What happened to the noble art of the manly cry?
aeon.co
aeon.co
Some cultures still show a lot of emotion and have a lot of physical contact (e.g. Turks). People in these cultures also tend to stand much closer when talking. Put a Western European or North American in their midst and he'll feel very uncomfortable. Showing strong emotions is also generally more acceptable in these cultures. I may have fist pumped a couple times when my team won the Stanley Cup, but I've seen Turks do cartwheels, flop on the ground in hysterics, get up and start hugging everyone in the room because their soccer team won a quarter-final!
So, what happened? Why, in less than a century, did we become so aloof and restrained? Homophobia may be one possible reason. If two men unconsciously stand too close to each other while looking at the same thing someone (a woman did this to me once) will exclaim "ARE YOU TWO GAY!??". Physical contact, sharing emotions, etc. are things that, in the last century, have become off-limits for heterosexual men, and women enforce this as much as men do despite the fact that the same standard does not apply to women.
The psychological effects of this on men are probably not good. It's something that we should honestly make an effort to reverse, but how do we do so? What are things going to be like in another century if we don't?
>Homophobia may be one possible reason. If two men unconsciously stand too close to each other while looking at the same thing someone (a woman did this to me once) will exclaim "ARE YOU TWO GAY!??".
Is that really fear of homosexuals? Or more a heterosexual desire to appear available. Even among other males who make those "accusations", the counter-reaction to not appear gay is also an attempt to appear available to women and not decrease your odds of that (you don't want false rumors to spread).
To me "ARE YOU TWO GAY!??" is more flamboyant curiosity than a homophobic behavioral condemnation.
More seriously: you reverse things one step at the time. Creating awareness and correcting media would be the first step I think.
Maybe the "advantageous" solution is for more people to gain more control over their emotions and learn to mitigate the negative effects of fewer outward expressions. The article claims English speaking men have only learned to do this in the last few hundred years, but it seems to coincide with exponentially increasing size and power of that group.
Moreover, own little tech industry seems to be much less expressive than the industries that we are supplanting and replacing. And frankly, I think that lowered emotional availability is attractive to many of our most talented members and promotes their success.
Causality probably runs the other way around. The author suggests a plausible mechanism for this massive cultural shift: factory owners and managers discouraging emotional display in the name of productivity. Do you have an alternative viewpoint?
Your statement that lower emotional availability (relative to contemporary office culture) is attractive and beneficial seems counterintuitive to me. So much of our work is done in teams that it seems the stereotypical inscrutable, unapproachable engineer personality is more of a liability. How would you define 'emotional availability', and what makes less of it attractive?
It's not so much an intentional but a side effect of mass production where goods sold are dependent on regular consumption. No regular consumption within tolerances then no goods produced. Men are no less victim to the structure of production than any other demographic. Only the richest members of society may be free to live what we think of today as eclectic life styles (where consumption is a tertiary concern).
Is it better to be in world where the CEOs are wearing power suits, crying, and throwing things to negotiate better and the engineers have to keep up, or a world where few emotions are expressed and the CEOs dress down so they don't upset the engineers?
I don't think that management all got together one day put out a memo to say no emotions at work, because they felt like it. This article doesn't address that low expression has to be actually beneficial or the stoic Northern Europe / North American economy would not have become dominant over more Southern Europe / global south, which was probably a bigger economy at the time the article identifies as the start of the emotion suppression shift.
edit: Please explain the downvotes, I'm trying to offer a more scientific explanation.
edit:
>and think it's a sign of sanity
Right, only OP is sane. Men who don't cry are lunatics.