I participated in men's work, not specifically the ManKind Project but a closely related organization. I personally found it helpful doing weekly check-ins and having people holding me accountable to my goals.
Unfortunately, the stigma regarding men sharing feelings is prevalent in western society, and it's not only the men causing it. When I told several female friends about the work they did, their response was: "Are they gay?"
Our society will always value men who are confident, this is so much deeper to me than being scared to share your feelings because “it’s gay”. Women are attracted to confidence, employers reward confidence, hiring managers are impressed by confidence. Vulnerability and weakness are just not rewarded for men or women, but especially for men.
Confidence and vulnerability aren't opposites. The confidence that comes from going through vulnerability and coming out stronger is worth more than the facade style of confidence, which covers unprocessed weakness.
No one is going to be impressed if you burst into tears during a code review. They're going to be a lot more impressed if you bullshit your way through with positivity and can-do.
This is irrespective of the quality of the code.
This culture rewards overt displays of competitive individualism and punishes weakness irrespective of actual productivity, value, or objective performance.
Generally, being confident gets you breaks, even if you're astonishingly incompetent or just plain manipulative and dishonest.
Sometimes there's pushback from the surrounding culture before something goes horribly wrong - but just as often there isn't.
They're not! Confidence and unregulated overt vulnerability are conflicting (but not precisely opposite).
By acknowledging the possibility that you may have done something wrong, you make yourself vulnerable to judgment, and by doing so confidently you gain respect. Facing judgment is a sign of confidence and it requires making yourself vulnerable.
In a more subtle example, showing signs of vulnerability in personal relations is a way of letting others know you, and that takes courage. There'd be no point to having social interactions if you were invulnerable, any interaction would literally be inconsequential for you and thus unmotivated.
You "dress up" the vulnerability with a higher level strength (e.g. the capacity to listen to and analyze your own shortcomings), and then it's all good.
There's a difference between being vulnerable, and putting yourself in a situation that will hurt you. It's fine to show yourself vulnerable if you can do so in a way that incentives good behavior from your peers.
>> Generally, being confident gets you breaks, even if you're astonishingly incompetent or just plain manipulative and dishonest.
It gets you breaks until you reach the line which people don't want you to cross (which you will eventually cross due to your ever-inflating ego). At which point everyone you know will silently isolate you and you'll not even be able to realise what happened in time (again, due to your overly-inflated ego).
I had seen that happen. People who are full of shit always have a glass ceiling, since they are even more useless than people who are willing to directly do bad to other people (at least those are more-or-less clear in terms of the direction they take).
That glass ceiling limit seems to be at the CEO level, in the case of Elizabeth Holmes and other various "confident phonies" that get posted here on HN every few weeks. So, there doesn't seem to be a practical limit to how far overconfidence can get you in your career.
>> That glass ceiling limit seems to be at the CEO level, in the case of Elizabeth Holmes and other various "confident phonies" that get posted here on HN every few weeks.
Are you joking? Yes - she was the CEO, but she's also facing up 20 in prison after being that CEO [1].
It's not just about getting to the top. It's about whether you'll remain there and whether the history will try to forget you as soon as it can.
I think it is worth digging into the meanings of "vulnerability" and "confidence" here.
I think "confidence" is rooted in the belief that "whatever happens, I'll be able to handle it. I'll be okay." Showing confidence is externally-emoting as if you believe that to be the case.
Vulnerability...I'm less sure of. I think it is the ability to be wounded. By being vulnerable, you reveal information which someone else could use to ridicule you. Patrick Lencioni's work on organizational health refers to vulnerability as a key piece of building trust[1]. How does it work? By showing that you expect that people hold a social norm against ridiculing people for the thing you reveal. That you are willing to pay a cost for that social norm. I think when people use the word "vulnerability", they mean sticking your neck out for a social expectation of compassionate collaboration -- norm-building vulnerability.
And that sort of vulnerability is compatible with confidence. If they do ridicule you, then you've learned what sort of person they are and you have the power to respond accordingly.
But I think its easy to confuse norm-building vulnerability with another vulnerability: insecurity-revealing vulnerability. This is where you present something that could genuinely hurt your sense of belonging -- Information which you think others could present as evidence that you should be ostracized from a group. For example, a man in a homophobic environment who reveals that he is bisexual. How should a man express these sorts of insecurities? By default, he shouldn't. He should hide them until he can find a supportive community. Unless he's with someone he already trusts or a mens' meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous. Don't express insecurity-revealing vulnerability.
Even though your example with bisexuality is a little off, i think your distinction between showing a vulnerability versus expressing insecurity is good
I want to push back on your assertion that vulnerability is inherently equivalent to weakness. Our society currently says it is, but I could equally imagine a future in which being vulnerable and honest about your feelings is seen as a feat of strength and courage -- because it DOES take a lot of courage, and even confidence, to be open and honest about your feelings.
Developing mental health issues and unstable personal relationships because you're unable to access and share your emotions is also a weakness that derives from the emotional suppression that men are taught is a desired masculine trait.
It doesn't have to be like this. Vulnerability doesn't have to be a weakness, showing your emotions can be a masculine trait. We're not defined by, nor locked into, our traditional cultural values and norms.
Vulnerability is a weakness. It's what the word means. I'm fine with people being more open with their emotions, fine, but I'm not a huge fan of the idea of socially mandating that weakness itself is strength, which is just a lie (would you wish that someone you loved were more vulnerable than they are?)
It's different to having a norm for admission of weakness being a marker of strength due to the courage required in the act, similar to how it takes strength for an addict to admit they have a problem and go get help. You want to normalise talking to someone about your problems with a view to improving the situation. You don't necessarily want to recast addiction (a weakness that you wouldn't wish upon someone you love) as strength, as a roundabout measure to get people to talk about it more. That just seems liable to backfire.
Merriam-Webster:
> capable of being physically or emotionally wounded
That can certainly be interpreted as a weakness. And it certainly is for things like vehicles, buildings, etc. But in the case of humans, vulnerability only means "weakness" when said human is perceived as an object, a means to an end, perhaps in a business transaction. The fact is that humans are in their most fundamental sense defined by the capacity to be physical and emotionally wounded. Therefore the term, being vulnerable, when used to describe a human attitude rather describes that person's expressed transparency to their innate humanness. As per this thread, more often men deny their vulnerability as if they cannot be emotionally wounded, which leads to a denial of their selves as a whole. Having the capacity to be emotionally wounded says absolutely nothing about somebody's emotional strengths and weaknesses, because we can all be equally wounded. Being vulnerable however potentially indicates a person's willingness to be transparent about their inner experience, namely their emotions, which can be anything from being overwhelmed to rage.
Semantically, you're absolutely correct. I think it's just important to clarify that "vulnerability" in this context refers more to "emotional transparency". I think someone who is confident in themself and has a respectable amount of emotional intelligence could navigate a position where they are emotionally honest (i.e. "vulnerable") with others without necesarily exposing weaknesses that compromise them from the professional point of view.
While I originally saw this discussion chain as you playing devil's advocate, I realize now you've done a good job helping reframe the scenario in a much better light. For most people (including myself), we don't separate emotional honesty from vulnerability because emotionally we _are_ vulnerable. Working towards a sense of self that is comfortable with emotional reviews that are as intense as a code reviews is something worth striving for.
Being vulnerable doesn't mean that you go around being a weeping mess all the time, it means admitting to yourself and to others that you're susceptible to negative emotions and to suffering. It's part of the human condition. If someone I loved went around suppressing their own emotions I would absolutely wish that they were more vulnerable than they are, because vulnerability in this case means that they accept their own emotions whatever they may be and that they can now deal with them in a healthy fashion instead of suppressing them.
Me saying that being vulnerable is a good thing is not the same thing as saying that addiction is a good thing. Addiction is what happens when we as a society can't talk about feeling vulnerable! That's the entire problem in a nutshell. The problem doesn't start with addiction, addiction is the self-medication people apply because they can't be vulnerable enough to talk about what's really hurting them inside.
When a person feels sad they should feel free to express this emotion (i.e. be vulnerable) instead of having to suppress it to live up to society's ideals about emotional expression.
Part of the issue though is that expressing those emotions seems to undermine your personal power in other people's view of you. To them you may have become ineffective and potentially ripe for replacement whether that is in a job, relationship, or friendship.
Somehow you have to both express your emotions and that you are still highly effective. That you can't be exploited, a potential pushover, or a loose cannon for your emotional expression.
You're still thinking about this from a present day perspective.
Yes, as it stands now what you say is true. Men derive personal power from stoicism and emotional suppression, our primary value is in how effective we are at shutting down non-essential aspects of ourselves and giving ourselves over entirely to whatever endeavor (usually work). We're also taught that we're entirely replaceable: if you can't put up the numbers, we'll swap you for someone who can.
That is reinforced by our suppression of emotion, as that reduces us completely to whatever output society can get from us. If all you are is a highly efficient machine producing value, swapping you out requires no thought or emotion whatsoever. If you're a complete person with feelings and relationships with your fellow humans, you're no longer replacing Carl - The Production Machine, you're replacing Carl - our co-worker/friend/partner that you've an emotional history with.
But what if we imagine a healthier tomorrow? A world where men can express all of their emotions. Where we're no longer reduced to our most basic aspects and valued from what we can produce, but instead seen as complete persons with a full range of emotions.
All over the world men outdistance women in the number of successful suicide attempts by a wide margin. Some say it's because men tend to choose direct and effective methods (guns, hanging, etc.) whereas women tend to choose slower and less effective methods (pills, etc.). But it's also because there is almost no mental health discourse among men. We're taught to suppress our emotions and to never, ever, show them for fear of being labeled weak and replaceable. When we get to low points in our lives our first instinct isn't to reach out to a friend, family, or professional mental health services. Our first instinct is to suppress and deal with it on our own because that's what we're taught our whole lives.
When we stumble and can't do it on our own, nobody has a clue what we're going through because we're so good at suppressing it and so we feel totally alone and helpless. Is it a surprise that so many of us choose to eat a bullet?
Emotional discourse needs to change. Mental health discourse needs to change. People are literally dying over this.
It would be great but it would only work if men as a group someone come to some better understanding. Men collectively are our own worst enemies because there is always another man willing to put aside those healthy attitudes and behaviours. Until healthy male emotional expression becomes attractive it will be rejected by men and women. Currently unless you have other very attractive features being emotionally vulnerable is mostly against your self interest.
I wouldn't say never, I think you see substantially different behavior being rewarded in "metrosexual" cities and less stereotypical displays in leaders of groups that are aware they are unable to violate UN comittee rules, etc, to try to steal from other groups.
In general I agree that it's wrong to say "always" or "never" in any context, and especially with something as complex as human social behavior. However if you'll allow me a bit of anecdote, I've found that places which are outwardly considered "metrosexual" (maybe not the best descriptor, but maybe close enough) kinds of cities or countries actually lend significantly more success to "traditional" male sexual signals than other places.
Willingness to be vulnerable is necessary in close relationships. Otherwise there can't be a (meaningful) relationship. But being vulnerable by default leaves one open to endless manipulation.
> But that's literally what a vulnerability is: a weakness.
There is a concerted effort at social engineering so powerful that now the very word meanings are challenged. Vulnerability is always, unequivocally a weakness. It's the very definition of the word.
Redefining vulnerability as strength is exactly 1984's Doublespeak.
Therefore all humans are vulnerable. Where strength vs. weakness enter into it is how one deals with one's vulnerability. That gets complex. Is denial strength or weakness? Maybe both.
> I want to push back on your assertion that vulnerability is inherently equivalent to weakness.
They didn't assert that, though. They said that confidence is rewarded while vulnerability and weakness aren't. If anything, their description implies a distinction between vulnerability and weakness.
I took their statement to be primarily about perceptions. That anything people perceive as a lack confidence is penalised.
It does require courage and even confidence but not of the masculine type. When a female exposes herself she receives an abundance of emotional support so there isn't much courage needed, just a little bit. So is easier for a female to feel confident about doing it. But if people see that you are a strong guy, then is natural for them to expect to "man up" and support yourself instead of elaborating victimist narratives. People want you to be a strong guy. Females and males. They expect it so badly that they will test that you genuinely are with jokes or challenges that if you are not psychologically strong, those can be felt like downplaying you. It feels that way because they are testing how strong your foundation is.
And whatever you make of this, nothing changes the fact that weakness is profoundly unattractive and stregth is very attractive.
No question those biases exist, but it's mistaken to think that vulnerability requires confidence "not of the masculine type". There are different ways to be vulnerable. Some have to do with being willing to take risks.
Say you're in a group situation and it is affecting you in some way that's not ok—not merely annoying, but touching something of deep importance in your experience. If you bring that information into the group and state what you're experiencing, you make yourself vulnerable. That takes confidence and strength. Then it takes strength to face the effects of that action, whether in the group or from an authority. And another strength too: by speaking of what you're personally experiencing, rather than accusing others of doing something wrong in the abstract, you preempt many conflicts that would otherwise arise. That is self-responsible.
To be vulnerable in that way is very much to "support yourself instead of elaborating victimist narratives". The victim reaction would be to say nothing, feel bad, and carry a residue of resentment. That's what most of us mostly do.
Vulnerability that comes from strength does impress others. When someone shows the capacity to speak coherently from a wounded place in a situation where it is called for, the quality that fills the air is dignity. The reactions I've observed in people at moments like that are admiration and a sense their own experience was touched, as if the one who spoke had spoken for them as well.
It's important not to confuse confident vulnerability with reactions that come from unprocessed woundedness getting activated in stressful situations—"bursting into tears during a code review", as a commenter memorably put it. Those reactions may be vulnerable but they don't show vulnerability in the sense of making a conscious choice to show oneself in that moment. They are more like a buffer overflow, with emotional bytes streaming through a breach in one's facade. Uncontained reactions make a situation more complicated because they are usually "too much" for the moment—the energy in them is coming from some other place more than what's happening right now, and not under conditions that offer opportunity for healing. That tends to result in wounds getting repeated rather than integrated.
The reason it's important not to confuse those things is that if you do, you'll probably get stuck with two shitty options: (1) push your pain away even further, stiffen your facade and pretend to be what you're not; or (2) expose yourself in uncontrolled ways that show weakness and that others find unattractive. Actually, you'll probably get stuck with both: #1 as your default and #2 bursting out in stressful moments. (I don't mean "you" personally, but generally, or at any rate about traditional male roles.) An alternative is to stop pushing away pain, face what one is denying, feel it fully and allow whatever happens in response. That brings healing and strength—genuine strength that one can feel in oneself, as opposed to pretend strength that one doesn't really feel. This doesn't happen all at once; it's one piece at a time, but usually each piece provides enough relief that the process sort of 'pays' for itself as it goes.
The other thing is—much as a lot of us, me included, would prefer otherwise—it seems to need to take place in the presence of others. The value of the work described in the OP, or some of it anyway, is that many men who would never otherwise take such a step find it possible to do so in the presence of other men, when the process is organized a certain way. This is a surprising phenomenon—it surprised me anyhow—and I don't think it's widely understood, but it's a good thing to take advantage of if one feels a pull in that direction.
Agree that pushing things under the rug doesn't help anyone but displaying vulnerability is a no-no for men. Men are not defective women. They need to process emotional thigns from a masculine emotional frame of streght, not vulnerability. In nature, when low in the status social graph, masculine homo sapiens are the disposable gender. Other people won't run to create emotional safety nets or safe spaces for them. Every men knows this deep inside.
At the same time I do think is totally okay to share that something is affecting you as a men but, if you are a man, is not good to express it from a feminine emotional framework. I has to be somehow preprocessed in a masculine frame:
"hey guys, let me share this with you, listen... I've been experiencing A, B and C and I see is causing D and E and affecting me in this F way... is that okay? Is that what we want? I think if we can review it in this X1 way it will be good because A1, B1 and C1 reasons... but if this isn't going to change I need to know because I'm a man with options and I eventually need to define if this is working for me, so I need to know it"
I don’t really believe this. I know some people who I value less specifically because they are overly confident relative to their abilities. I expect them to play social bluffs to play up what they know how to do (or pretend to know things they don’t), manipulate people if they can awe them and try to intercept credit for their work without giving much of their own effort, etc. They basically just cause a huge amount of trouble and damage the productivity of those around them. Meanwhile I know people of roughly comparable ability who I have a pretty good opinion of.
If someone keeps confidently asserting that 1+1=3 and then tries to act like he’s my superior, my conclusion is generally that he’s just a moron or is deluding himself.
I had a typo above and wrote 1+1=2 but I’ve had the same situation: someone who is of normal competence keeps repeating things pretty much everyone in the room knows over and over and thinks he’s leading you forward.
Most people believe that vulnerability is a weakness and a disadvantage but this is demonstrably untrue. Showing vulnerability is a way to develop rapport and connection with other people. Here is a great example using Jennifer Lawrence who is particularly good at this:
There are definitely caveats to this. It has to be done a certain way. It works better when you already have some status. And I'd absolutely agree that society lets women express more vulnerability than men. In a hypermasculine environment like a group of socially clueless 20something males at a tech company, you will probably want to show vulnerability less often.
But with the general population and normal people, it's really fine and even good to show some vulnerability, just do it in the right context.
Isn’t this just faux vulnerability, or vulnerability from the position of power?
In other words, it’s not the ”oh my god, my life is crashing, I don’t know what to do, please help me” kind of vulnerability (that one isn’t seen as very attractive or welcomed by the society), it’s the “my life is awesome, except this tiny part, but it’s cool, I’ll manage” kind of vulnerability.
It seems like you're using an extreme example. Most people's lives are not crashing down around them, but they still have vulnerabilities -- anxieties, problems, things they're afraid of. I responded to a comment saying that vulnerability and weakness are not rewarded, and gave an example of how they can be.
>Showing vulnerability is a way to develop rapport and connection with other people.
Also a way for people to attack you. A vulnerability is always a weakness, it's the definition of vulnerability.
You are talking about faking a vulnerability, a social technique so old that is in Sun Tsu's "The Art of War".
I've found that depends on which generation you're interacting with. Millenials seem far more able to say "I love you" to people that they love outside of their immediate biological family. It's not just the women, either. Men are able to express their feelings to other men in a non-romantic way. Absent is the toxic homophobia that has so colored previous generations.
Hell, their recognition of non-binary genders, preferred pronouns, and a singular 'they' pronoun, speaks volumes as to how much ideas around gender and masculinity has changed. Not that long ago, the idea that a person's gender didn't fit neatly into one of two boxes was unthinkinable.
Maybe you would be surprised to learn that previous generations were also quite free with their love. They just expressed it differently and of course, having grown older, now understand that not everyone who says "I love you" is being emotionally transparent. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you were around for any previous generations. Perhaps you will understand when you get older and watch the next generation talk about how everything we (every previous generation) have done and are doing is a broken, shitty mess, and how they have it all figured out. This is how every generation plays out.
Openness has gone down over time imho. Too many unbroachable subjects and kneejerkers. I somehow observed life and came to the opposite conclusion as you did. Curious. Whats a big world we live in.
Before people had a firm idea of homosexuality, men did show affection for other men as well.
It went like this: it is ok to hold hands with a man (because no one will think you are gay/because no one thinks anyone is gay) -> it is not ok to hold hands (because people will think you are gay) -> it is ok to hold hands (because it would not be a problem if you were gay)
When I told several female friends about the work they did, their response was: "Are they gay?"
It's funny. From the days of chivalry all the way to the modern patriarchy, men's behaviours have been conditioned by one overriding factor: what will impress women? I don't see that evaporating overnight. Men suppress the emotions for the simple reason that women have demonstrated a preference for men that do that, and this is simply an example of that being made explicit. You could say "this is how the patriarchy harms men!". But it wasn't men who chose it to be this way.
12th or 13th century chivalrous poetry from South of France was still full of feelings and what have you, and a little earlier the Arthur-related stories were not void of feelings either. I personally blame the “Protestant ethic”, for lack of a better name, which started culturally imposing itself starting with the mid-1600s in England and present-day Netherlands (in the early 1600s a guy like Shakespeare was still not afraid to share his feelings in his Sonnets).
Probably, otherwise why would have they wrote the way that they did? And earlier than that we have Achilles, the male character that is synonymous with courage and presented by Homer as “the greatest of all Greek warriors”, but even so he wasn’t afraid to cry when his close friend Patroclus was killed in battle.
Whenever I hear patriarchy in a conversation I can't help but start laughing as it reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch which as growing up in an eastern orthodox family was a central part of my belief. It never helps the conversation.
When you say "male emotions," I feel a bit unsure which emotions you mean. Sadness? Anger? Confusion? Pride? I'm not sure if there is a culture, indigenous or not, that values the expression of all emotions, and if it does, not sure if the people in the culture walk the talk, so to say. I take it back, I think many religions seem to value the expression of most emotions, especially Buddhism, at least in theory, and yet I don't know how many people achieve that in practice. I keep trying and it really really challenges me lol.
I mean, Tantra, or at least some takes on it, is training yourself to be receptive and open to your own emotions. To various extents in Taoist groups historically, presumably at least partially continuing. Being in touch with your own emotions is a pretty big aspect of a lot of martial arts, although I suppose not expressing them.
With regards to martial arts, maybe it just depends on the definition of expressing them. To put them into words, maybe not so much. I remember taking a Krav Maga class and I saw the head trainer go from calm to intensely focused and powerful in a flash, and then back to calm after the exercise. So, for me, he was expressing the emotions physically, just not so much with his words.
At the same time, in other self-defense trainings I've taken, I've seen more emphasis on how to express verbally, lending towards conflict de-escalation.
But I would agree, overall, that most martial arts don't seem to highlight the verbal expression of emotions...but I hope to one day change that. I've been building a martial art/self-defense system that focuses more on responding to emotional attacks, as I believe I'm much more likely to be emotionally attacked than physically attacked.
That sounds interesting, and yes, I meant verbal expression. I'm a second degree black belt and I find it tricky to respond to emotional attacks, it'd be nice to practice techniques for not being angry for ten minutes after a car cuts me off in a crosswalk.
It's not an emotional attack in the sense that attacks need to be intentional, but tools for recognizing the source of emotions and letting that tension release is a life skill that is not explicitly taught much. I definitely didn't learn it in karate, but I did learn it in meditation practices from other sources. Combining it all holistically would be interesting.
I’ve been in Bali recently, and although it’s still a very patriarchal society, I’ve had a distinct sense that masculinity is more fluid than in — say — Thailand, which might feel like it should be similar. There are Balinese guys with flowers in their hair, and I’ve seen none of the aggression that occasionally raises its head in Thailand.
You can have emotionless warriors or you can have emotional pacifists. You might even have emotional warriors, but emotionless pacifists is a hard sell.
If the State monopolizes violence to the point that we can’t hash things out with our fists, and there’s no room in our society to emotionally vent, then what’s left? It’s not like violence disappeared from society, it just takes different forms when suppressed.
I mean, sometimes I think about the days of yore when people could punch each other and the fight would resolve itself, and maybe that happened in the past and maybe I'm just thinking it happened like that.
I think with physical violence, it can escalate. You punch me and "win" the fight, next time I come back with a few friends and the fight may get worse over time. And that's just assuming it's only punches. If knives or guns are involved, it can escalate really fast, and perpetuate unresolved for years, if not generations.
And I agree with you that the violence is just taking other forms. One can't punch another, so instead, we shame that person, humiliate them, embarrass them in front of their friends and loved ones. I sometimes have fear of posting on public forums, saying something that will make someone angry, and then receiving an onslaught of comments ridiculing me and beyond.
So while I think some conflict can resolve itself through merely putting on gloves and duking it out, I think more often than not conflict resolves itself much better through communicating in a nonviolent way.
That is the thing, though. Violence had social norms around it. It was not the case that you could escalate forever.
I remember one message from a father to a son, for example, that said "never throw the first punch unless he is X inches taller than you". Of course, this might have been a tad to noble for the time, but still, there were norms.
There's a lot of room in our society to emotionally vent; it just happens in private relationships and on internet forums. The challenge is that the emotions are often uncontained, and uncontained emotion is closely related to violence, as you say.
I agree about spaces to emotionally vent...goodness, the internet lets me vent about anything, at any time, with almost any audience of my choosing, through words, sounds, and video.
On the second part, I would say that emotions are often unarticulated, which may be similar to what you're saying. For me, what I've been trying to practice is that when I start to feel angry, to say "I feel angry" instead of "what is wrong with you??" I've noticed in traffic that if someone cuts me off, I'll have a reflex to cuss out the guy or say something about him being an idiot, and then I'll pause and go, "I really just felt afraid that I would crash." I could tell story after story about how the emotion is not being clearly articulated, and that when it is, it can really realign the situation.
But, to quote James Pennebaker, author of Opening Up (a book that I read and loved) and lots of work on journaling and emotions:
"Verbally labeling an emotion is much like applying a digital technology (language) to an analog signal (emotion and the emotional experience)." --from https://c3po.media.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2016/..., an article I have not yet fully read.
So, in conclusion, maybe my unarticulated is your uncontained analog signal :-D
I'm not sure I understand the bit about digital technology, but this seems to me to be pure gold: "For me, what I've been trying to practice is that when I start to feel angry, to say "I feel angry" instead of "what is wrong with you??""
Regarding the digital technology part, for me it's basically saying that we have this messy, organic, chemical mix of things happening within our bodies, and then we condense all of that into one word, e.g., "happy."
What fascinates me about language, and frustrates me, and does many other things to me, is the fact that when I use the word "happy" it may be describing a different internal messiness than your word "happy," and yet, the more we have in common, the more I will often assume our definitions are the same. I can't tell you how many conflicts in which I've found myself from definitions that I assumed to be shared but were in fact different, e.g., "I'm ready to leave," lol.
What's even more interesting (to me, at least) is that venting might not be helpful.
"Does distraction or rumination work better to diffuse anger?
Catharsis theory predicts that rumination works best, but empirical evidence is lacking."
It is an interesting question. I've personally found that most venting and catharsis leads to repetition and maybe even strengthens existing patterns. Contemporary work on trauma (Bessel van der Kolk, Peter Levine, Gabor Maté) regards catharsis as retraumatizing and works instead with "titration", i.e. re-experiencing and expressing just a little at a time.
On the other hand, I've personally experienced a cathartic process that—as best as one can trace these things—brought real change, so there's no single answer about this.
To your point, that same stigma about LGBT guys being weak, feminine, and emotional is one of the many factors that stops a lot of people from coming out too.
Don’t know why you’re being downvoted. This seems mostly true to me. One thing I’ve noticed is younger gay men still seem gay but don’t seem as effeminate as the older men. Maybe that’s just selection bias but it seems like the culture doesn’t ask for as strong of signaling as it did in the past.
Which, I gather, was common at the time among warriors.
The Greek concept of sexuality was quite different than ours, and their class system played a very predominant role in what we would call gender. Also, age.
Yeah, I'm glad you pointed out that it's not just us men pressuring each other to speak/feel in certain ways. I think so many of us reinforce the emotional code on men and on each other. I'm guilty of doing it as well.
While a woman may have told me "don't cry (or be sad)," "don't be a baby (or express helplessness)," "don't be lazy (or feel too relaxed)," or "stop being so jealous," I have also told people "don't worry," "relax (or don't feel stressed)," "chill out (don't be angry)," and others.
I try as much as I can to let people feel whatever they are feeling, annnnnd I'm still human and project a lot of my cultural expectations on others and myself. Really grateful to have this space on HN for this conversation and to further the conversation :-D
There's a part in Brene Browns "Daring Greatly" where a guy says that his wife and daughter would rather he die on his horse than to fall off. Brown comes back with a very impractical response to the effect of "well then they have work to do too".
I have few male friends I can share feelings with and most of the females I've dealt with just don't want this while wishing for men to be more sensible.
One thing I find fascinating about humans is that we are so compulsively cultural that we will actively propagate cultural practices that are harmful even to ourselves. When you are young, you absorb whatever culture is around you completely uncritically, and then you immediately turn around and start broadcasting to the next generation.
Cultural changes and evolves, of course, but it's really hard to uproot a norm or more once it's settled in, even if it's one that causes you personal pain.
> Cultural changes and evolves, of course, but it's really hard to uproot a norm or more once it's settled in, even if it's one that causes you personal pain.
Terence McKenna lectured on this at length. Here are some apropos quotations:
"As a global civilization, we can no longer afford the luxury of an unconscious mind. When you can pull down the fusion processes that light the stars on the cities of your enemies, when you can sequence DNA, when you can map the heart of the atom, then it is entirely inappropriate to have an unconscious mind, because the power that is given onto you is a kind of god-like Promethean power. So how can we switch on the lights on our animal nature…? I think it is very simple: we have to de-condition ourselves from culture. We are sick, we require medical intervention… into what is a galloping, cancerous state of neurosis - the growth and spread of ego. Ego is like a calcareous growth in the psyche of human beings, and if it is not treated, it creates the kind of society that we have. A society based on hierarchy, male dominance, accumulation of physical goods,suppression of the weak by the strong… This is why the psychedelics are so socially sensitive, because they dissolve de-conditioning. Every culture is a scam. Every culture is a lie. A shell game, run by weasels, for the amusement of rubes. If you do not want to be a weasel or a rube, then you need to inform yourself of how the shell game works, and what lies beyond the carnival midway of civilized values. And the way to do that is to go back to the plants, to the original gnosis."
"Culture is an effort to satisfy this weird desire human beings have to close off experience, to live with closure, to force closure. That is why cultural trips are so bizarre; why they don't make sense to anybody but the Witoto, or the Guaraní, or the Americans, or the Japanese. If you are not inside a culture, it seems crazy. Cultures do not make sense because they are not trying to make sense. What they are trying to do is produce closure, which then somehow makes a human being, who is living in the light of closure, a more manipulable, a more malleable, a lesser thing… The message coming back at all of us is: live without closure. That is the honest position given that you are some kind of a talking monkey, some kind of a primate, some kind of creature, on a planet, in an animal body,in a time and space. In the face of that, life without closure is the only kind of intellectual honesty there is. If you have to inoculate yourself against the various means of closure that are around,psychedelics do that. That is why they are so politically controversial and potent, because more than any other single act that you may voluntarily undertake, they pull the plug on the myth of cultural meaning."
Culture has a political element. Creating a new culture or building an authority over one would be as difficult as any political movement. Subcultures are usually built around selling a product where there's plenty of incentive to put the effort in to make it happen.
I think the young execute on a unique position to see the culture of their elders and actively choose to fill spots where it could be improved for their own benefit and drop customs that are no longer worth it.
> Cultural changes and evolves, of course, but it's really hard to uproot a norm or more once it's settled in, even if it's one that causes you personal pain.
I don’t know if I believe this in general. Certainly we are happy to utterly change our lifestyles whenever a convenient new technology comes about. How much have smart phones or social media changed us culturally in the spans of a couple decades? If culture can change quickly over convenience, surely actual pain would drive it to change even faster. It seems that those “hard to change” cultural aspects are actually _useful_ in some way, and therefore they survive.
It’s not just adopting technology, but the package of lifestyle and cultural changes that go along with it. Perhaps it is “consumerism” in some broad sense—we adopt our culture quickly to our convenience and entertainment.
I'm a little confused, who are the they you are referring to? People are hired on to perform tasks in return for remuneration and feelings should be reserved for outside the job. Getting emotionally involved with ones co-workers is a recipe for disaster. If you're ever invited to a workshop on diversity, don't go. James Damore and Professor Alessandro Strumia would know why.
I'm a man who has focused on and has been building tools to get better at expressing my emotions since 2012, including an app called iFeelio, in which I answered the question "how do I feel" over 4,000 times across 4 years and a class called Emotional Self-Defense, which I've run in the US, Europe, and Africa. I have realized and re-realized many things along the way.
One thing I've seen is that each culture seems to have rules about which emotions one is allowed to express and not allowed to express, based on the specific contexts. We often say that men aren't allowed to express our emotions, but I don't think that's the case. We men (in the US) are often allowed to express anger, confidence, feelings of triumph, horniness (maybe), calmness, and maybe even excitement. We're often not allowed to express tenderness, sadness, confusion, uncertainty, fury, etc. And funny enough, when watching our favorite sports team, we're pretty much allowed to express all of the emotions above and more. On the other hand, in the workplace, we're not allowed to really express much at all.
Women may have a different list, as well as people from the Midwest or California, those born in the 60s, digital natives, engineers, or really any different culture or sub-culture.
That being said, I'm glad to see programs like MKP and Evryman providing the place, and moreover, the permission, to express all of the emotions. (Save a Warrior is one I recommend for military vets—I was a witness on one of the programs and it really helped to open my heart and the hearts of the other guys.)
I'd love to chat with anyone on here about this, either in the comments or on Twitter, Telegram, keybase, or whatever people on HN use these days. Check my HN profile for those usernames.
Thanks for your comment, it's cool of you to share your journey with us. Unfortunately iFeelio on Android doesn't seem to work well anymore, if at all... :-(
Edit: Moodflow seems like it could be good so I'll try that. Just in case this helps others.
Yeah, ironically using the app, I realized that coding made me quite frustrated and then my hard drive failed in 2015 or something and I lost the most current version of the apps on both Android and iOS :-/
That being said, I have been thinking about how to get it fixed and even develop v2.0, possibly through open-sourcing it. Do you think you or someone else you know might be interested in that?
In the meantime, the magic sauce is really nothing too complicated...I used a note app on Android before developing iFeelio and it worked pretty good.
I would open up the note pad, type down the date, time, 1-3 comma-separated words for emotion, and then 1-2 short sentences about how I was feeling. Similar to an I-statement from NVC.
An example would be:
2019-09-28...01:09...grateful, tired...just checked HN and saw that a few people replied to my comments, and it's also 1am so maybe I should go to bed soon.
I made the app mostly because I wanted to enter the date/time automatically, password protect it, and create some ways for me to sort/filter/search previous entries.
I don't think it's going to become viral but I'd wager to say it could be useful for some. I want to track my emotions, too, to see if there's any patterns.
You'll have to keep running it over the next 4-8 years to filter out the short term cultural changes. The expression of sadness will likely ramp up from it's locked up baseline now to 2024.
It's an art thing. Hard to compress into a short comment. As the Trump capture on sadness fades there will be a natural reversal into an excess of the expression of sadness. We are seeing the start of it in films where there are women crying. Not that Trump controls that stuff, but rather he is tapping into a deeper principle.
The cult like approach to certainty we see on the web will fade over time as well. Expressions of uncertainty will become more acceptable.
Whats wrong with stoicism. Feelings are fleeting in general didn't lead me to positive places. I think we should put a high value on people that can handle their own problems.
I've participated in some of this work and agree that having feeling-sharing be the top line item is misleading. Feelings are involved, but the core of it is to face what one has been avoiding, in order to become stronger and grow. There's plenty of room for stoicism in that.
The way to overcome pain is to acknowledge and include it instead of denying it. The difference is huge, and most of us need help to get there—personally contactful help, not idea help. I found it pretty liberating to be able to get such help from other men, in a group no less. The point is not to become a gushy feeling-sharer or a sensitive new-age male. It is to no longer be governed by unconscious feelings and the wounds of early experience.
The organizations that practice this work are not super clear about that distinction, which I suspect limits their appeal to many men. I went because of a friend I respect, who in turn went because of a friend he respects. Had either of us only read an article like this, I doubt we'd have been interested. Its subtle ironizing, which approaches belittling ("chastened menfolk", "There, there"), would have turned me off. The photos would have turned me off too, and I've sat in a lot of workshops (though usually with few men and many women).
Edit: an interesting thing to me was the gap between practice and theory. Even though there were parts of the theory behind that work which I didn't necessarily find appealing, I met quite a few men there who struck me as having a kind of integrated masculinity (maybe not the best phrase, but it's hard to find words for these qualities). They seemed strong and open at the same time. I found myself admiring them and wanting to be more like that myself. None of this had much to do with expressing feelings or being emotional; I would use the word presence instead. They maybe even seemed a bit less emotional than most men I meet—more able to take in what is happening without being reactive.
So I would say the theory doesn't work as well as the practice. You barely ever get that! usually it's the other way around.
This is stoicism though. To process things instead of holding them inside, bottling them up, or putting them off such that they salt our enjoyment of life. However there's a social component of this feelings-sharing which is the subtext of the parent comment. Not all issues need to be shared, and in fact it's a kind of emotional vampirism to prioritize sharing emotional context without focusing on the explicit purpose of sharing to process and confront the issue.
>The way to overcome pain is to acknowledge and include it instead of denying it.
Publicly? It's one thing to be denial, it's another to acknowledge it to yourself but still elect not to engage in a public display of this. The strongest men I've ever met were not in denial of their emotional state but didn't need to engage in public displays like those listed in the article.
On the one hand yes, there's no need for emotional display for its own sake. As far as I've observed, that is mostly a cultural (or really a subcultural) marker anyhow; some communities value it, that's fine. I'm not personally that comfortable with emotion as a tap that gets turned on and off on demand. (During the group I mentioned above, I told them that if they kept asking me what I was feeling, the only feeling they were likely to get out of me was anger about being expected to feel something.)
That sort of cultural practice is a different thing, though—completely different—from deep feeling coming into experience as part of a healing process. The latter is not a tap and there is no quality of display about it. It is more like a flood that rises from forgotten places, and the healing comes from surrendering to that flood and allowing it to change whatever changes. Maybe after that you become more emotionally expressive, maybe not; I personally think that matters less than people in these communities say it does. But you become more integrated, gain capacity, become less reactive, less conflicted.
The subtle part comes up when you say "Publicly?". Yes and no. I don't think there's any need for ongoing public emotionality. I do think there's a deep reason why healing can't fully happen in isolation. It's because our wounds happen in relationship, usually in early relational experiences, and what is wounded relationally can only heal relationally. Personally I have found that frustrating—I would rather go off somewhere, resolve my issues myself, be a self-healing organism. But I've come to see how this impulse to isolation is actually an aspect of the wound itself, and so not a way to heal. Wounds don't heal themselves—they just repeat until something changes. As far as I can tell, there's no way to avoid connecting with others if you want that to change. But others' mileage may vary, and in any case this connecting needs to happen in safe, closed environments with strong containers, not in random public settings.
I agree. I find that the healthiest people in my life don't seem to be the types prone to endless rumination.
I think this is where meditation (and stoicism) deviates from some types of psychotherapy and most support groups. Meditation teaches you to look at feelings dispassionately, which helps you lessen their power. This is very different than treating each emotion as if it is "correct" and in need of resolution via lots of introspection.
I thought that the way "introspection" is supposed to work was as a way of asking oneself: "wait, why am I feeling this emotion in the first place? Where does it bottom out, so to say?" Because that in turn tells you what strings to pull at in order to "resolve" the emotion in a comprehensive way. While this cannot be done without regarding the emotion as at least putatively "correct", I'd say that it's far from incompatible with a Stoicism-inspired approach, properly understood.
I think you need to understand the origins of the emotion, but you can (after understanding it) see it as mistaken.
Say you are pissed because you did not finish a job, but your job performance is increasingly better. Your emotion is not guiding you anywhere useful. It can be useful to understand dispassionately, and then choose to endorse it (that is, this seems a feeling that points to a correct direction, I will thing about solutions) or not (that is, this seems a feeling that does not point to where I want to go, thank you for your message, but I would rather not act on it).
Sometimes feelings are mistakes, like a optical illusion. Sometimes they are not.
I second this. We all have unique brains, and it seems to me that some people are naturally less prone to anxiety than others. I know plenty of people who seem to have naturally low anxiety, and as far as I can tell, they never needed to have some profound realization to become like this, they were likely born this way, they have lucky genetics.
Anxiety means your brain has more of a tendency to worry about potential threats. Possibly because your amygdala are more easily activated. It may just be that, back when we lived in the savannah, being easily aroused by potential threats, and being overly careful, was in many ways beneficial for survival. However, we live in a time of relative safety, and it seems that being someone who worries a lot about potential threats is not generally a useful trait.
I'm not saying that there's nothing you can do to manage anxiety, that is obviously false, but I'm saying there's a strong genetic component, and that judging people who appear more anxious and telling them just suck it up shows a fundamental lack of self-awareness and understanding of how the human brain works.
I agree: one's goal has to be to create a fulfilling life (whatever that means to one) with the nervous system you actually have. Wishing things away rarely works with mental/emotional realities. There's many ways to manage the reality of your specific self; e.g., I'm pretty anxious, so I start every day I can with a nice relaxing bath, during which I am free of anxiety. However, I don't try to make myself be free of anxiety when I have to speak up in some tense situation; then I use mindfulness techniques to just be aware and persist despite it all. Sometimes I do things to change my internal self, sometimes I just treat it like a person that needs certain random things to be at top performance. It depends.
I'll throw my anecdotal experience in life thus far in the ring. I turned 30 this year and I haven't really ever experienced anything more than mild stress, and even that is fairly infrequent (once or twice a year at most, and always because there is something that a reasonable person would say is worth stressing over).
I have been this way my entire life and as far as I'm aware it didn't come about from some life experience, I think I was just born like this. My mother used to laugh that everything was "like water off a duck's back" to me.
All throughout school and University I never once was stressed about any piece of assessment or any exams. There were a few I was woefully unprepared for and knew I would likely fail, but it never really bothered me. It wasn't that I didn't care, I just never saw the point in worrying as worrying is never going to change anything.
My wife is the opposite. She stresses about everything, many things that are completely out of her control. I have learnt a lot about how to support someone in that frame of mind, even when I don't understand why they are stressed.
This does have downsides. Many people, especially in professional contexts, mistake my stress free and easygoing nature as laziness. I also have relatively low empathy, though I'm not sure if that's a side effect, cause, or completely unrelated.
I've studied the area of developmental psychology a lot, and all evidence points to neuroticism, anxiety being not genetic but a result of developmental trauma. Adverse childhood experiences, missatunemenmet with the primary caregiver leads to an area of the brain responsible with affect regulation not being developed properly. Infants learn to regulate affect from parents (the mother or the primary caregiver).
>I find that the healthiest people in my life don't seem to be the types prone to endless rumination.
Rumination is unhealthy. And believe it or not, one of the antidotes to it is being able to communicate ones feelings effectively. In my experience, more expressive people tend not to suffer ruminating thoughts.
Seneca said in his third letter to Lucilius, "Ponder for a long time whether you shall admit a given person to your friendship; but when you have decided to admit him, welcome him with all your heart and soul. Speak as boldly with him as with yourself." I have one friend with whom I'll speak this boldly--some men have no-one. (I also think more women are in this position than society may assume)
I find that the extent to which men (and to a lesser extent, women) have this support varies between secular and religious (or at least Christian) communities. Christianity (as I’ve experienced it, anyway) promotes sharing feelings—for example, many churches have some notion of small groups or community groups in which (among many other things) people share things they struggle with and are supported and prayed for by others.
Stoicism is not about suppressing feelings though, it is about realizing that the ones you have are inconsequential and should not control you. But while you are trying to rein them in, the solution is not to simply bear them in silence. If you have someone who can help you on the path to equanimity, you should feel free to share feelings with them.
Its fine to be stoic and self-reliant, the problem is that occasionally even a stoic man needs to voice concerns, and he is then looked down upon by his peers for doing so. This is why having an unbiased, third-party therapist to just listen can be so healthy.
That's true too, but even then its hard to know sometimes who your close friends are, and what they will think of you for relieving that kind of information to them. Sometimes, the stoic man doesn't have a close friend. You can reply with "well they should get more/better friends", but therein I think lies the catch-22. Reveal your inner self, and maybe you'll get a close friend, or maybe you won't have any friends.
I grew up west coast, spent a lot of time with people who I could "share my problems" with. It taught me to be pathetic when I'm down, to really reach for it. I don't like who I was when that was an effective means of attention.
I really wish the response would have been "You're having a hard time coping with the harshness of reality and acting immature, do your best to get it together soon."
>I think we should put a high value on people that can handle their own problems.
Try as I might, I have no idea what this has to do with feelings. Are you making an assumption that people who acknowledge or express their feelings are not handling problems?
And of course, as others have pointed out, stoicism doesn't suggest not pondering over feelings.
There's a subtle line between repressing and ruminating.
This may be colored by my experience of mental illness, but generally I've learned/grown more from pondering and sorting out feelings in the past rather than right now. It's easy to fall into a trap of "worshipping your pain" (or your hypomanic euphoria for that matter).
OTOH I'm very appreciative of the dispassionate attitude encouraged by stoicism and meditation, etc. -- but that kind of wisdom is acquired with work, like building muscle. "You should lift heavy things!" is both an interesting aspirational model and dangerous advice if it isn't culturally obvious that you can get hurt lifting heavy things while not in shape.
(Edit: stoicism/meditation etc. are more or less like "second-order repression": as you acknowledge your fingertips or your breath, you acknowledge that you have feelings in order to theoretically understand them (locus of control/illusion of self). The danger is that letting go of first-order repression, you can let yourself have feelings about your feelings -- feeling good about feeling miserable would be the common type.)
IMO, not being suicidal is far more being in denial than the other way around. Or, in the very least, thinking that life is some gift. It totally could be, but not like this.
> IMO, not being suicidal is far more being in denial than the other way around. Or, in the very least, thinking that life is some gift. It totally could be, but not like this.
I generally take "[h]andling your own problems" to mean taking responsibility for your own problems.
I'm seeing a lot of agreement in this thread, though. Healthy, deep relationships with family and close friends are important to keep you grounded, and therapy can help everyone. Many seemingly desirable positions of status that men and women strive for involve incredible amounts of stress, and people naturally have differing levels of stress tolerance, so at some point self-knowledge becomes very valuable. Having good people around you is a great way to build that self-knowledge.
Are you going to work? Are you reasonably content? Then you are handling your problems.
Some people really seem to want men to be very emotional and assume something is wrong if they don't appear to be showing strong emotions. Often, they're just fine, and there's no there there.
If you keep picking at them, you'll probably generate some emotions, however.
I'm not sure the point is expression per se, or always being emotional, but rather being okay with introspecting on emotions when they do come up and more to the point, what's causing them.
I'd compare it to a tooth abscess. It's not like it's so painful you need to scream. It's just kind of there, occasionally causing problems. But if it goes untreated long enough, the bacteria in it can kill you. There are some parallels there with loneliness, which a lot of men suffer from.
So I'd say this is more the realization that "Oh, this pain is because of this source. I'm gonna go deal with that source." The process of dealing might involve making your emotions known (such as when breaking up).
Of course, if you're legitimately not in any kind of pain, then great. But most people are, in one form or another.
> "Handling your own problems" a lot of the time means "making other people responsible for my emotional well being."
This is new to me. Making other people responsible for my emotional well-being is being dependent on other people for our own happiness. Stoicism does not suggest that you do this, on the contrary.
Stoicism as a personal philosophy or cultural norm? For the former, I’d say nothing. But for the later I think it’s unfortunate. There are many ways to live a life and many philosophies. Stoicism may work for you, but maybe the next guy needs a good cry without getting harassed for it.
Sharing your feelings doesn't really mean breaking down crying when anything remotely bad happens to you in life. It can just be talking frankly and openly about challenges you face in your life. Is that at odds with being stoic?
Not at all. I'd say the motivation for talking things through lies on a spectrum between brainstorming and bitching, and people have a need for both, just be aware of which one you're doing. A complaint can be stoic.
Indeed. For me, being stoic is the only way. Crying about problems does nothing so why do anything at all? We all have the power to choose to be the best person we can be given our circumstances. That is what I try to do every day.
For me, men who need to share their feelings are weak. This is what women do. But we can't all be women. Men need to learn to enjoy their advantages: superior strength, speed, and resilience, but accept that problems won't just go away if you cry about them. Either solve the problem or accept it and don't give it another precious moment's thought.
Can you please not post like this to HN? We're trying for something a bit more thoughtful than the usual internet assaults. I'm sure you can make your substantive points more thoughtfully.
It's not an assault. I am sharing my philosophy. It's what keeps me happy and why I don't need to go to support groups. But I guess that's just not welcome here.
Of course you're welcome to share your philosophy if you do so in a way that's substantive and relevant. But please do it without being so aggressive. "Read the drivel from celebrities on your carefully filtered twitter feed if you don't ever want to be offended" is the sort of flamewar style we don't want here.
It's not primarily that a comment like that is so bad in its own right. It's that it tends to produce worse from others and, compounded over time, that destroys the community.
I think we're starting to hit a critical moment with this.
As men we have an unbelievable amount of expectation on our reactions, communication, behavior, past behavior, and others behavior. (Their friends and their partners)
On top of all of this: Men spaces have been mostly eliminated.
Same goes for virtually any space that used to be male-only. It's become socially unacceptable (and often illegal) to exclude females from anything, while it's still perfectly OK to exclude males.
That's mostly it being a victim of its own success; here in Canada, Scouts long held a better reputation than Guides. Something fundamentally different about how the organizations and parental leadership approached the kids, I suspect.
Its not illegal to have a private club with membership rules that exclude women. There are still several golf clubs that do so. In fact in the US its not even illegal to openly discriminate in hiring as long as the business has less 14 employees. In California that number goes down to 5 employees and local laws may be stricter still.
I understand the feeling but I think this is too zero-sum. You know who has the most positive reactions by far to men doing healing work in men-only circles? Their wives/girlfriends. Not because the men somehow become more 'feminine' or lose power, but usually because they get something that they badly needed and were stuck about for a long time.
This is using anecdata to dismiss another poster, and isn’t the kind of comment you’d tolerate from others in a sensitive topic.
It’s wonderful that’s been your experience of women, but don’t invalidate what others experience — particularly with a citation free comment.
For those wondering why my comment is flagged: dang engages in political censorship, and flagged my account because of my views. I look forward to the upcoming rules on social media censorship, and the accountability that will bring to dang’s actions.
We banned you for breaking HN's guidelines (with multiple accounts) and ignoring our requests to stop. Someone breaking the site guidelines to promote opposite views would get banned just the same.
As a group men are our own worse enemy. We aren't fearful of or controlled by women. It is other men that choose to align themselves closer to women's beliefs at the active detriment of healthy male attitudes and behaviours that force other men to fall in line.
Men aren't obligated or motivated to open up men only social groups until other men start to take issue with them (and usually for their own self interest).
Gentlemen clubs, country clubs, bars (although I don't think it should have been single gender), other than this.. I can't name many of the other ones. They were mostly gone by the time I became an adult.
Anyways, I have heard of discrimination that men have faced when trying to create "safe"/support groups that were men only.
I don't think I understand the desire or the concern here. Look around the BBQ in the back yard at any party anywhere in 'merica and you'll find the guys hanging out and chatting away from their wives. Look at sports teams in your high schools, colleges, and local clubs and you'll find men hanging out together. Look at Men's bible study groups or similar if that's your thing. Go to the local men's barber shop and find a bunch of guys getting haircuts. Invite your buddies to your place to watch the game...
> Look around the BBQ in the back yard at any party anywhere in 'merica and you'll find the guys hanging out and chatting away from their wives.
I don't know about your experience. But my experience: BBQs are typically a party situation with your household and others. If it's just the guys that's a friends thing.
> Look at sports teams in your high schools, colleges, and local clubs and you'll find men hanging out together.
I haven't heard of such of a clubs.
> Look at Men's bible study groups or similar if that's your thing.
I'll agree with you on this. That qualifies for what I was suggesting. It's a social thing and gets people to talk.
> Go to the local men's barber shop and find a bunch of guys getting haircuts.
Is that an environment that guys would open up? Most of these places tend to be "mind your own business and lets not talk that much" kinds of places.
The Freemasons are still here, and though numerically shrinking as postwar members pass on, we're experiencing a renaissance as a new generation of men come through with a greater interest in the spiritual and philosophical aspects of the craft.
It's worth noting that many institutions you would not have thought of as "men's colleges" per se were indeed all male -- Caltech didn't admit women as undergrads until 1970.
However, MAN spaces are everywhere, Japan especially is having great success creating spaces that are exclusively occupied by a single man for weeks, and sometimes years at a time.
Having gone through this retreat (the NWTA) with the MKP, I can easily point to it as the most legitimate and profound event I've had/attended in my life. Its important to take in context, I'm in my mid 30s, and was emotionally ready for the messages and teachings. Doing the work in a safe space was nothing short of life changing. In my work life, personal life, and love life. And most of all for my own quality of life.
For anyone who is actually interested, I would recommend the book Iron John, by Robert Bly (https://www.amazon.com/Iron-John-Book-about-Men/dp/030682426...). The first chapter is usually assigned reading before attending the NWTA, but when read with an open mind I found the entire book to be profound. Profound isnt the best word, but I experienced the content as if I personally was being spoken to through the pages; my problems, my struggles and my victories. Spoken to with support, compassion and understanding. I re-read it every year.
Beyond sharing that however, seeing how much vitriolic hyperbole is being thrown around within 2h of posting, I dont feel it productive to share anymore. You might say that the vulnerability it requires of a man to speak to other men (and women!) who are openly hostile (and often deliberately misunderstanding) about this topic can be nothing short of herculean.
I participated in a Bly-based "New Warrior Training" and men's group in the mid 80s. It helped me work through a seriously damaged childhood. And generally to be emotionally present, with more range than manic/angry/depressed. I also did lots of est/Landmark work, complemented it well, and helped me learn to be more stoic.
They have! I went through it in 2017, and the unfolding and cascade of realizations and perspective shifts have not only flipped my life (for the best), but also instilled permanent changes in how i participate in communities, interact with people, and support the ones I care about.
When you think of the typical archetype for men learning to cope with emotion, it's generally by overcoming personal hardship or difficult challenges through perseverance. But we see where this fails in situations where you have no control such as in a warzone, as there is no real way to overcome. Maybe addressing emotions directly, after the fact as it were, culturally signifies that the individual failed to overcome the situation from which the pain originated, and since there is a huge association in Western culture between masculinity and self competence, the stigma is now against an individual's entire masculinity.
Am I the only one who sees men sharing their feelings all the time? To me it seems like men simply process things differently than women, so women and the feminized psychiatry field don't recognize it's happening.
We live in an age where men are being villainized at every turn, and this is just another way men are being told they don't measure up... because they aren't sharing in a way that women recognize. With all due deference to my trans friends, men are not simply women with penises.
> because they aren't sharing in a way that women recognize
Agreed. The conspiracy theory part of me wonders if this is a natural way of challenging and verifying perceived strength, thus the trope of a wife accusing the husband of not talking about his feelings enough.
Not to say that's the only time it happens (I've asked my wife basically just this), but I think part of being human is to want a stable, emotional foundation so to speak. And once we've tested and verified a leader/friend/family member who appears to be strong in ways we are not we then rely on them to help us in that regard.
Every social issue has islands where it's nonexistent, islands where it's bad, and islands in-between. Groups alleging unfair treatment are usually both right and wrong depending on where you look, for example there are places where everybody is racist and places where nobody is. By analogy, a person lucky enough to live somewhere that nobody was racist would probably not see any point for affirmative action. Does the NYT have a birds-eye view that can see every island? No, absolutely not, their articles are all written by individual people with normal human-sized social networks. But stories like these can provide some insight as to what other people's lives are like.
Men aren't sharing feelings in a way I understand most of the time, and I'm one of them. I could never get my friends to truly open up unless it was a one on one conversation.
That's not how men process things. Men process things by trying to eliminate perceived unnecessary information and take action. Women are more inclined to want to sit down and discuss all the details of whatever is going on, many of those details the man would not perceive as useful.
This is the age old men vs women problem where women feel like men don't want to talk about problems/feelings and men feel like women just want to blabber on without ever solving anything.
> That's not how men process things. Men process things by trying to eliminate perceived unnecessary information and take action. Women are more inclined to want to sit down and discuss all the details of whatever is going on, many of those details the man would not perceive as useful.
I'm a man. Sometimes I do the former, more often the latter. And I do feel shamed for that, sometimes.
Expecting men and women to fit into neat, stereotyped boxes like this is a big part of the problem.
I didn't mean every single man on the planet any more than the article did. It's not helpful to change conversations from one level of abstraction to another.
If you're going to draw the line that way, then I'm more on what you call the 'man' side in not liking to talk about problems/feelings much. But if that leads you (speaking generally—I don't mean you personally) to deny your pain and avoid your demons, then you are doomed to repeat the same painful loop forever, and ultimately to inflict your unprocessed pain on those closest to you. That's a situation that calls for eliminating unnecessary information and taking action if ever there was one. What's needed are ways of taking that action, i.e. processing things, i.e. facing-healing-overcoming rather than denying, which actually work.
I think the difference, in purely the speaking aspect is that men are more hierarchical while women are more communal. A man will ask a trusted man, usually higher in that particular hierarchy, for advice. Women will gather in groups and complain as a mechanism for problem solving, emotional release, and bonding. Men bond and have emotional release in different ways. I think both groups tend to have similar benefits from their respective actions.
As a man, I agree sharing emotions is important. Too many males in society don't have someone to cry with or listen to their problems.
On the other hand, I do worry about "emotional masturbation". Simply put, sometimes we indulge ourselves in sadness/fear/anger because it makes us feel something and feeling something is better/more exhilarating/exciting than feeling nothing at all.
For example, I have some insecurities. Sometimes I feel like talking about them may be pro-actively bad because I am indulging myself and making my insecurities occupy more mental space/brain power.
Talking about emotions is just one part of it. Society in general needs to be better educated and equipped with mental health tools. Things like cognitive behavioural therapy, emotional intelligence, mindfulness, transactional analysis are all ways to understand and deal with our emotions.
It's no good just blurting out whatever it is you're feeling and like you say, turn it into a masturbatory indulgence, but we should still promote talking about out feelings because suppressing them is no better than having an emotional wank.
This might be one of the issues of our times: men unable to talk about their feelings, unable to maybe even care about themselves because we learned we shouldn’t and we are afraid how we are seen if we do.
Sometimes beeing strong means to become vulnerable.
Yet the needs exist, are often projected onto others (partners, co-workers, kids, whole countries, etc) and then action is taken to try to get /them/ to meet needs that one doesn't even know they have. At best, this tends to be frustrating, at worst...well we can all look up the stats on violence perpetuated by people raised as men in the West versus people not raised as men.
It is a legitimate question. I feel that way, because as a society we are in a state of transformation right now.
By pure rational thought many young men have accepted to treat women like equal human beeings, just as many women have understood that the traditional division of gender roles might not fit all social encounters.
The issue is, that understanding and doing are two seperate things and switching between the old and the new paradigma when it fits us seems to be common place.
So many men end up getting the worst of both worlds: they are not the strong leader of the family any more, but they were still raised in a way to hide their feelings, just like many women are expected to be strong while they might not always have been raised in that way.
The thing we aim for as a society here is defintly worth it (I could experience for myself how amazing a relationship of equals between man and woman can be), but there are many people who struggle with this and it leads to all kind of societal side effects like depression, suicide, drug abuse and violence.
To be fair in times when the man had to be strong this was also a problem, because there are always people who simply don’t fit the role society wants them to take and if you force them into it bad things happen.
Communicating your own feelings is important for mental health. Anyone who struggles with this: get help. Write letters to a person that you never send — writing will help you to think and reflect.
> "By pure rational thought many young men have accepted to treat women like equal human beeings"
You make it sound as though men have never considered women as equal human beings until some recent enlightenment. I find this world view to be absolutely apalling, and arrogant. You're denying a history where the vast, vast majority of relationships between men and women (eg. marriages) were cooperative, reciprocal, and built upon a foundation of mutual respect.
> "The thing we aim for as a society here is defintly worth it (I could experience for myself how amazing a relationship of equals between man and woman can be)"
A relationship of equals betwen a man and a woman is not some novel new concept we should aspire to, it is completely normal and has been for hundreds, if not thousands of years.
I know it sounds unlikely, and it may even be unbelievable, but I suspect there could be men with emotions posting comments on Hacker News. Not me of course, that would be ridiculous.
I don't think it is about appearance. It is about dialogue and communication. If you want to really talk about things that affect you and your life, these things will quite often be topics you struggle to openly speak about.
I talk about topics that are so hard to talk about that people lie to themselves about it. Things that you don't want to be real are things you try to hide and emotions that don't fit your role in society are part of this.
Becoming vulnerable is the price you have to pay to talk about these kind of topics. And if it happens that you look weak as a side effect you have to pull through it. But this is not about looks, this is about beeing able to interface with the world around you and exposing your true self is the price you have to pay for meaningful conversation.
Vulnerability is being strong and weak at the same time. It's having the strength to know what the end goal is and not get distracted by emotional hurdles while being weak in submitting to authority and peers.
The easiest example of vulnerability I can think of is leaders from other departments asking my opinion on work processes or product ideas. One could argue that's not weakness but I believe it is, in that leaders who believe themselves above everyone else at the company will make policy and standards that ignore important aspects of product development and delivery.
An example of weakness is confessing personal issues to your manager or a peer, so much so they think less of you but generally don't tell you directly. The "vulnerable" version of that is handling your issues as you see them, asking peers and mentors for comments on your work and how you can improve, and simply not talking about them outside that.
I'll admit part of my judgment is shaded by personal bias from my own weaknesses, but that's how I see it.
I prefer to use the term "open" instead of vulnerable, to avoid exactly the situation you're pointing out. And you can be open without being weak or vulnerable if you have self-confidence. Not faked confidence, but the genuine kind that comes from dealing with your shit instead of repressing it and putting on a mask of fake confidence, strength, stoicism, invulnerability, etc.
Yeah you can be open too and this means by definition you are confident about the topic at hand and that you trust the other person enough.
But if all you ever do is only talk about topics that you can confidently speak about with out risking something, then you are missing out on something. And sure you can also go and deal with it on your own till you got the confidence to talk about it without exposing yourself, but there are connections you will be never able to form if all you ever do is deal with yourself.
I wouldn’t take this as a representative sample of all men.
In my experience, sharing feelings makes me feel worse and substantially reduces my appeal to others. I prefer to just deal with my problems logically and avoid such navel gazing.
That's kind of a spurious argument to make without drawing it out a bit. Exercise doesn't feel good (at first) if you're morbidly obese, but that's because you really need it.
Adverse reactions to therapy might mean that therapy isn't for you. But more commonly, I think it probably means that you don't have the right therapist and / or you have some really heavy, painful shit that you need to deal with but don't want to. Otherwise you wouldn't be having "adverse reactions" to simply sitting in a room with another human to talk about your life.
Everyone is exactly the same. Everyone feels good about exactly the same things, and bad about exactly the same things.
What I just said is clearly ridiculous.
It should not be a surprise that some people don't feel positive about talking about their lives. If you can't imagine it, I'm afraid you may lack imagination.
You can't discard the different pressures specific to each gender, and how each gender deals in their own way with those issues. This reminds me of schools that deal with boys like they are "broken girls", they are ignoring their natural gender attributes when assessing what's acceptable behavior.
Are you saying that there should be different standards of acceptable behavior for boys versus girls. Or are you saying if the schools paid more attention to how boys normally behave, they would accept a more broad definition of “acceptable behavior” for all children?
Yes, people are different, you need extremely flexible standards to accommodate this. Right now the standards are far too rigid, and we have enough data now to know that on average they harm boys far more than girls.
There shouldn't be different standards for boys vs girls, but the standards should be permissive enough to allow for both, which currently just plainly isn't the case in many situations. Sitting still and talking is okay, Roughhousing and climbing trees is not.
That is not to say that one gender will always pick one set of behaviours over the other, people are still individuals obviously, but as a generalisation there is a difference.
Group belonging is a fundamental part of the human condition. We are social, tribal animals. You may, of course, choose not to belong in groups that are defined by being male, but people are members of lots of groups with boundaries drawn for lots of reasons. Given that many men have similar experience by virtue of being men, it seems a reasonable attribute to base a group on.
If it’s not a binary, it’s still a very much bimodal distribution. Ironically, the notion that gender is either a binary or a spectrum is a false dichotomy. It’s obviously a bimodal distribution with most, but not all, people clustered around one of the two peaks.
I recently did the NWTA weekend retreat with the ManKind Project and found it a surprisingly profound experience. I would recommend it for most men I’ve known. Happy to answer any questions anyone has.
I’m not surprised to see so much pushback and gatekeeping here from other men, or suggestions that encouraging men to find spaces to “talk about their feelings” are a radical feminist ploy to subvert true masculinity, but I am saddened by them. That attitude reflects a deep sickness that is at the heart of what makes it so hard to be an authentic, open man in today’s culture. MKP and similar organizations are one of the few healthy forces I see working against this.
It's a mainstream idea now that masculinity is toxic, so it's not surprising that people are projecting that onto this.
Calling it "New Warrior Training Adventure" comes across as super patronizing. "ManKind" isn't great either. The names alone are surely responsible for much of the pushback that you're seeing.
I did a bit of digging though, trying to keep an open mind, and I was surprised to find that MKP is indeed not a radical program to feminize men.
Basically, it's a small nondenominational religion for woke men. The leaders are a Marine Corps officer, a therapist, and a PhD of "curriculum studies". It's not very surprising to see all the comments here about how profound it was, because it was designed to be a spiritual experience.
It looks like a cult and is certainly weird (nudity is optional), but the leaders aren't getting rich off of it, and you are allowed to leave. There are regular meetings, rituals, a set of shared values, and a drive to recruit more members. It seems like mostly dudes who want to better themselves and the world at large. A lot of it is classic self-help stuff. They advertise NWTA as "Get Ready for a 48 Hour Adventure that Can Transform Your World as a Man", for example.
I think people are right to be skeptical of these types of groups, as they're playing to an audience of disaffected men and trying to improve lives with groupthink and rituals. I'd place MKP somewhere between Scientology and Tony Robbins. Probably a powerful experience in person, but best to avoid it or you might get roped into an organization.
I find the comparisons to cults to be completely bizarre. It's definitely not a cult. Or at least, not a very good one. You can leave if you want, you don't have to participate in anything you don't want to, there's no "drive to recruit more members", or even really to become a member at all, it's staffed by volunteers, there's no central figure or authority like most cults, there's very little pressure to participate after the NWTA beyond encouragement to consider attending the weekly or biweekly groups that the article talks about or perhaps volunteering to staff a future NWTA. Placing it between scientology and Tony Robbins is completely off base imo, but I have no direct experience with either. All I'd say is that if they're trying create a cult to rope people into an organization, they're doing a terrible job of it. And it's not even clear what the goal would be. The suggested monthly donation of $10 to support the nonprofit if you do become a member, which again, they don't really push at all? Seems like a pretty shitty cult to spend decades ramping up.
I think you took my comment differently than intended. My fault for phrasing it poorly.
First, you are correct that MKP is not a cult and everything you're saying here checks out with the research I just did into MKP.
What I meant was that it is cult-like in appearance. It's an engineered experience for human bonding and introspection. The members are doing stuff that's out of the ordinary and trying to connect to some deeper spiritual thing. Sometimes people get naked. There's a big wooden phallus used as a talking stick. There's a bunch of oversharing. It's not a cult, but it's not exactly Rotary Club either.
As far as roping you in, of course it's designed for that. The group couldn't grow without getting you to come back. There's a good chance you're going to form bonds with the other people in the group if you do a bunch of emotional stuff with them on a retreat. That's a social situation that I'd much prefer to avoid.
I looked at your HN profile and I see that you're a life coach for freelancers, so you might be less sensitive to what's triggering me about MKP. Don't take this the wrong way, but your site gives me a similar feeling as the MKP stuff. I'm pretty sure I'm your target too, as a developer considering switching to freelance work. I wish I could give you something more useful than "feels scammy, stay away", but that's how it comes across to me. And you're blogging about "mastermind groups", which also give me the same feel. It's possible that I'm just hyper-sensitive, but I think you'll have an easier time getting through to developers if you aren't tripping the alarm that tells me "this is a cult" or "here comes a pitch for an ebook".
As a side note, I wonder if you get many calls from putting your number in your HN profile. That was definitely noticeable and didn't trigger my overactive skepticism at all (even though it's obvious self promotion, it feels authentic).
I looked at your HN profile and I see that you're a life coach for freelancers, so you might be less sensitive to what's triggering me about MKP. Don't take this the wrong way, but your site gives me a similar feeling as the MKP stuff. I'm pretty sure I'm your target too, as a developer considering switching to freelance work. I wish I could give you something more useful than "feels scammy, stay away", but that's how it comes across to me. And you're blogging about "mastermind groups", which also give me the same feel. It's possible that I'm just hyper-sensitive, but I think you'll have an easier time getting through to developers if you aren't tripping the alarm that tells me "this is a cult" or "here comes a pitch for an ebook".
I hear you, but honestly, that just means you're not the target market. I sell training products and coaching to freelancers of all types, so not really "life coaching". My opinion after selling all types of products and services is that developers are, on average, a terrible market. We know the price of everything and the value of nothing, we value our time way too low, we under-invest in relationship, and we're overly skeptical and critical. Having a marketing message that polarizes people into love/hate is a good thing.
It's not a cult. Not even est/Landmark is a cult. You could say that it's a movement. I've only been near one cult: Heaven's Gate. And that was something to run away from.
I've no experience with Scientology, except having a college professor who mentioned it occasionally. But I have done lots of work with est/Landmark, and some with NWT, Tony Robbins and NLP. Plus a bunch of random New Age stuff, and lots of psychedelics.
I'd say that NWT was the least aggressive about membership recruiting. And est/Landmark was the most. Because their goal is indeed to have everyone do their work. And they're pretty upfront about it.
Right, large-group awareness training. The rationale being that we're a lot alike, and can learn from each other. There's typically lots of sharing, interspersed with material from the presenter. And usually, the person who's sharing is the last one to get the learning.
Hoffstadter's I Am a Strange Loop is mostly about the role that self-referential systems arguably play in consciousness. But it also argues that parts of someones consciousness can survive after death in others.
There's a lot of that in Landmark, but from the opposite perspective. That is, there's the insight that we are fundamentally a set of "stored procedures" that we've copied from our parents, family, friends, etc. And especially those that helped us survive traumas. Such as being told that we're wrong. Or being excluded by peers. Or feeling like we're on our own.
So you get that most of the time, you're just running that stuff automatically. But if you can learn to notice that you're doing that, you have an opportunity to choose. That is, you learn to be aware of the machinery.
The bad news, though, is that there's no escaping the machinery. It's an ancient evolutionarily honed thing, and you're running on it. So all you can do is notice.
I did NWT and est at about the same time. It was a very stressful time. And I was very unstable. I'm bipolar, and I was teetering between mania and depression. And between anger and self-hate.
From NWT, I mainly got that I was chronically insecure and fearful. And that I covered it up with aggressive edginess. I still get like that sometimes, but I'm never as unconscious about it as I was pre-NWT.
It's hard to summarize what I got from est and Landmark so glibly. A key piece is that the voice in my head isn't me, but rather stuff generated from the machinery. And that listening to it just gets me more of what I often didn't like getting before. So I learned to thank myself for sharing, and then to get in touch with what really mattered to me. As they say, my principles and values. As opposed to the ideals and standards that I'd been programmed with.
I also got lots of training in how to get stuff done. Promises and requests. The importance of tracking progress and performance. The concept that being comes before, and is the key to, doing and having. The stages of projects, and especially the idea that the relationship between effort and results is hugely nonlinear.
Edit: Also, I did NWT for maybe 2-3 years. But I did Landmark actively for over 25 years.
I would love to read everything you would write about this. I'm sure most people here would. I can't believe you've been doing a whole genre of activity for over 25 years that I just learned exists today!
I think that Landmark peaked in the US during the 80s-90s. The last I heard, it was growing the fastest in India and Israel. Werner Erhard did Scientology before starting est, and they never forgave him for recycling some of their stuff. And it's arguable that they were behind efforts to demonize est/Landmark, and paint it as a cult.
I do recommend it. But it's crucial to keep in mind that sharing your experience of the work, and encouraging others to participate, is an integral part of it. It's true that relationships of all sorts work better with people who have done the work. So there's some self-interest in sharing.
The courses themselves generally run from Friday evening through Sunday evening. About 12 hours per day, with breaks for lunch and dinner. Back in the day, they'd run a lot later, basically until everyone got the day's distinctions. But that's mellowed since the 90s.
For example, homework assignments involve sharing with family and coworkers, and inviting them to an evening session the following Friday. At the evening session aka graduation, guests spend some time with the main group, and then go to small introduction sessions.
Yeah, "toxic masculinity", but I can't name another type of masculinity that's in mainstream awareness. Can you?
If you google for "masculinity", "toxic masculinity" is the first thing that comes up. I'd never heard of "victorian masculinity" before, but that and "harmful masculinity" were the only other types I could easily find. Google also helpfully suggested "The culture of masculinity and its negative impacts on men" as a recent PBS Newshour segment that might interest me.
If you put the words next to each other for long enough, and you never see anything about "positive masculinity" or "altruistic masculinity" (which I just made up because I couldn't find any real examples), then you're going to create a culture that associates masculinity with toxicity. From my point of view, that's been happening for a few years.
The idea that brought masculinity into mainstream discussion was "there exists a type of masculinity that is toxic", but the way the public seems to have internalized it is "masculinity is toxic".
I agree with your concern about "toxic masculinity". However, I think creating a positive term to coexist with it is unhelpful.
Being masculine is always a good thing. When I was young, I was taught a certain set of things about being a man. Yes, masculinity implies strength. (Not necessarily physical!) However, abuse of that strength is not masculine.
Creating a term like "altruistic masculinity" implies that masculinity is a neutral thing that can be good or bad.
Expecting this kind of nuance (or any nuance, really) from the mainstream is hopeful thinking. Everything seems to collapse into simple viewpoints after awhile.
According to the San Jose Mercury News, the Sterling Institute of Relationship has a "history of complaints" at the Oakland, California division of the Better Business Bureau, and also at the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The seminar was described in Details Magazine as having a "cult like subculture." (Wikipedia)
I only very recently came to the realization that my emotional numbness was caused by the emotional distance & neglect I experienced as a child. I'm still working through it, but I do think part of it was in part due to my immigrant parents believing that emotions were reserved for girls and not boys.
Believe me, it's not a fun place to be, and I hope new parents do realize how important it is to teach young children how to make sense of their emotions.
There is much beauty and wonder in the interplay between as well as within the genders. However, men are not imperfect women that would be improved if we adopted the other genders mannerisms. We both need to be open to listening to each other when providing the loving support that we want and need.
Please disclaim when you are linking material that has a religious bent. Both of these books appear to be based upon the Christian belief system and as such might not be of any interest to someone with a different (or nonexistent) belief system.
I thought the book was one of the better ones I've read on the topic, so I recommended it. It is not a spiritual book.
I likewise would recommend reading "Islamic Patterns: An analytical and cosmological approach" when approaching geometry.
Either the book is good or not in getting you to understand something you don't currently understand. I trust the reader to be able to make their own judgements, especially in this case where you can read the book for the opposite gender to see if they are full of bullshit.
Huh, neat. I had no idea there was a name for "islamic patterns", but they look like exactly what I expected.
People have been making this sort of stuff since way before LSD was invented, but I can't help notice how incredibly similar the patterns are to psychedelic hallucinations. To see them described as "sacred geometries" makes a lot of sense for reasons I can't quite explain.
>This article seem to be written by an ideologically inclined woman.
If you are calling out someone as being ideological and then recommending books that are based in a religious ideology, it seems relevant to make note of it.
That is a euphemism I used because I think anyone reading the article can infer what I meant and I wanted the focus to be on productive resources for people to learn how to think adaptively instead of what to think about these issues.
In my opinion learning how to be adaptive in personal relationships and not pushing narratives onto the other is the most productive approach.
This is why I don’t think the two are similar in nature, although I think it’s great you brought it up so that everyone can judge for themselves with as much info as possible upfront.
Either the advice is accurate, in which case the religious roots shouldn't matter, or it isn't - in which case the religious roots still shouldn't matter.
I'm not saying this because the author of the books is Christian. I am saying this because they are explicitly relationship advice guidelines from a Christian religious perspective.
Most religions have ideas about relationships that are not informed by anything secular, and Christianity certainly does.
Opening a preview of the book I was quickly able to find lines like these:
"If we are willing to be molded by His hands, the Lord will shower us, our men, and our relationships with abundance. That is the way He works. He made us for each other. He is the Author of love"
"I feel like the Lord has blessed my desire to serve my husband and our marriage by giving me a permanent internal motivation to have a healthy "temple." And I know He will do the same for you"
So no, this is not the association fallacy. This is asking people to disclaim when the advice they are giving has a significant religious component.
You are right the authors are clear on being Christian and that they are part of western tradition. And for disclosure my fiancé is Hindu and I am a Christian so other more unusual mixes can also learn from each other.
> men are not imperfect women that would be improved if we adopted the other genders mannerisms.
Divulging one's emotional state is not a "[female] mannerism". It is a basic, androgynous function of all social beings. It's endlessly frustrating to have my faculties gendered away from me.
I am not saying so either, because only a fool would claim men don’t have emotions and don’t need to be seen. What I am saying is that seeing and learning how to be seen is hard, and approaching others and oneself as a narrative is directly unhelpful towards that goal.
I suggest reading the book if you are interested in the topic because it’s not saying what you think it says and will help you utilize your faculties more adaptively.
But it’s a little bit different. Women tend to pick up on subtleties during conversation, which can immediately change their emotional state. I’d argue women are more emotionally labile. And often they will not divulge their true emotional state, IME. Men tend to be more direct.
Isn't this one of the surprising parts of growing old? As a young person you may feel that your future self will be attended by loving family members and caring friends. But, once you become a "head of household" or head of anything, it's often quite the opposite. Instead, you are responsible for attending to the emotional needs others.
It focuses on men’s emotional well-being... and good old-fashioned male bonding. Minus ogling women, drinking or fist fighting, of course.
Nothing helps me get through feelings more than getting punched, and punching someone. Its the main reason I still goto hardcore/punk shows. The moshpit is a group therapy session.
I guess it's a balance. Sometimes, you need to face what you're feeling. Other times, you need to avoid getting caught up in it and just press forward. I suppose it might also depend on the character of the feeling. Some feelings seem more honest and connected to something bigger. Other feelings can just torment a person and are like energy traps e.g. feelings of jealousy about not going to an elite college (I've struggled with this a lot. And, as the years go by, I realize more and more that I don't want to waste my time with it). I guess it's up to every person to figure out which is which in their own mind.
It's a meme right now that men, as a group, need to be more in touch with their emotions or should express their emotions better, or some variation of the fact. Basically the comparison is drawn to women with the subtext that women are doing it right and men should follow. Has anyone actually asked if that is in fact true? For example, the "strong silent type" (i.e. stoicism) is a an archetype across cultures and maybe for some (or most) men that is the better path forward for their mental well-being.
I don't want to go around picking on specific comments or arguments, but I still wanted to address what reads like a lot of insecurity and scar tissue, here...
- It's better to understand people than to not understand them. Averages and stereotypes are not a great way to understand individual people.
- If you want to understand why a person did or thinks something, a good place to start is with a generous assumption that you might have done or thought the same if you had the same experiences. Reflect on what sort of experiences might fulfill this statement.
- Assume completely understanding an intelligence is impossible. If you haven't before, pay close attention to your internal narrative(s) until you catch yourself telling yourself a story about why you did or said or thought something. This is you, reflecting on what sorts of experiences led you to do or think something. This is evidence that we don't understand our own intelligence.
- Don't be surprised if you find you are less generous when reflecting on what experiences lead you to do something than you are to others. You have, after all, been trying to understand why you do what you do your entire life. Look for opportunities to show yourself (and, more importantly, your internal narratives) that you care. This may feel stupid. Reflect on what experiences might lead you to think it is stupid to show yourself that you care.
- If you are more generous with yourself, you aren't giving the rest of us enough credit. We all contain multitudes.
I've done a bunch of these, even went to a jungle for two weeks. After a deep examination of years of this journey the experiences and getting to know the participants I found this to be very shallow kind of temporary relief, also putting aside the fact that it's quite a shitshow and as a man you'll lose a bit of a self respect.
I often looked around and all I've seen was men who don't need more softness but more discipline. And women past their prime who are still childless but looking to find "a meaning of life" while continuing to delude themselves that the natural purpose of breasts and vagina was sexual pleasure.
On the contrary, I found the greatest relief in training Brazilian jiu-jitsu and joining a muay thai camp for a month.
It wasn't far from a popular hippie site. But I looked around and I saw a big difference. A lot of these people on 'retreats' aren't seeking change, they are seeking a pleasurable and an EASY kind of change.
You have people there that cry a little take some drugs hug each other, some hoping to get laid and basically chill on a "retreat" thinking they're doing 'hard spiritual work.
On the contrary, I saw people in the camp that trained for 4-5 hours and woke up early morning, conquered the pain and comfort, got out of the bed and went on to train on their bruised feet. Every day.
And when you're down, your muscles are out of your oxygen and you suffocate wrestling but still have time to go you start to converse with a voice on your head that wants you to give up and you'll question a lot of things and learn a lot about who you really are but you will have to find energy where you think there's none.
This rewires your brain not whining in the woods.
No you don't need drugs and it doesn't take strength to cry in a group where everyone cries.
The reason why all the westernized forms of buddhism and all sorts modified of Eastern practices and drugs like ayahuasca gain popularity is because people look for easy "fast-food" change.
Ironically people despair in comfort but look for comfortable way to get out of it.
Everyone who tried ayahuasca or crying in woods, or some other form of 'retreat' knows the change lasts about a week.
Worse, some people get addicted to seeking this relief and continue falling back to depression actively, just so they can get back and get some hugs. I know it's over-simplified but a lot of them will get addicted to the community and other paying attention to them even though it's artificial they get more of it than in their real lives.
In better case, you'll become a bozo kind of like Jim Carrey and crash parties just to tell everyone how deluded they are and how enlightened you are ... because duh fools, can't you see what I see "we're all one."
Finally, after a decade of searching I found that classical philosophy and in fact christian philosophy, as ridiculed as it is in media and the western society, the true deep philosophy, not the shallow popularized image, it offers all of the hard work and depth none of these 'retreats' will ever provide.
Humanity lives in a bubble, and at the edge of that bubble is an incredibly harsh reality.
Someone has to stand guard, typically men. Part of staring into the void is wearing emotional armor. On occasion you should take a break, go towards the middle of the bubble, be safe and warm, take a bath, eat, drop your armor, etc.
But that doesn't mean you were wrong to have worn armor at the wall. Nor does it mean the bubble is reality.
Reality is harsh, and everyone is trying to forget that. I commend those who refuse to.
From what I've seen this attitude often actually creates and reinforces this harsh reality, though.
Most of our reality is composed of humans doing things, and if you dig deep enough into why humans are doing various bad things, you'll find a lot of confused, closed up people chasing odd status markers because they need it to survive against other parties chasing odd status markers. It's an error that endlessly feeds itself, and the only escape is to cancel it somewhere - do something else.
The point is kind of moot when the people you are supposedly protecting against are of your own kind.
What about reality is harsh, and of that harshness, what is best addressed by emotional armor, and of that, do you know of any better coping mechanisms than that emotional armor? Although I do have a direction in mind, I am legit asking to understand your perspective and knowledge.
6 weeks ago Epstein was suicided because his trial might have led to even a few of the super rich 1% from getting reprimanded for raping child sex slaves. Not only is there nothing any of us can really do about it, the world forgot in less than week.
Bad is winning. No path to utopia takes the "let them rich rape children" fork in the road.
2. Emotional armor:
The above example is a single drop in the ocean. Empathizing with the raped children hurts. Feeling your powerlessness to do anything about it hurts. Now start adding the 1000 other awful things that have being done to people. You already have, and you already have shut down. Nobody can feel that much pain. But having armor is more about letting yourself take as many hits as possible before shutting down than hiding. The more cold your empathy, the more you can stare into the void.
3. Better coping mechanisms
Dumping this shit into the safe space would defeat the point. It would just make the world even worse. I put what I can into trying to recruit. We could really use more strong people, if you're interested. Most of it though, I let it hurt me, then I use this awesome feature of being a human where I forget about things. In the moment it sucks, but over time I look back and see a beautiful existence.
Valor is a quality not easily acquired, and I wish to.
Yeah, that's about the direction I was expecting. I absolutely agree with you that these are things are good reasons to have emotional armor.
I disagree that they're reality.
There's reality, consensus reality, and the outcomes of our collective actions. Including the second two in the first one implies it's unalterable, implies they're not fundamentally artificial.
Rape, murder, death of family and friends, famine, cancer, torture. Getting stabbed. Being shot. Being enslaved. Total war. Being exterminated. Stuff like that.
Is reality that harsh? Certainly there are immutable truths to be found, and of those, a certain subset aren't pleasant. But by and large in my experience, reality is largely neutral. What's often much harsher than any reality are the status quos of societal systems, and though they may be difficult to mutate, they are mutable.
As much as I detest things like the Men's Rights movement and MGTOW and other such groups, they've sprung up largely to fill the void left by the various (and rightful) excisions made into masculinity by progressive politics. We've learned how much of what was traditionally defined as masculine was not only sexist, but also just straight up harmful, both to men and everyone else. The problem is we set about destroying these elements of masculinity without then replacing them with something else, and nature abhors a vacuum. So now we have large sects of male demographics leaning into the toxicity, because having a bad identity is better than having no identity.
If I have one serious complaint with progressives, it's that the majority seem to regard men as privileged so far beyond everyone else that they have no legitimate complaints, and it's bullshit. And not only is it bullshit, it's ultimately self-defeating. With each lonely young man who is ignored and cast out of any kind of progressive minded group, the alt-right and MRA activists gain another pawn, easily radicalized against those who hate him when he himself has done nothing wrong.
So no, I don't think reality is that harsh. I think humans are harsh.
This is not a story of how utopias are made. Write that story in your head, then compare and contrast. Maybe read up on 20th century torture.
I lived the good life for a while, then I got pushed to the fringe, and now I'm somewhere in between. The worst I saw was nothing compared to the worst there has been, but it was bad enough to make one thing very, very clear: happiness stands on the back of suffering.
You may think that your question is innocent, that your optimism is an answer. In reality, you're just spitting in the face of less fortunate people. Imagine looking an abused child in the eyes and saying "is reality that harsh?" Or saying that to homeless people. Maybe go find a couple HK protesters who have vanished, I'm sure they're having a great time.
Good worlds don't let this shit happen. It's not a few people slipping through the cracks, it's a fucking dystopia.
Those are things humans do to other humans, it's not the emptyness of space, the harsh reality of the universe, doing that to us. To "stand guard" at the edge of humanity as if to ward of some outside intrusion of evil just doesn't make sense. There is still plenty of suffering to be had even if all humans were excellent to each other, but that would take so much bite out of it.
It sounds like you're on the tail end of existentialism, which is good. It does keep going for a while passed that.
Seems like you may be heading towards Absurdism. If so, I recommend Optimistic Nihilism instead. It's much less of a kick in the shins to the envious tortured souls you never notice watching you.
The person you responded to said they think reality isn't harsh, humans are, and you replied with a bunch of harsh things humans do as if that contradicted their comment, which it doesn't. Yet you're contradicting yourself:
> In the moment it sucks, but over time I look back and see a beautiful existence.
vs.
> Imagine looking an abused child in the eyes and saying "is reality that harsh?"
I find it interesting you namecheck Optimistic Nihilism because that's largely where I'm at. And I'm sorry but you just aren't presenting much here that's intrinsic, naturally occurring harshness but instead the manifestations of cruel people, which is exactly what I posted about in the first place.
I don't think the world is that cruel. I think people, both individually and as a group, are tremendously cruel and capable of terrible things that in turn make the world cruel.
In short, to borrow the words of Rorschach from Watchmen, “...God didn't kill that little girl. Fate didn't butcher her and destiny didn't feed her to those dogs. If God saw what any of us did that night he didn't seem to mind. From then on I knew... God doesn't make the world this way. We do.”
The paywall is not what irks me. It's all the crap they post that either invokes super inflammatory commentary here on HN (like, men being emotional, men being anxious, men being xyz) or the really NERF-level stuff that lacks any substance and really just makes you think of Captain Obvious™
I really wish people that think HN is a hot bed for libertarianism would notice how many NYT links are consistently on the front page, while mises links are conspicuous by their absence.
Female sexual attraction favors secure men who don't talk feelings. This results in men feeling unable to express their emotions around their significant other.
On the other side, male sexuality selects based on looks more than anything.
Feminism calls the latter shallow and toxic, but truthfully both should have that label. Neither is serving society or evolution well anymore. But what can we do? Sexual attraction is an innate, unchanging aspect of what it means to be man and woman. It isn't going to be removed from our genes anytime soon.
> But what can we do? Sexuality is an innate, unchanging aspect of what it means to be man and woman, and it isn't going to be removed from our genes anytime soon.
Not entirely. Not every woman is attracted to the strong silent type, and not every culture has always favored that form of masculinity. Historically, the amount of emotion and intellect a man was permitted to display has depended more on social status and class than genetics. "Gentlemen" and "men of breeding" used to write poetry and sonnets and kiss one another on the mouth and women would still swoon over them. Letters written by soldiers to their wives during wartime often display a great deal of tender emotion and passion.
Also, not every man is primarily attracted to looks. While it probably is true that men are more focused on that than women, it's certainly the case for women as well, and often for men it's a sign of immaturity, but men do mature.
What can we do? First, accept that we're not mere automatons running sexual algorithms - sexuality is far more subtle and variant than the stereotype of "men like strippers, women like cowboys." I don't know at what point some men seem to have decided that "masculinity" is entirely biological and immutable and that they are doomed to be slaves to their primate urges, but it simply isn't true. Almost everything about the human condition is fluid, and masculinity like femininity and gender is at least in part a social construct and internalized complex, both of which can be changed.
I've found that women often appreciate and find men who are authentic, emotions included, attractive. You can always overshare and if you express emotions in a way where you put the burden on the other person, I don't think anybody really enjoys that
> I've found that women often appreciate and find men who are authentic, emotions included, attractive.
I have found they are attracted to the idea of that, until they get it. Understand there are consequences and approach objectively.
The same idea of a lot men liking the chase more than actually being with a woman.
Let them chase an idea of a man sharing feelings, let them chase the idea they can change a man into sharing. But be aware there are often consequences that don't involve them being interested in you any longer if you actually share.
No its # not all women, no its not collaborative or mature. But I guarantee you can keep the sexual companionship of many more women for longer if you shut up and dangle an emotional string just out of paws reach. If you’re looking for a more mature life partner? Keep looking! But if you like consistent sex with people that think they’ll change you into a life partner that they wont be attracted to, be aware of what is happening and understand a lot of the relationship power imbalance in your favor comes from this and continuing it. A lot of women don't consciously know they do this, just one day after you open up or do something less masculine, they don't see you the same again.
Enjoy a satire on this concept that many might find relatable but never had spelled out for them:
I disagree, maybe those women appreciate authentic emotions among friends, but at least while on the dating scene, authenticity NEVER won me any points, and quite to the contrary, the stoic/mysterious man always won out.
I think the stoic/mystery "distant" persona works at first but if you want to foster and deeper connection between someone as an equal than you have to open up
> Female sexual attraction favors secure men who don't talk feelings.
No, no. Women love it when men share their feelings. But they've gotta be the right feelings. A man should be brave and confident and supportive and strong and happy and secure. Maybe he worries about things a little, sometimes, but then he's OK again and he always has a plan.
He's unafraid to open up and be vulnerable, of course, but what he's being vulnerable to is never anything that would be a burden on anyone else or reduce his usefulness to the woman.
to see an extremely complex personal, social, cultural and biological behavior reduced to two trite sentences is nothing short of hilarious.
there must be something about pop evolutionary psychology that appeals to your typical hacker news poster, because i've seen this comment in various forms in several places now. maybe it's hubris or something.
>Sexual attraction is an innate, unchanging aspect of what it means to be man and woman. It isn't going to be removed from our genes anytime soon.
This is obviously false. Just as our preferences for food have changed over time and according to culture (yet we all must eat), attitudes towards what is and isn't considered attractive have also changed. While it may be true for any given individual one cannot change the attractions they feel (or maybe it isn't true, I don't know), you ruined whatever point you were making when you mentioned genes, as if genetics dictate that (1) women (as in, all women, after all, you said it's "unchanging" and "in our genes") prefer men who don't express their emotions (2) the primary consideration for men is looks.
"Female sexual attraction favors secure men who don't talk feelings. This results in men feeling unable to express their emotions around their significant other."
The evolutionary psychology idea is that women are attracted to men who show leader-like traits. That means appearing to have high self confidence, not expressing doubt but seeming certain, seeming generally happy and energetic.
In terms of leadership, who do people follow? The guy who's got good ideas but is not quite sure of himself, or the guy who tells you it's going to be insanely great?
If you mean Steve Wozniak, he's a great engineer, but he's not charismatic like Steve Jobs, and that's part of why he kind of faded into the background. Most people know who Steve Jobs is, but not Steve Wozniak.
How are we, men, supposed to take these articles seriously when we have so many examples of how bad it is to share our feelings?
Look at the character assassination of Stallman last week. He shared his feelings with some women, and look at what happened to him. If he had not communicated his desire to date some of these women, and not communicated his feelings about the confusing ethics (in his mind) surrounding sexual norms, he'd still be the leader of the FSF.
Instead, he (stupidly) did share how he was feeling about something, and did it publically, and look at what happened to him.
I'm sure every single man posting on this website has an example of a time when they shared how they were feeling, or were vulnerable, to some women, and had it blow up in their face. I have.
These articles, written by women, telling men to be more self destructive are ridiculous, and certainly feel like they have an agenda.
In this particular case, I'm not sure if it would have made a difference in the end (him resigning). But had he shared his feelings adequately, I suspect a lot more people would be defending him now than they are. Had he shown empathy towards the trafficked woman, while still presenting the very view he did have, it would have been more challenging to attack him.
Is it crappy that you can't express your views without showing empathy and then be judged for it? Definitely. But this is nothing new, and not unique to our age. Wishing for things to be different is wishing for humans to be otherwise.
Is it crappy that in an academic setting one cannot discuss things objectively without invoking feelings and get burnt because of it? Yes. But this wasn't that situation. One side was very clearly not having an academic conversation, but a very emotionally loaded one (protesting). It was Stallman's mistake in treating that situation like any other academic one.
Demonstrating empathy[1] is a key aspect of a relationship. Validating someone's feelings (without agreeing with their narrative) is central to demonstrating empathy. Unfortunately, the common mistake people make is assuming that validating one's feelings means you agree with the story in their heads - it doesn't.
I would often be upset with the way the world was. My having a discussion about X doesn't mean I agree with X or advocate for it. Yet people may view me as a horrible person for it. I'm just trying to have an academic discussion, and exploring ideas, damn it! Isn't that what fiction does? Etc.
But once I learned the dynamics behind all this, I couldn't help and look back at my earlier life and realize I did not behave all that different. Indeed it was easy to find examples where I listened more to one side because of their behavior (showed empathy, discussed instead of debated, etc). It wasn't that I didn't weigh different perspectives objectively - it was that I didn't listen as much to one side as the other. And I've realized I haven't met anyone who is perfect at dispassionately looking at all sides regardless of who is advocating for them. Understanding the factors that go into play will make you better at being able to listen to all sides so you can evaluate them objectively.
Showing empathy with the person whose view you find offensive/wrong is going to make it easier for you to understand their perspective and not let your own emotions get in the way. It will help the other person not be defensive, sarcastic, etc. These are things that bring about strong emotions and eliminating them from the other will help them explain their perspective better.
So yes, it does suck - but it's the same type of suckiness as the existence of bacterial diseases or the fact that I'll starve if I don't eat. Dwelling on it is futile.
[0] Note I said demonstrating empathy, not feeling or having empathy. I don't doubt Stallman has empathy for the trafficked person. Sadly, it's not what you know but what you can show.
I'm sure every single man posting on this website has an example of a time when they shared how they were feeling, or were vulnerable, to some women, and had it blow up in their face. I have.
Yes, but you're not allowed to talk about it, lest you be branded some sort of MRA or incel terrorist. Best bet is to keep your head down and ignore reality. "Lived experience" is only a valid data point for them, not us. For us, citation is needed. And sociology departments won't bother investigating.
Put another way: The well-known and obvious phenomenon of women losing respect for a man who shows weakness is Broscience - true, accurate, correct, corroborated thoroughly through tens of thousands of stories and lived experience, but because there's no PubMed listing, your arguments are useless.
I think some of the articles recommend you find some good guys to talk to in a private setting, rather than posting things on your doorplate at a university, for instance. Talk with some good guy friends first if you think having sex with 14-year-olds is ok, and perhaps they'll give you some feedback so you don't have to hash it out on the public stage.
Having sex with a 14 year old person is completely ok in a lot of countries, including places like Germany & Italy [1], with no pedophilia panic going on.
I live in Sweden where the age of consent is 15. On paper it's technically legal for me (35 years old) to have sex with a 15 year old.
Almost everyone in society would castigate me if I actually went ahead and did that, some going so far as to call me a pedophile but definitely labeling me a creep going after children.
What are you basing this on? Is there wide-spread castigating going on in Sweden that would lead you to think this? I certainly agree that laws don't always match what people think, e.g. laws helping same-sex couples in countries where public polling goes against it. However laws in a well operated democracy generally seem to match either public opinion or a lobbied interest. Which makes me wonder, why do you think the law allows for it in Sweden? Is someone with deep pockets lobbying for it? Is the law so obscure in Sweden that the general population doesn't know it exists? To me as a neighbor Sweden seems to be quite progressive in allowing sexual variety.
I'm basing it on personal experience, so it's anecdotal. When the topic is discussed (because it does happen), everyone speaks out against it.
It's not an obscure law at all, everyone is well aware of it and we've even got a colloquialism for it so there's no chance this is something the lawmakers tried to slip by us.
The law exists because 15 year olds want to have sex with each other, and penalizing that is crazy.
A late reply, to be sure, but I was reminded to check back by the new article about RMS on the front page now.
The point (in this discussion about talking about feelings with friends and supportive others) is not to discuss sex with underage people. The point is that you can hash things out with your friends and get some perspective on how widely you feel you need to share. Somehow I have friends with whom I can discuss my thoughts on who should have sex with whom, and thus I do not need to bring it to a public stage or a professional stage. This saves me a lot of trouble.
Wikipedia is terrible when it talks about English law.
It gets the UK entry pretty seriously wrong. The age of consent is 16, unless one of the people is in a position of authority over the other (where authority is defined in law and covers things like teachers) when it's 18; prostitution is legal in England but definitely not if the person is under 18.
> Any person who engages in sexual intercourse with a person under the age 16 could be prosecuted. However this therefore means that even sexual intercourse between willing people of a similar age (i.e. A 16 year old and a 15 year old) could result in the older person being liable for prosecution for committing a sexual offence. Because of this, when the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was created, separate sections of the act were put in place to be used on how to appropriately prosecute a person who had sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 16, depending on exactly how young a person under the age of 16 was at time the sexual intercourse took place. This therefore maintained a "two-tier" cut off age system regarding sexual intercourse when it involved a person under the age of 16. Currently this depends on whether a younger person was Under 16 or Under 13 at the time of the sexual intercourse taking place, with the latter being automatically overall illegal, and the former still being illegal, but with defences due to the younger person's older age, more flexibility in sentencing and flexibility overall whether to prosecute or not based on individual case
This is incorrect.
The different ages exist in law because too many abusing men were claiming that they honestly thought that the 12 year old they had abused was a willing 16 year old.
The law removes this dishonest defence by adding this 13 year limit. We want the law to adequately capture the seriousness of the offence of rape of a child.
The reason we don't prosecute 15 year olds who have sex with each other has nothing to do with this two-step age limit: it is because our crown prosecution service has to ask two questions: "Is there a reasonable prospect of a conviction?" and "is it in the public interest to prosecute?". It's not in the public interest to prosecute children for having sex with each other so long as there's no element of coercion or force.
> The overriding public concern is to protect children. It was not Parliament's intention to punish children unnecessarily or for the criminal law to intervene where it is wholly inappropriate. During the passage of the bill, Lord Falconer said:
> "Our overriding concern is to protect children, not to punish them unnecessarily. Where sexual relationships between minors are not abusive, prosecuting either or both children is highly unlikely to be in the public interest. Nor would it be in the best interests of the child ..."
There are many problems with your argument, but I’d like to focus on the fact that your understanding of the definition of The Patriarchy is wrong.
From Wikipedia[0]:
> Patriarchy is a social system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property.
How many female presidents have we had here in the USA? What percentage of Fortune 500 CEOs are women?
If society were structured that way (or if it had been), then probably. But there are notably fewer people who are against matriarchy for, I reason, the fact that matriarchal society has not been prevalent in the history of civilization and it isn't today. Most philosophers who are against patriarchy would argue that patriarchy is bad because of its power relations, not some mystical "innate badness" of the male sex. As such, their criticisms would likely apply to matriarchy too.
The majority of college grads are women. The majority of lower-class and blue collar workers are men. Depression and suicide rates are significantly higher for men than women. Nearly all workplace deaths and injuries occur to men. The fact that a small percentage of men are highly competitive and enterprising in a way that puts them in the top does not mean that our social system somehow coddles men or gives them power without reason, which is what the Patriarchy implies.
The college grad ratio is a relatively new phenomenon, and more women live in poverty than men IIRC. Your point about depression and suicide is well-taken, and is an excellent example of what groups like those outlined in the article are trying to address. Patriarchy isn’t good for men and bad for women. It’s bad for men and women, just in different ways. For men, it results in “toxic masculinity” where you get the message (like half the men in this thread) that you have to be stoic and “take care of yourself” so you repress everything as best you can. But that doesn’t work, and violence, depression, and suicide are predictable outcomes.
This condescending comment ("whatever negative things happen to you", "more complicated than that, dear") ignores at decades of research in sociology, critical theory and political philosophy - which, at the very least, say that concerns about the effects of gender in the structure of society cannot be so easily dismissed.
>but rather with one single factor-- some ethereal 00.00001% group of conspiratorial, ostensibly straight white old men
This is not what "patriarchy" or "the patriarchy" refers to in any academic text. What you're saying is more akin to an anti-male conspiracy theory. The claim is not that there is a group of conspiratorial men in charge, or even men with bad intentions. You can read the most rudimentary details of the theory at Wikipedia[0] or at the highly regarded Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[1].
I'm not a strict adherent to the theory myself, but I think it's worth pointing out when a claim as to what the word means and what the theorists say is obviously wrong.
(Side note: it's curious how my comment, in line with current research and citing respected sources, is downvoted by people who don't bother to engage with the arguments themselves.)
Having grounding in nature doesn't mean that it ought to be kept around though. Lots of harmful stuff is grounded in nature, and lots of amazing and good things have no grounding in nature. We have to examine everything and decide if it's worth keeping around regardless of the source.
Sure, but I think you'll find a lot of people are more than happy to drop the idea that only boys can play with toycars and only girls can play with dolls, and that if a girl like toycars she isn't "behaving like she should".
It's not a matter of the number of people who think (after all, there are a great number of people believing climate change isn't real and that the earth is flat) but the arguments which are presented. If someone has made an argument to the effect that gender is harmful enough to not be worth keeping around, then you can respond to that argument. However, not all opponents of the patriarchy argue that gender itself shouldn't be kept around. In fact, that's quite a niche position.
I don't understand the point of this article, it comes across to me as sheltered people with too much spare time maundering over petty, victimhood-ology nothingburgers. First responders and third-world climate refugees have real trauma to deal with compared to the petty whining and whinging of sub/urban white-collar employees who don't know how good they have it.
Unfortunately, the stigma regarding men sharing feelings is prevalent in western society, and it's not only the men causing it. When I told several female friends about the work they did, their response was: "Are they gay?"