign policy. I have all this info on my other computer from when I was doing research for my book.
He made his money on currency exchange rates, an even riskier venture than the stock market. I wonder how the Euro has affected his wealth, if it has. I really better get back to work…. : )
Again, I don't think I blamed organised religion. I stated it "might be a potent Idea". Perhaps I inferred it slightly, but if anyone thinks I outright blamed organised religion well maybe it's because the thought is in the back of your head also. Anyways I agree with ScioScio regardless, it *is* easy to blame organised religion for so many things; just as it is easy to be a lazy reader.
Thanks for the tip! I will do my homework and tell you my thoughts!
But that doesn't mean that one or two parents or parents-to-be couldn't start a change with their children
Great post Patricia. I haven't read through the comments but I'm curious to know what you think about how boys who don't have fathers in their lives are affected by this message?
I am so glad I came back and found this to read. As a single mother of both a son and daughter I feel overwhelmed at their different needs and my approach to mothering them. It's funny because I find myself pushing my daughter to be more independant and less needy of affection and attention, maybe because I needed it sooooo much growing up (and even now) that I see it as a flaw and weakness. Yet, with my son, I am different. Maybe because he's the baby (he's 3 now though)… I find myself cuddling him more, touching him and giving him sensitivity and validation more often than my daughter. Not that I don't give her that at all, but at 5 she is very independant, stubborn and we just don't have that same connection. Sometimes I notice it and feel bad about it, and spend extra time cuddling in her bed after nighttime prayers…
And then I worry about the lack of a stable father in their life. Their dad actually read "Wild at Heart" which gave him so much insight into his faulty relationship with his own father, but hasn't really seemed to help his ability to father his own children, unfortunately. He's carrying on the habits his father taught him growing up… critisism, impatience, distance and anger.
I find myself trying to overcompensate for that, especially with my son, because I know they are still young and need it. But then I worry that I am creating a son that is weak and won't be able to take on the challenges of the world, because I try so hard to protect him.
I am lucky though… I do have a fantastic guy in my life that has been a wonderful influence on them. He's not here enough though to be a constant presence (he's an Air Force pilot and only with us about 5-10 days a month). They love him dearly and when he's here I see a wonderful difference in both of them… I just wish he was around more. And that I knew how to strike the balance between nurturing mother, and the kind of mom that knows when to let them fly on their own.
Some of us are starting to, I think. I read other people's blogs and realise that parents are becoming more flexible in our attitude toward what our male and female children's emotional range can be. I think that when they get to school,though, they run into peers who have a whole different idea. That's when a parent's work really get challenging. What you tell them at home, how you all interact, comes up against what friends and society thinks. For a child in a dysfunctonal home situation, this can be a blessing. But if the environment inside the home is the better one, a parent loses a lot of sleep thinking of who and what is going to influence their children, that's for sure…
Oh, my gosh. Your thoughts here are so indicative of the thoughts of many of us mothers. How much is too much, or not enough? I think all human beings need love. approval and nurturing from their parents, as well as a healthy doses of loving discipline. It's so hard to know how children are affected when parents are divorced. Would they have been better off if two unhappy people had raised them together? Probably not. You can only be the best role model you can be, you can't take responsibility for what other adults in your children's lives project. I tried to use the wacky adults in my sons' lives as a teaching tool. I would say your daughter needs your nurturing as much as your son needs it,and if anyone of the two is watching you closely to see what it's like to be an adult, she is, because you are the same sex. On the other hand, I have to tell you this: In my own situation there are three parent/stepparents households. (Only one ex remains without a partner at all, not even a part time one) All seven of us really do the best we can. All seven of us have weaknesses and strengths, all seven love our combined children/stepchildren and all seven of us are probably being criticised by those grown children, even as I write. I get to hear what my stepsons really think of their mother and their father, because I'm close to them and they confide in me. But they are also close to the other two, so I imagine if they have any complaints about me, the other two hear those. The same goes for my biological son. I remember once, in one day, he complained to me about my ex, his stepfather about me and me about his stepfather. He's got a lot to complain about, I guess, but he also gets a lot of love from us all. In short, no matter what you do, your children won't see you as a perfect parent and you'll make mistakes, for sure. As long as you don't ovecompensate for things that happened in your own childhood ('ghosts from the nursery,' as they say) and remember that because your children are not carbon copies of you or your ex, they have different personalities and most likely different needs than you or he had as children, you should be okay. The great thing about kids, even grown ones,is that if you are not a totally abusive parent and they know you love them, the 'll give you chance after chance to be a good parent to them, because they want you one to be as much as you want to be one. I keep working on it and I hope by the time I have grandchildren, I'll get it right. From where I sit, from what I read about your life on your blog, you're doing pretty darn good. : )
Hi, Icarus. The short answer is, I don't know. So many factors come into play.My own son was an only child until I remarried and then he instantly had four older brothers, who'd been raised somewhat differently than he had and in a different culture,.too. Like Illias K wrote here, in Greece, there are more displays of affection, more emotions exhibited by men everywhere, so he had that. He also had the critical, absent father, whom he loves but is frustrated by and the patient, practical stepfather. He is prone to emotional outbursts but I think that is cultural and he tries to keep those under control, not only because it's unusual here in the US , but also because they are not productive. On the other hand, I have heard from so many men on this issue, who have said that they regret having been raised by fathers who basically taught them that crying does no good, it only gives you a stuffy nose. I have a particular compassion for young men in today's society because I'm surrounded by them and also because I taught high school.If a boy in my class was sad or scared, he couldn't express that. He could only express anger. So, he'd punch a wall and get suspended from school. But a girl could cry or express fright and it would be over in five minutes, She'd go on with her day and nobody thought anything of it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that my core belief probably is that men and women are different in many ways, but emotionally that have the same needs, ambitions and desires, no matter that society/science tries to tell us otherwise. But again, that's just my opinion.
You certainly make some good points. Until guys feel safe enough not having to live up to the attitude of society, the change they need won't be there
The irony here is that the ex DID think he was living up to what was expected of him as a man, based on the values he was taught. I polled my in-house male focus group about this issue and the results were:1. Men today are wusses.2. Look, mom, we are not going to cry at a sad movie. Sorry. It would be embarrassing.3. You look tired (followed by a hug and a shoulder rub). They will all say 'I love you'. They have had to figure out for themselves how to function in relation to other guys; they were not sports jocks, they read, their vocabulary is more extensive than their peers, for the most part they have all had a very small group of very good friends on the same wavelength. I did ask them how they felt about different situations in their lives. I said, 'It's okay if you feel sad/happy/disappointed/angry/etc.," a lot. But you're so right, then you send them out the door. It does them no favors to send them out unprepared.
Re: the daughter question, it's not just you. I also found myself being much more critical of and demanding more from my daughter. And it occurred to me one day that what I was doing was trying to get her to be less 'girly.' To be tough and independent. She's smart, self-sufficient, and picked a women's college. I don't know if there is a magic formula. Do your best, forgive yourself every night, and get up and start over the next morning.
Excellently written, Patricia. This is very, very good.
Exactly… It's like if I can make her less "girly" I can also make her less vulnerable and maybe she won't be hurt by the cold heartless world like I have been. Again though, I am making the mistake of projecting my life onto her. I am going to make a bigger effort to not do this.
Thank you Paxton. And also thank you for your comments about your relationship with your dad. In my new story, I have formulated one of my characters motivations entirely on what you described. When that story is done, you'll be in my dedication (if that's all right with you)
Do your best, forgive yourself every night, and get up and start over the next morning.
Amen to this, Beaner. Really are words to live by. I know you directed them to IrishLuckyLass, but I'm posting them on my laptop, where I can see them every day. ; )
But you're so right, then you send them out the door. It does them no favors to send them out unprepared.
Right again. Though I sometimes wonder, in my case, anyway, if it was I who was not prepared for what they would be up against. I think I learned as much as they did.I know I suffered probably more than they did, whenever they met with overwhelming challenges. That's the curse/beauty of being a parent. The love of one's family and friends makes one strong, but to love a child, whom one instinctively wants to protect from all harm, makes one vulnerable.
I hear you about the irony of the ex, too. To this day,my ex is confused as to why my son is having such a hard time with him. Why is it that some of us learn as we live, whilst others just walk around all their lives in a fog saying, "what's the hell's happening?" Another of life's mysteries, I guess.
Until guys feel safe enough not having to live up to the attitude of society, the change they need won't be there
This is the unvarnished truth. And the worst of it is, women are part of that attitude. They say they want men who are more sensitive and open, but when it comes down to it, the men who genuinely attempt those, leave themselves open to questionings about their 'manhood', not only by other men, but by women. If he's sensitive, he's criticised for being "weak" if he's too"macho" he's criticised for being a chauvinist. There' s got be an in-between, but unless women figure that out, what they really want from a male partner, men (and women) will remain as confused and wary over each other as they always have been.Oh,well. It gives stand-up comics something to talk about, at least.
I
had this long comment written out, but I felt it got far too personal. The short version is that
there are countless places to lay blame for a boy's inability to cry —
everything from an over-bearing father to a terrible school situation
to, yes, a bad religious experience. But I agree with you that society
only exacerbates the issue by being so non-accepting of sensitive men. Another thing I want to say is that we can't expect this to change in a society that refuses to accept the proven fact
that homosexuality is something many species, including humans, are
born with. Until we can get past the insecurities and prejudices that fuel homophobia, I'm afraid sensitive boys
(whether gay or not) will forever be beaten down by society.
"Look, mom, we are not going to cry at a sad movie. Sorry. It would be embarrassing."This is the perfect symptom of what Patricia has written about here. Why should it be embarrassing for a male to accept and display a perfectly valid human emotion? Because of the fear of judgment from others? I find that terribly sad (though not sad enough to cry over).I'm not suggesting any man to sit through Brian's Song is a heartless tool if he doesn't feel something. What I'm trying to say is that if a man feels genuine sadness and refuses to express it because of what others might think, it's just a facade and, I suspect, an unhealthy one.
Wow, thanks!
Hear hear
I don't want you to think that the boys are emotionless, uncaring, sides of beef. Far from it, they are the ones who were the odd ducks in school. They still hug me in public. They will discuss amongst themselves how they feel about something (one of the last discussions involved the grandfather that has dementia and is failing). But they have to live and work in the world outside our family, and guys don't go to the movies and cry in that world, valid emotion or not. And to tag onto what Patricia was saying, they are confused by what women want out of them, other than no jokes about bodily functions. And there is the overcompensation factor, making up for a barely there father who had his own issues with this messy emotional business.
Oh, amen. One of the complaints around here is that Women's Lib broke the old rules but didn't come up with any new ones for the guys to follow, so they don't know what they're supposed to be that won't get them in trouble. Remember Archie Bunker's song, "…and you knew who you were then, girls were girls and men were men…"
I know what you mean and I agree completely, with both your comments, actually.
I can see where Women's Lib in the sixties and seventies, left some men and even some women floundering back then, but the younger generations, Gen X,and under, should have a handle on it by now. They were born after that big revolution, well into a societal change and think the rest of us who are older just haven't been able to keep up. That means some of their parents of Gen X and Y might have been old-fashioned and raised them, as you say, as it was when "girls were girls," etc, although I've never liked the point of view behind those lyrics.
"But they have to live and work in the world outside our family, and guys don't go to the movies and cry in that world, valid emotion or not."Isn't this fully validating the point Patricia is making in the post — that men feel suppressed when it comes to expressing sadness?"And there is the overcompensation factor, making up for a barely there
father who had his own issues with this messy emotional business."Absolutely. As I said above, there are a limitless number of places to lay the blame for males being "disallowed" from crying. But it seems that we are all in agreement that:1. Men are pretty much forbidden to express their sadness in any way but stoic resolve, and2. Society, as a rule, supports and even promotes this notion.
No one is ever really an emotionless, uncaring side of beef. And i'm willing tobet you did fine raising your sons not to be any such thing. The point of the post is are our men being short-changed by the way society has been structured? If so, do they compensate well or are they maladjusted and unable to deal with their emotional side, as a result? If not, which so far the consensus is that many men do feel they have trouble with that last part, why? As Kirk says, there are many reasons and the reasons are not all to do with their parents or how they we raised or whether they had their dad home or not. They might not feel comfortable crying in public over a movie, (some women feel like that, too) but what about when the situation really calls for a tear or two? Beaner, i will never forget my stepson's funeral, the effort his father, uncles an brothers put into not crying was as great as their grief. They never dealt with that tragic death sufficently. They never grieved and the other sons never really saw their father, my beloved husband, grieve. I saw him grieve, privately, but each time, he apologised for not, "handling things well." Can you imagine how tortured he must have felt? Sad over losing his son (an understatement)but worried that I, his wife, woud see him as a wuss if he cried. Now that's a prime example of what I'm talking about in this post. When a man's at a movie and he doesn't want to cry, well that's one thing. When it gets to the point where a man feel socially pressured not to cry over the untimely death of a son, brother, nephew, that's crippling. And that's what I wish would change about our society.
Also, can we really blame women's lib? Maybe I'm totally off base here, but haven't women always, even prior to the women's lib movement, wanted a strong man who was also sensitive when it was sensible to be so? I get that men may have been confused as to whether they should continue to open doors for women, but can we really say that the reason men obsess about machismo is because of those pesky women fighting for equality? That's too big of a leap for me.
I think opening doors for women or not , is only part of the confusion women's lib in it's early stages brought about for everyone. I am almost 52, so I remember what I think Beaner's talking about. I'm not saying it was bad thing, it wasn't , but change is never easy. There wasn't only the "should I open the door for a date,a female colleague, who now might even be my boss, there was also should I pay for this meal, or will she be offended? Should I let her pay if she offers and risk looking cheap?" Luckily we had the "Misses Manners," the etiquette mavens of the world come out with guidelines, which I think have now been in place for more than twenty years. (For example, you can open a door for a date, but not for a female superior at work, is the standard, I believe) We also had a giant shift in sexual mores, which not only men, but everyone had trouble adjusting to, and never are men and women more vulnerable than when it comes to sex. "Equal pay for equal work," was only one aspect of that movement. There was also a lot of horrible man-bashing that went on in that era and still exists in some really militant quarters. However, for at least twenty years ( I re-emphasise) that has calmed down, considerably. Today, a man can call himself a 'feminist' and be taken very seriously by everyone and without worrying about what it will do to his repuation at work. But the women's movement did add to the men's confusion for a while, though, and I think that's what Beaner means, although it should not be affecting men under thirty, certainly not men of my children's generation who are 25, 26, etc.
Why is crying so important? I mean, I guess if you want to cry, whatever your biological sex, cry, but it seems like crying and being emotionally expressive are some sort of shibboleth, at least for several of the commenters. Just as it sometimes irritates me when people say, "Real women have curves!" (as if skinny women aren't real women), I'd hate to think that we're on the verge of saying "Real men cry."
Speaking for myself only, I am pretty creeped out by public displays of emotion by anybody, man or woman.
Anyway, interesting post. (Oh, I would also say, my son is now almost 3 and has never been told that boys don't cry. My husband and my stepdad, the main males in his life, are pretty manly and macho, but even they don't think men shouldn't ever cry if they feel like crying.) I do think you're right that men get shortchanged and pushed into stereotypical roles the same way women do. I have been bothered by a feeling for a long time that, however difficult it is for a woman to report being raped, it must be many times more difficult for a man to do so, because the very idea of a man being raped is almost unheard of and unacceptable in this society. It's not to downplay, of course, the experience of a woman who has been raped, just to say that our understanding of what equality of the sexes means needs to broaden.
Oh, Gosh, I hope you haven't inadvertently coined a phrase! LOL. I know what you mean that some people of both sexes prefer not to express emotions publicly. The post is more that if one should want to, why should what sex you are prevent that? For example, there's been this whole hubbub made of Hillary Clinton shedding a tear on the campaign trail. To some people it seemed to prove she isn't 'emotionless' and that for a woman to be emotionless is bad. But for men, not showing emotion is as it shoud be. Explains why we know have so many young men coming home from Afghansitan and Iraq which such severe cases of PTSS that there's now a growing homeless vet problem as there was during the Vietnam era.
Plenty of 'manly and macho men' verywhere feel comfortable enough to cry, too. but there are those, especially younger ones, who are not yet secure enough in their masculinity. (high school age, etc) who suppress that for fear of being seen as weak. When one still worries about that at thirty and older, it's can cause emotional and relationship problems.
As for your other comment about men and rape, the timing is amazing. I work out at gym with a trainer about three times a week. He is 28 years old and a friend of my son. He is incredibly professional and has helped me get into the healthiest shape of my life. He has other women my age as clients, as well and I was honestly appalled to see how some of them treat him. One told him to "take off his shirt," another grabbed his backside while he was showing her how to do lunges. It sounds humourous in a "Desperate Housewives" sort of way, but let's switch it around. A 28 year-old female trainer getting touched by a 50-year old male client, or told to take off her shirt. Not so funny now, eh? I went home just yesterday and told my husband about this(he used to be a professional ball player in his youth and still maintains a nice physique for his gae) He told me that used to happen to him all the time when he was young and it was really embarrasing. Worse, he mentioned that when his twin sons got into high school and started playing baseball, their mothers' friends, would ogle them and make comments. Again, switch that around. Imagine a teenage girl being ogled by someone's father? He'd be in big trouble. Double standard there for sure.
I loved your comment, especially your conclusion, "our understanding of what equality of the sexes means needs to broaden."
Thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts.
Also, can we really blame women's libI only bring it up because before then the rules were clear-cut on both sides;
There is still fallout from the whole women's lib thing, if for no other reason than because our sons have been raised by mothers who came of age in that tidal wave of redefining who we were as women and what we expected of men. Society is us, and what we pass along to our children in their raising is what we know. So now do our sons, being of a certain age and knowing that it's okay to allow themselves to feel what they feel and maybe share that, do their own shaking up of society and raise their children differently? I don't know.
They probably will. At least, let's hope that they do. No matter how many faults human beings still have, we are slowly getting better in increments, I think. Compare the way the civilised world is now as to what it was in the Middle Ages. We've improved since then, haven't we? I also think the internet will be instrumental in communication with all kinds of people from all parts of the world and in my version of things, that is bound to have a positive effect overall in the long run. Bottomline is, we can only do the best we can as mothers. We raise them as we see fit and hope our grown children can pick it up and run with it from there : )
This is a fantastic post, and a fascinating topic. Thank you for sharing.Most of my adult life has been combating this topic from *the other side*. Its tough, but some people really just get it.As far as the approval of our father … I can say that my life may have taken a completely different look, had I not sought this out as a young boy. I could label this as unfortunate, but once I went past the rebellion stage … I was inspired to not be that kind of father, should I ever get the opportunity.
Thanks for your comments. It's good to hear another perspective. Sometimes we learn as many important things from a parent's bad example as from a good one. : )
Yes, I've noticed similar reactions about, for example, young boys (vs young girls) who have sex with their teachers, like it's somehow acceptable if it's a boy because we all know boys want to have sex all the time, right? And those stories about your trainer and your husband, yes, I see that kind of thing all the time, too, and it's creepy and wrong. I will admit to doing such things to my husband (he's 6 years younger than I am), but that's my right as his wife, of course. Indeed, I think it's my duty as his wife. Heh.
You're right, of course, that if someone wants to cry they should feel free to. I actually think it took my stepdad a long time before he could openly cry. My dad cried, but he was a two-time Vietnam vet and had the *major* PTSD and depression, and I think he probably would have thought it unmasculine to cry in front of others if it hadn't been for whatever happened to him over there. Sometimes when I hear women agitating for the right to be on the front lines, I think, "Really? You want to subject yourself to that?"
That must have been very hard on you as a girl to see your father go through that. Somehow people don't seem to know what being in a war really is. I knew a woman who saw the film Saving Private Ryan. After viewing it, she was traumatised and said, "I just didn't think war was like that." She and I lived in Greece at the time and both of us had sons. Greece has a mandatory draft and her argument for that had always been "How bad could it be?" I found it astonishing that an educated person would reason like that and that it took a Hollywood depictation to give her the 'reality' of war.
Yes- definitely it doesn't count if the younger man is your husband. No exploitation there. So,you should do your 'duty' ; )
Patricia,
I can't read everyone's comments, but your entry was too good to pass by, when I happend on your site. It is true what you speak of for women too. I have been called mannish for liking certain things. I am fortunate in my husband, who possesses the tiniest bit of gender dysphoria. He and I are made for each other. He lets me be tough and I let him be weak and vice versa. Together we are resilient. I know so many women in relationships with unfeeling men. Women can be unfeeling in different manipulative ways that seem full of feeling. I admit I am still confused about gender. Why couldn't I go shirtless as a nine-year-old girl and why couldn't men wear skirts? I am still asking the same quesstions. 🙂
Lucy
Lucy
Amen to this comment. The days before puberty hit were some of the most carefree of my life. I didn't feel 'male' or 'female' I just felt like me, you know? I love being a female, but I miss those days when we could go shirtless and not even think about it…
Thank you so much for stopping by…
This is an excellent post.
I have NEVER treated men like that, ogling or making off-colour comments. Because I have been at the receiving end and I know how awful it feels.
I would love to repost this sometime on one of my blogs. Do I have your permission? I'll let you know when I post it.
Whenever someone reposts one of my blog posts I am always complimented and very pleased. So my answer to your question is , 'thank you very much. ' : )