"Why do we continue to limit the emotional lives of males when it serves no one?," asks Andrew Reiner, a teacher of writing, literature, and cultural studies. He explores these questions with an assignment in which his students "engage strangers to explore, firsthand, the socialized norms of masculinity." One student "videotaped himself and then a female friend pretending to cry in the crowded foyer of the university library":
“Why do you think a few young women stopped to see if your female friend was O.K.,” I asked him, “but no one did the same thing for you?”
He crossed his arms, his laser pointer pushing against his bicep like a syringe, and paused. Even at this point in the semester, the students, some of whom had studied gender issues before, seemed blind to their own ingrained assumptions. So his response raised many eyebrows. “It’s like we’re scared,” he said, “that the natural order of things will completely collapse.”
पोस्ट्स
१२८ टिप्पण्या:
Perhaps the question should be why there is an effort to conflate male and female sexes and gender orientations. Men and women are still equal and complementary. That is the natural order of things. The fear is projected.
College is about benefitting women. That's why it's 60% female. These Grievance Studies classes are Salafism for ignorant women.
Beta Male 101a -- How to express your feelings in public!
Men do cry -- but it has to be the right circumstance. War, death of a loved one, something major like that. Not stupid-ass stuff. Leave that for the women folk.
Why do you think a few young women stopped to see if your female friend was O.K.,” I asked him, “but no one did the same thing for you?” ... Even at this point in the semester, the students, some of whom had studied gender issues before, seemed blind to their own ingrained assumptions.
The correct answer was Because nobody likes a pussy. He's had enough gender studies classes to have unlearned that truth, so at least they've had some effect.
"But wouldn’t encouraging men to embrace the full range of their humanity benefit women?"
No.
He's lucky that Trump didn't punch him in the face ten times harder.
I have noticed a full-court press on the crying issue:
Thus, crying joins the list of things—makeup, raising kids full-time—that people look down on simply because women do them more... The only solution, it appears, is to normalize office crying for everyone. Not unlike other unpleasant things, crying happens. Men shouldn’t reap the unfair advantage of a mid-meeting misting, and women shouldn’t worry that on top of their own embarrassment, they’re being judged as manipulative and incompetent.
lean-in-to-crying-at-work
When does men crying in public become gender appropriation?
Why don't women fight - physically?
Ok, they do, on rare occasions. But its looked down upon.
This is just as valid an emotional reaction as weeping.
It is as good a question.
Also relevant:
You can act like a man!
A woman who is crying wants attention. A man who is crying has somehow lost his self-control and will be deeply embarrassed if you react to his crying in any way.
I had no idea I was being deprived of part of "my humanity." I demand to know who is responsible. Right now!!
Undoubtedly social norms and culture influence human behavior. But Althouse homes in on the money shot in this essay. It will benefit women, or at least a subset of them. Perhaps the macho bullshit is not benefitting men. But as one of the students in the essay says, women can also be hurtful and insensitive. The women might also be conditioned by social norms and culture to be overly sensitive to their own problems but not others problems. Perhaps they are socially conditioned to whine more about it as well, though certainly men do a lot of whining. Perhaps women are doing things that make them feel more powerful and confident and self possessed but it's all bullshit as well. Maybe the whining is a tool of power. Maybe young men know this and reject this approach and in rejecting it overcompensate.
This writer wants to replace the boy approach with the girl approach. Maybe the girl approach works best for him and maybe it would work for some men. Maybe the girl approach works for some women but not others. Everyone has their big theory to explain stuff, but it never tells the whole story. And in the end, it's what's outside the theory that matters
War on Men! I think Cigar Smoking has been denied to me since about 1990. Something about the smell, or about the authority in the room over smells that women do not make or approve of men making.
"A woman who is crying wants attention. A man who is crying has somehow lost his self-control and will be deeply embarrassed if you react to his crying in any way."
Sean has it all figured out, see.
All these people so confident about "how women are" and "how men are," and who deride the study of gender? Most all of them have never read seriously about the subject in their lives. Anecdote and hominems passed down from "somewhere," for these "critics" count as evidence, it seems.
This was not Baseball then.
Men cry on the inside later on after they have saved every woman's butt.
harrogate-
If all that makes you sad, you are welcome to cry about it. I promise you nobody here would ( or could ) think any less of you because of it.
We don't need men to act like women, we have plenty of women who do it naturally.
Yeah! What did those puffed up overly masculine men who repressed their feelings ever accomplish? I mean, other than, you know, creating the entirety of Western Civilization. Who needs 'em?
Peter Drucker ("Managing Oneself") advised that one should understand one's weaknesses and strengths, and then go to work improving one's strengths.
He did assume you had some interest in winning, and assumed one could only do so by improving one's strengths and never by improving one's weaknesses.
It would follow that if the men tend to have more of the masculine virtues and fewer feminine ones, they'd do better for themselves if they put most of their efforts toward improving their masculine virtues.
And perhaps Drucker's full of it (and he wasn't speaking to gender anyway), but what the professor offers still seems poor advice. Why would one wish to be a poor imitation of a feminine woman if one could be a good-enough masculine man?
What US high schools need are womens boxing programs, where girls can learn the "sweet science" and how to resolve personal conflicts with carefully supervised violence.
If emotions are just as good as reason and feelings are just as good as facts then these universities are definitely headed in the right direction---but they need to get with it and dump a lot of the traditional "learning" type classes!
"Peter Drucker ("Managing Oneself") advised that one should understand one's weaknesses and strengths, and then go to work improving one's strengths. "
Advice from the master. Rarely followed, least of all by corporate leadership.
I think what would benefit women is to teach boys to be MEN. To be tough, principled, loud, adamant, leaders, forceful, decisive, -- not all apply to every situation but I am sick of all the candy ass men that are growing up.
Harrogate,
Did the evidence that boys don't do as well as girls in school break it down by subject area? Why don't men want to go to college at the same percentage as women? It's taken as a given that this is a problem. Is it a problem? The percentage of men wanting to go to college is flat over the last 20 years but the percentage of women who want to go has increased. What is about college that attracts more women and is that a good thing? Student debt is at $1.2 trillion with 25% of it either delinquent or in default. Is this a good thing? Who defines good? Can we all agree on a universally applied value of what is good other shelter and food and water and clothing (at least in some climates) and the avoidance of physical and mental pain, degree of which are impossible to avoid at least some times during one's life.
Gender studies is not rigorous. It doesn't check its assumptions nor is it into free inquiry. It's ideology.
Women want more men to cry until they don't. Men crying "are in touch with their feelings" and are smiled down upon by women.
As a man, you are allowed to cry: when your mother passes away, when your wife passes away, when a child passes away, when your dog passes away, when you hold your child for the first time, when you are re-united with any of the proceeding after an extended time apart, and when your child presents you with your grandchild for the first time.
Any other times will be marked by women and will result in you not getting laid.
P.S. A man crying for any of the previously noted reasons is also acceptable to other men. We get it. Please note, "getting it" does not mean we will sleep with you, sorry Titus...
Why do beta-male egghead writing teachers continue to limit their imaginative lives by writing that "we" "continue" to "limit" the "emotional lives" of males when it is such obvious self-serving BS in need of deconstruction?
@Todd, I will add to your list: a sibling passing away.
I'd have a lot more respect for Grievance Studies if it at least laid out the truths it believes to be self evident. Because more women going to college doesn't seem self evident to me, neither does it seem self evident that the number of students in college should increase or stay the same. It doesn't seem to me self evident that telling someone to suck it up is always bad advice or even bad advice most of the time.
This is why college is so expensive.
Although it's anecdotal, I and many of my women friends are not "scared" by crying men. We're repulsed.
Also "But wouldn’t encouraging men to embrace the full range of their humanity benefit women?"
Who says men don't already "embrace the full range of [our] humanity"? Most men just don't wear it on their sleeve for all to see. It is call "decorum" and having some self-control. I don't want to see a man blubbering like a 6 year old just because they broke a nail just like I don't want to see a man having a temper tantrum because they got a parking ticket. Feel all you want, just maintain some self control.
"Anecdote and hominems passed down from "somewhere," for these "critics" count as evidence, it seems."
Homilies, I think you mean. But, given that we are all human, anecdotes and personal experience certainly do count as evidence of human behavior. With billions of independent studies conducted every day.
Peter said...
Peter Drucker ("Managing Oneself") advised that one should understand one's weaknesses and strengths, and then go to work improving one's strengths.
He did assume you had some interest in winning, and assumed one could only do so by improving one's strengths and never by improving one's weaknesses.
If you want to be a better generalist, work on your weaknesses. If you want to be very good or great at anything, concentrate on your strengths. We need both kinds of people.
mccullough said...
Harrogate,
Did the evidence that boys don't do as well as girls in school break it down by subject area? Why don't men want to go to college at the same percentage as women? It's taken as a given that this is a problem. Is it a problem? The percentage of men wanting to go to college is flat over the last 20 years but the percentage of women who want to go has increased. What is about college that attracts more women and is that a good thing? Student debt is at $1.2 trillion with 25% of it either delinquent or in default.
It sounds like the calls to forgive student loan debt are shaping up to be yet another wealth transfer that primarily benefits women.
"But wouldn’t encouraging men to embrace the full range of their humanity benefit women?"
1. Why would it benefit women?
2. If it turns out it does not benefit women, should it be discouraged?
3. If it benefits women, yet harms men, should self-destructive male behavior be encouraged?
So, would encouraging women to hold back their emotional responses benefit men?
It’s like we’re scared,” he said, “that the natural order of things will completely collapse.”
Or maybe we just don't care all that much.
Sociologist Erving Goffman gave a class assignment to go into a crowded subway or bus and ask a stranger if you could have their seat, with no reason offered.
The interesting result was that the students reported that they couldn't bring themselves to do it, when they came to the moment.
I bet the girls who asked if the crying girl was ok assumed that because she was on a college campus, she had just been raped.
I propose a trade.
Macho Men will start crying more in exchange for women to stop discriminating against short men in the dating world.
I'm 6'1, so it doesn't affect me. I say this in solidarity with my oppressed shorter brethren.
Women are benefitted by the war of the sexes, not by its suppression.
Ugh. I find whatever reasoning that went into this article utterly misguided.
Biggest surprise: No reflection that a girl who cries in public (a place no one willingly cries) may do so because she has been sexually harassed. People don't worry about the girl because she's the only gender allowed to express emotion. They worry about the girl because she's more physically vulnerable. It used to be called chivalry.
The more I read things like this, the more think there is a market niche to be filled.
That niche is for a college or university, which offers curricula in the basic, traditional subjects. No gender studies, no black studies, the history of graffiti, etc.
The school would accept no government funding, and would have no religious viewpoint. No student government or on-campus organizations, no tenure for professors, no unions. Clean, comfortable, but no frills housing and meals.
The school would not seek nor accept accreditation. Yet the faculty - almost exclusively hired on one-year contracts from those retired from the private sector - would be topnotch, and they would be allowed to teach without protests from offended students. Grading would be traditional - no inflationary, everybody gets an "A" crap.
The tuition and housing would be about half the price of college now. Student loans would be arranged through private lenders, if needed. Parents needn't worry about their children being indoctrinated in the nonsense they are elsewhere. In other words, the university would be for advanced learning in their subjects, period. Hey, student, you want to get your SJW stripes, fine. Go elsewhere.
I believe private employers would gladly seek out and hire the graduates, unaccredited though the school may be, because the degree would mean something.
Men are emotional around each other. Or rather, MORE emotional around each other. They aren't emotional around women, because, even though women say they want an emotional man, if a man did express his emotions around her the way she says she wants him to, she'd be turned off and thought he was a weakling.
But why is it assumed that being overly emotional is not the defect? Men may not need the same support structure as women, because they are stronger emotionally. So, they dont need to cry as much for example.
hombre said...
I had no idea I was being deprived of part of "my humanity." I demand to know who is responsible. Right now!!
Rather than using a more typical passive phrasing, it says "Why do we continue to limit", so it must be Andrew Reiner and perhaps his students.
If someone wants to "embrace the full range of their humanity" they might wish to indulge in some raping and pillaging of a neighboring village, or just run around screaming and crying at the drop of a hat rather than holding those things in.
But perhaps he wasn't really serious about "embracing the full range of their humanity" and really meant "act more like women".
Wouldn’t encouraging women to moderate their emotionality benefit men?
Group Of Popular Girls Reduces Nation To Tears
NEW YORK—A group of popular teenage girls viciously insulted the United States Tuesday, causing the populace to break down and cry following assertions that its 300 million citizens are stupid and fat and that everybody hates them. ...
"Those girls are so cruel," said Pittsburgh construction worker Joe Miller, wiping away tears from his eyes. "They made all these really mean comments about my weight and the way I smelled, and then one of them, I think it was Courtney, said that the color of my hard hat really brought out the ugliness in my face."
The other reason why girls outnumber boys in college - and I think the principal reason -
The bell curves and the increase in the slice of the population going to college.
In all matters, pretty much, the male bell curve is flatter than the female.
More geniuses, more morons, fewer at the mean.
In the old days, even discounting social expectations, colleges attracted the far right of the bell curves.
Relatively many men qualified, or thought it was worthwhile. You still see this in the exceptionally selective institutions that do not have a gender bias in admissions, such as Cal Tech, which is still majority male, in spite of the increase in non-STEM majors there.
As the college education market cutoff line (a fuzzy line, but real) has drifted left on the bell curves towards the population mean, relatively more women than men qualify.
I submit also that the gatekeeping function for college admissions has changed to meet the market. Girls are better about the diligent make-work of high school homework. In a system that over-values this in grading, as opposed to examinations, which measure reasoning and knowledge under stress, it helps select for girls, as examination systems tend to select for boys, who do better with tests. There is a reason to this madness, even if it is not visible to the participants.
This does end up discriminating against those men close to the margin. Consider that women under-perform men on the SAT and other such aptitude tests, even, slightly, in language. The 2014 overall language+math (out of 1600) was boys 1024 girls 989. But such systemic discrimination does not matter as much as the bell curves.
sean said...
A woman who is crying (in the library foyer) (perhaps) wants (compassion) attention. A man who is crying (apparantly)has somehow lost his self-control and will be deeply embarrassed if you react to his crying in any way.
Let's try it. On a limited scale, of course. Are women happier with these men? Are these men happier? Are things getting done?
An important aspect of *close* (near-lifelong) male friendships should be exactly this kind of intimacy as needed. It's private.
"But wouldn’t encouraging men to embrace the full range of their humanity benefit women?"
Hee...be careful what you wish for, ladies.
"Men do cry -- but it has to be the right circumstance. War, death of a loved one, something major like that."
I've never cried over the deaths of loved ones.
But wouldn’t encouraging men to embrace the full range of their humanity benefit women?
Anyone who could say such a thing must be completely and willfully ignorant of exactly what the full range of humanity actually is.
Much of civilization has been devoted to keeping aggressive men from "embracing the full range of their humanity." This part of the range is still on exhibit in some urban areas, as well as some areas of Africa and the Middle East. Are we sure we want to go that route?
Not what was meant? Not the "full range" then, just stretching a little bit further in the "passive" direction.
I once changed churches over the Priest hiccuping and gulping at the buh buh beauty of the Resurrection. It was gross.
@jr: "But why is it assumed that being overly emotional is not the defect?" Althouse Law: Any difference that can be presented as favoring women, will be.
College has become really stupid.
"College has become really stupid."
The inevitable result of too many people going to college.
All of them are in fact less selective than they used to be.
In spite of the difficulty of getting into the elite schools.
Blogger Robert Cook said...
"Men do cry -- but it has to be the right circumstance. War, death of a loved one, something major like that."
I've never cried over the deaths of loved ones.
4/5/16, 4:55 PM
Great Ghu, Bobby, do you ever leave yourself open! The best part is how you bring it upon yourself. Nobody has to ask you.
But I won't strike. Not even to ask if communism counts for you as a "loved one" and ask if you cried when the Wall fell, Gorbachev resigned, etc.
Had been wondering though. Who did you vote for before this Jill Stein character? Gus Hall? Frankly you not voting for Sanders is bushwah. None of your arguments about his weaknesses, being captured by the system, etc., would not apply to Ms. Stein or any other freakshow candidate who, by whatever confluence of events, rose to the purple.
But wouldn’t encouraging men to embrace the full range of their humanity benefit women?
Why is it relevant if it benefits women?
Interesting 2013 article with useful comments on SAT scores vs High School grades and preparation - upshot is that boys outperform girls, in spite of girls being (I submit, based on experience with the high school programs, etc.) favored at every stage. In spite of discrimination against boys. I think a lot of people are going to absurd lengths to fight biology.
http://www.aei.org/publication/2013-sat-test-results-show-that-a-huge-math-gender-gap-persists-with-a-32-point-advantage-for-high-school-boys/
"men are afraid women will laugh at them; women are afraid men will rape and kill them"
So maybe they're 'scared' of something besides the natural order.
"I've never cried over the deaths of loved ones."
Being left out of the will will do that.
pdug -
Your image is the cover from the first edition of Paul Johnsons "The Birth of the Modern"
A book I admire a lot.
The correct answer was Because nobody likes a pussy. He's had enough gender studies classes to have unlearned that truth, so at least they've had some effect.
More importantly, men don't cry because women don't like pussies. This is one of those cases where women profess to be okay with something but have a big negative emotional reaction to that same thing in a potential mate. And without necessarily connecting the two in their own minds. Crying male friends? Okay. Crying romantic interest? Ewwww.
I've never cried over the deaths of loved ones.
Your unfamiliarity with human nature is evident in your political preferences.
the next study will be to find out why there aren't enough real men anymore.
Isn't the statistical bulk of crying driven by hormones, specifically by estrogen and progesterone?
Wherever there's a vexing problem to be solved having a good cry about it is always the best first step.
"Why do we continue to limit the emotional lives of males when it serves no one?"
"Serve no one?" When you base your thesis on an unsupportable assertion, you fail.
"“Boys’ underperformance in school has more to do with society’s norms about masculinity than with anatomy, hormones or brain structure."
Look! He mentioned anatomy, hormones, and brain structure! That makes it science-y!
Reiner says one of his students, at a seminar called “Real Men Smile: The Changing Face of Masculinity” said “Nothing’s worse for a guy than looking like a Try Hard.”"
Who says shit like this? Why is this person supposed to stand in for all men? This is not something you would hear in a blue collar bar or work place, much less a college seminar on masculinity.
The greatest engineers and scientists in the world are men and always have been men. The greatest poets, visual artists, playwrights, etc, so on, for any human endeavor you care to think of, are men, and always have been men. The downside of this greater physical and intellectual aggression is that men get physically hurt more, engage in more self-destructive habits, and kill themselves more frequently.
Reiner would serve his fellow men better if he stopped stepping on their dicks.
"I never cried over the death of loved ones"
But you must have done something. Get blind drunk? Drive your car too fast? Shout at remaining loved ones? Turn in poor performances at work? All the things that make women say; if only he would just admit how he feels, if he could let himself cry just once ...
I like raf and Fernandinande's points about the "full range" of humanity.
So good.
Socialized norms exist for a reason: They've been proven over the centuries to make a viable society. Men were men and acted like men, women were women and acted like women, and the whole thing worked. Eliminating socialized norms because some people don't like them is like playing a game of Jenga: You never really know when pulling something out is going to make the whole edifice collapse.
The brilliant Mormon actress Marie Windsor, who specialized in gun molls, had a wonderful scene in a movie I saw years ago -- I think it was The Killing -- in which she dismissed a male associate as a "weeper". It was dead hilarious.
The women of Cologne are not that pleased with the sitzpinklers who did nothing to their rapists.
"Had been wondering though. Who did you vote for before this Jill Stein character? Gus Hall? Frankly you not voting for Sanders is bushwah. None of your arguments about his weaknesses, being captured by the system, etc., would not apply to Ms. Stein or any other freakshow candidate who, by whatever confluence of events, rose to the purple."
I voted for Jill Stein in 2012 and Ralph Nader several times in a row prior to that. The last major party candidate I voted for was Bill Clinton in 1992--begrudgingly--and I regretted it.
American women are already greedy and demanding enough. Encouraging men to be more passive and emotional in that kind of a dynamic sounds like a pretty bad idea.
I don't know why the Dolphins make me cry. But it might be because they overpaid for Suh
Einstein only invented general relatively because men like to show off.
It's not that Sanders would be "captured by the system," he has already expressed his support for our military interventions abroad. That is enough to discredit him.
The truth is, the entrenched interests in Washington are so great that I doubt any one person elected as President--however pure their motives and willful their intentions--could effect significant change. Only with the support of the public--and the fear of the public by the Washington establishment--might any president actually be able to noticeably move the behemoth of state.
George Patton cried a lot. He'd tear up talking about the bravery of the troops. Shed a tear after visiting the wounded in the Hospital. Breakup when talking about some of his friends he'd seen killed.
Some guys wear their emotions on their sleeves.
I had an Aunt who called George McGovern "Whining Willie". She didn't want to be around "weak" men.
It does seem like we spend a lot of time telling men how to be lately.
Women get to be the way we want to be.
Why is crying a seen as evidence of one's emotional depth? Because it's an easy, visible (and unreliable) way to determine emotional engagement. One might even say that crying is emotive evidence for the lazy and superficial. This does not mean that crying is always evidence of superficial emotion. It may well reflect some deeply engaged feeling. But because it so often reflects trivial sentimentality or flat out manipulation, it's unreliable.
Men are as emotion driven as women, in my experience. But we don't assume that everyone has to be engaged in our feelings. We share these feelings with persons who are close and have earned our trust. We also realize, often through painful experience, that the untrustworthy will use our emotions to our detriment, through carelessness, malice or competitive ambition. Most women are aware of this truth but unfortunately many ignore the lesson.
The truly bitter conflicts between women that arrive via seemingly trivial matters are often a consequence of female injudiciousness in revealing their emotions. Too many of us--and women seem to predominate--assume that our emotions should be of interest to casual or untrustworthy acquaintances.
Too much of the "emotion" we see these days is manipulative fluff. It's not always done consciously but that hardly matters. It passes for feeling and that seems to be enough. It certainly is enough for an essay career.
It's also interesting to hear someone on the left sticking up for men's emotions, when the people pushing the fake campus rape crisis and the affirmative consent laws act as if men have no feelings whatsoever. They don't mind just being accused of rape.
But wouldn't encouraging men to embrace my premise benefit my premise?
You must embrace your penis! Come on now, don't be shy about it!
Guys here in their 40s-60s, would you have turned out as well if born 20 years ago? With 7*24 free soma for brains of adolescent males -- internet, social media, video games, unlimited X/R/PG entertainment -- would you have read the same amount of decent books, studied as hard, competed as hard academically?
Imagine Mr. Reiner addressing this to an advocacy group. It doesn't matter which one -- though some would lead to his firing faster than others. Just pick one and run through the script.
Maybe he should read Homer. Or the Bible.
Achilles wept over the death of his companion Patroclus. Odysseus shed tears during his reunion with his son Telemachus.
David, warrior and leader of men, shed tears over the death of Saul and Johnathon.
Robert Cook wrote: Only with the support of the public--and the fear of the public by the Washington establishment--might any president actually be able to noticeably move the behemoth of state.
You are correct, sir. However, it's a given that the Washington establishment is on the verge of giving a big FU to the grassroots of both parties. Not only do they not fear the public -- they apparently dislike the public.
"All these people so confident about "how women are" and "how men are," and who deride the study of gender? Most all of them have never read seriously about the subject in their lives. Anecdote and hominems passed down from "somewhere," for these "critics" count as evidence, it seems."
If an adult has to "read seriously" about it to have a basic understanding of the natures of men and women, then, odds are, the subject is already closed to you. Read away or, alternatively, observe the thousands of people you interact with in life.
A talented, hard-working woman once broke down in tears in front of me at work. The problem was too much work, and probably that she didn't want to seem like a complainer.
Crying comes naturally to women, much as throwing things comes to men. It's neither a sign of strength nor a virtue. Just an expression.
" . . they apparently dislike the public."
They like each other more than they like the public. I think Cruz would be a good, maybe a great president, but I know that he would be more comfortable conversing with Hillary Clinton than with me. So would Kasich or Jeb Bush. The only two presidents of my lifetime that I think were comfortable with non-politicians and non-lawyers were Reagan and GW Bush. They might have been faking it, of course. Bill Clinton had that down-home persona going for him, but I think that most non-politicians saw through it. Too slick. In another life, Clinton would have been the southern Baptist preacher who was stealing church funds and screwing the prettier members of the congregation.
Virgil,
I know a boat-load of kids in their late teens and early 20's who are self-disciplined and driven achievers (and not Asian!) who absolutely put my late '70's/early '80's contemporaries to shame. The good news is that the SJW shitheads that Althouse often posts about are not going to end up running things. Or Darwin was completely full of shit.
"Crying comes naturally to women, much as throwing things comes to men."
Yes! Throwing things (and cursing) is the male equivalent of female tears! Don't tell me that I am only authentically human when I behave like you do, vagina-person!
"Some guys wear their emotions on their sleeves."
IN battle when men are being killed.
Not in response to Trump 2016 chalk marks.
Only with the support of the public--and the fear of the public by the Washington establishment--might any president actually be able to noticeably move the behemoth of state.
I doubt even that would do it. To effect real change you'd have to capture significant majorities in Congress, find some way to rein in the courts, and then win the presidency. That's not going to happen short of an economic or military cataclysm.
I was pretty pissed when I read in the article that when a "frat" guy (burn him at the stake!) actually got in touch with his emotions and honestly told the lecturer that women hit on the guys a lot and want to hook up too, the prof just "shook his head." As in, the prof won't even dignify your comments with a response because in some way they are self-evidently false and horrible. Well these observations aren't necessarily false and the prof is dehumanizing the young man by failing to engage him or his point. Our son is in college now and he has mentioned several times of girls throwing themselves at him, starting back in high school. He is not receptive to the random, drunken pounce. My suspicions are that these young women act this way mostly because they have gotten the message that they are supposed to act this way and not because they are just so horny that they want to get laid by random strangers night after night.
"Some guys wear their emotions on their sleeves."
Should have added a "said ironically" tag.
They limit or attempt as such to please me, simply.
I believe that the ability to suppress your emotions and carry on with the business of life is a distinctly human trait and therefore another way to express the full range of your humanity.
Not to make this all about me, but:
Isn't this all about me? The whole get your own damned blog and everything else included?
Everybody is just picking on me, right? I know I am an ass (but no hole in my opinion most unhumble) and I deserve, like Mike Madsen in Kill Bill 2, what I've got coming to me.
It's okay, Born Ginger I can take it. My concern is I am making others passive aggressive unsubstances within their unyieldy hopes of approaching my sense of perfect timing and mega-snark--turning would-be decent children of Christ into many things other.
Turning into me with all my brilliance (self-diagnosed) might happen for y'all, but it will take you places you don't want to go; trust me, not ever. Keep on the sunny (Althouse, ironically) side, ALWAYS on the sunny side, keep on the sunny side of life.
This is a link that will forever make me a beta beggin': Be it so knowing again I'll post it again 'till banned.
@Robert Cook,
"I voted for Jill Stein in 2012 and Ralph Nader several times in a row prior to that. The last major party candidate I voted for was Bill Clinton in 1992--begrudgingly--and I regretted it."
Did you vote for Nader in 2000? If so, thanks man!
good catch buwaya.
It's Wanderer above the Sea of Fog, by Caspar David Friedrich
Well which would you prefer to be, John Wayne or pajama boy?
I'll just say I'm to the right of John Wayne and I don't give a shit what liberal females think.
The war on men, babies, women, and humanity continues. It ostensibly benefits transgenders, but combined with its other features, notable anti-native policies, the goal seems to be more ambitious.
The three web presences I admire most all hate me, with cause.
But typing stupid drunk shit on the internet is the least harmful activity I engage in daily numerous data points could concur.
Harmful to society I mean.
This whole Emily Dickenson thing is really starting to take hold, I guess and shit.
Whatever.
Watch for this: Everyone who quoted the Buckley rule (Vote for the most conservative electable) will now say "this is totally completely 100% differently in ways unbelievable/incomprehensible/amazing" going into the convention.
The Buckley Rule will be ruled out.
As if the struggle with our inner male chauvinist was not enough, guys need to embrace their inner female chauvinist, too, which is a progressive form of the former.
I cried a lot in high school, hormones probably, but it wasn't to get attention, it was horribly embarrassing and I just wanted to disappear. To this day, forty years later, crying makes me feel weak and helpless. Except for especially sad circumstances, crying is rarely a desirable emotion.
Ruled Out was Sippican Cottages band name sans seed, contra-kinda Burmawise.
Oh, for fuck's sake:
Wouldn't insisting that women embrace the full humanity of men benefit not just men, not just women, but also children? Not to mention society at large.
---
'Scuse me: Did I just offend **everyone***?
Too. Bad.
John Boehner's crying was annoying. Weepy d-bag.
The thing about crying if you are a woman is that it is an effective way to manipulate men. So don't be surprised if coworkers react really negatively *behind your back* to it. You know, when you are discussed and not in the room. Don't be surprised if that happens. It's OK to have weaknesses. Some people are lazy, some people have low IQs, some people are completely undisciplined, some people cry at work in what looks like an attempt to manipulate the men around them. None of these are crimes, they are just good reasons not to keep someone around or move them up in an organization.
À bas la difference!
@MadisonMan, I will add to that list: listening to Bach's St. Matthew's Passion. (But only of performed properly).
(Also if performed very badly -- but that would be another sort of tears.)
Why not "socialize" girls and young women not to cry? There, problem fixed.
The women of Cologne are not that pleased with the sitzpinklers who did nothing to their rapists.
Chris Muir's “Day by Day” had an answer to that back in January.
As a man I find myself crying pretty often watching movies. I don't advertise that tears are running down my face, and tend to dab it away somewhat surreptitiously with a tissue, but I'm not particularly embarrassed by it.
I used to cry a lot at some movies and some songs. I am moved by poignancy. But since taking Prozac regularly I hardly ever cry. I am not so easily moved emotionally. This is a negative not a positive. :/
Fernandinande,
"If someone wants to "embrace the full range of their humanity" they might wish to indulge in some raping and pillaging of a neighboring village,"
Don't forget to paint yourself blue.
Men don't emote like women because they don't want their wives fucking the yoga instructor.
buwaya,
What do belle curves have to do with women in college?
I can't help but shed a few tears at the end of 'Apollo 13'. The way the music swells, the looks on the actor's faces, the crackling video screen finally showing the parachutes opening above the descending command module . . . it honestly gets me every damn time. The wife understands. She cries about 2 or three times a month, each time over something just about as trivial. Women love a man with strong arms and shoulders who knows to hug them tight and clam up while the tears flow.
I once had a girlfriend that I got too comfortable with. The mystery was draining from our relationship (not always a bad thing - when you're married. Always bad during courtship.) I felt the relationship waning, so I picked a meaningless fight to get her worked up. No harsh words or insults, but she began to cry nonetheless, and a tight hug ended up becoming the best sex I ever had with her. I had bite marks on my back, for heaven's sake!
A little bit afterwards, as I got up from cuddling to smoke, she grabbed my arm to get my attention and apologized for being so moody. I came back from the garage to the sound of her making French toast, one of my favorite foods, dressed in her best nightie. We lasted another 6 months.
That's the way it should go, pretty much.
But wouldn’t encouraging women to embrace the full range of their logic and intellect benefit men? Why do we continue to limit the logical lives of females when it serves no one?
My suspicions are that these young women act this way mostly because they have gotten the message that they are supposed to act this way and not because they are just so horny that they want to get laid by random strangers night after night.
I think that the bigger problem in college is the ratio between males and females. When I was in college, my class was initially 60/40 male/female. Now, in many schools, there are notably more females than males. Apparently, anything worse than maybe 55/45 female/male scares off a lot of women. For good reason - even at 50/50, there are more females than males competing for (at least temporary) mates, thanks to potheads and other gamma males. For a lot of the females these days, the only way to (temporarily) get a decent guy, at least for the night, is to have sex with him. But, it is a race to the bottom, and that means that the top guys are going to sleep with someone else the next night. They don't have to put up with having a demanding girlfriend to get laid, and so many don't. I think the drinking fits in there with the women, because they really know that they don't want to hook up and have sex the first night. After enough booze, they are loosened up enough to let discretion to the wind, and hookup with the best guy they can get that night. Or, maybe just any guy. A lot of these women really don't like what is going on, but don't see any alternatives. When I brought up the campus "rape" situation with one recent graduate, she pointed out that two of her girlfriends had given up their virginity with guys they didn't manage to snag for more than one night. As a guy, I would say "duh", but she thought that the school should have disciplined the guys. As I said, a race to the bottom by the women on campus due to the sex ratios we see today.
Bruce Hayden wrote: ..., a race to the bottom...
That was Emma Sulkowicz' experience as well.
Unfortunately, we have no concept of what life was like before our recent history. Men who need trigger warnings and succumb to tears of over microagression will fall in the face of adversity. We're seeing it Europe as a slow motion invasion occurs, raping the women of the Europe as the men call for tolerance and understanding.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा