It’s All Right to Cry, Dude | Hacker News Reader

It’s All Right to Cry, Dude

nytimes.com

21 pointspetethomas17 comments

It's not just crying that men have a tough time doing.

I'd never had an American male friend I could talk about feelings with. I'm sure they exist, but they're rare.

In Denmark, I make dinner with male friends. Just two of us. Making dinner. And we talk about women, and about feelings.

One even lit a candle once, because that's cozier.

Sound gay? I thought so too.

That was my problem that I had to get over.

Congratulations on overcoming your problem.

Not crying is merely a symptom of a larger problem of hiding one's feelings, much less talk about it.

It is more important to be aware of the ongoing feelings and understand their operation (self-awareness leads to change). Moreover it is not necessary to gushingly express those emotions -- like those SNAGs and feminal men[1] do -- especially as the social context is all against men expressing vulnerability.

In my opinion, this is the single greatest boulder that men as a whole need to get over. If we do not understand our emotions, we will never understand how other people manipulate those emotions to get what they want.

[1] Chinweizu wrote in "The Anatomy of Female Power": The modern musho (the new or feminal man) is one of that breed of diffident men who have been bullied, guilt-tripped, ego-bashed and penis-twisted into pram pushing, diaper changing and breast envy. He is the befuddled, henpecked male who lacks the wit to recognizee his male interest. He is one of those male wives of female husbands who have been described, in Julie Burchill's apt phrases, as the "bleeding hearts" and "crying males" who make up "the walking wounded" of the modern sex war. The more articulate musho even becomes a missionary for his hen's anti-male views. This pathetic wimp is, quite naturally, hailed by feminists as the "new man".

I'm glad that male crying is socially acceptable because it is a healthy thing to do and should have never been a male/female differentiator.

So much of our society is formed by what we see on TV which has caused some of these problems. When I saw John Wayne as a child I thought, "I want to be like that". When I saw Bill Cosby as Cliff Huxtable, I then wanted to be that kind of person. Then I wanted to be Colombo and so on.

TV today is very confusing. Is it any wonder young adults are so confused when the TV that has raised them says, "you can be anything you want. You can be a boy today and tomorrow a girl. Your gender is fluid!" And this from people who don't know what a boy or girl should be to begin with! How in the world can you then suggest to them that they can be both?

The beauty of the human experience is our differences, not our sameness. I meet more and more women that I can not tell what they are. They are dressed like Tim the toolman. Then you see men dressed up exactly like a women: long hair and a dress on!

Wouldn't it be nice if we could appreciate each other instead of requiring the roles to change and then call that progress? Find the common ground, enjoy the differences, celebrate each others humanity.

>I'm glad that male crying is socially acceptable because it is a healthy thing to do and should have never been a male/female differentiator.

Outside of celebrity, it's not: that's why articles like this are written about it.

should have never been a male/female differentiator.

Sorry, you'll have to take up that one with the big guy upstairs. The truth is, if you cry, women will be less attracted to you. They will think you are nice and sweet and they will laud your ability to show your emotions. But they will not want to f--k you. Women are attracted to strength and command.

Crying is in fact a symptom of weakness. Your brain only sends you the crying signal for things that are outside your control - a death, a failed harvest, getting fired, getting dumped, etc. Crying is the programmed tactic for woman and children who can only get what they want by convincing someone stronger than them to help them out.

I agree that TV/Movies are a terrible way to learn how to be a man. The worst for me were the sweet-nerd-guy-gets-the-hot-girl-by-being-sweet movies of the 90's (Can't Hardly Wait, Ten Things I Hate About You, etc). That never happens in real life and messed me up. The genetics of attraction have not changed in the past few hundred years, so it makes no sense to keep changing the messaging.

>The worst for me were the sweet-nerd-guy-gets-the-hot-girl-by-being-sweet movies of the 90's

I thought those movies were "sweet nerd girl gets the hot guy by being secretly hot"?

You seem to have some very absolute beliefs (eg. Women are attracted to strength and command; crying is in fact a symptom of weakness, etc. etc). How do you justify them?

I thought those movies were "sweet nerd girl gets the hot guy by being secretly hot"?

There were those too, there were both types of movies.

You seem to have some very absolute beliefs (eg. Women are attracted to strength and command; crying is in fact a symtom of weakness, etc. etc). How do you justify them?

A bunch of life experience; trading stories and confessions with male and female friends over drinks; reading lots of books, ranging from bios and famous literature to books by dating coaches to books on the science of genes and evolution. My statements were slightly blunt and simplified. But I think that as broad generalizations, they are pretty bloody obvious if you just pay attention in life.

"Sorry, you'll have to take up that one with the big guy upstairs. The truth is, if you cry, women will be less attracted to you. They will think you are nice and sweet and they will laud your ability to show your emotions. But they will not want to f--k you. Women are attracted to strength and command."

Forgive me for the harsh response, but what absolutely sexist bs.

I am sure there exist some women are exactly how you described. But saying "women are" attracted to one thing or another is just as stupid as describing all men as slobbering idiots who only like blondes or all italians as plumbers obsessed with hopping on goombas.

The John Stewart/John Boehner example is particularly apt, because it's not even uncommon for progressives to perpetuate this, even when they're trying to fight it. To wit, it used to be that there were negative gay stereotypes. In an ideal world we would stop stereotyping particular people as gay or having "gay" behavior. But instead we've just taken some of the negative gay stereotypes and recast them as positive. I have progressive friends that never, _ever_ fail to characterize male intimacy or physical closeness as "gay" for the purposes of showing how OK they are with it. Example, Olympics "gay bobsled": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iAwO7FN15E People loved this stupid video.

You can see it at funerals. I have been to funerals in Eastern Europe and people are not afraid to cry, some would wail and cry in a way that would disturb the sensiblities of many in US.

In US everythig is sterile and constrained. I remember one man started crying loudly and everyone after was making comments about him afterwards "Oh was he on drugs, what was wrong with him". It was so unusual to them that they assume his mind of altered somehow. That was so disturbing to hear for me. But it is a stereotypical example if you wish.

I also somehow I found issues related to a person's passing linger longer in US on average (just from observing relatives on both sides), grief gets "bottled up", and then has longer term effects.

I think context matters alot as well. Who,Where etc matters quite a bit. I remember when one of my old supervisors was laid off, he just broke down and wept.He was 50+ and just a family guy. The secretaries were gossiping about how weak and unmanly he was for weeks. I have a tough time believing the tolerance for crying and other behaviors is the same for celebrities and rich people vs normal people in the grind.

They're really doubling down on the whole "the way to be a man is to act like a stereotype of an effete new york times reporter" shtick.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/02/fashion/mens-style/27-ways...

Seriously. The amount of "2+2=5" type writing in the New York Times is truly incredible.

That was an odd list. Maybe it was sarcastic as others have pointed out? He first lists that the modern man sleeps on the side of the bed nearest the door so that he can try to fight off intruders. Then later on he says he has absolutely no use for a gun and never will. I hope that intruder he's fighting isn't armed or a lot bigger/stronger/better-at-fighting than he is.

He also knows which women's shoe brands run small and large? How often is he buying his wife shoes?

Oh, he'll just call the cops to do his dirty work, don'cha know! The modern man doesn't believe in the 9+ minute response time of the 'average' police department, and would never deign to live in an area where the PD response is measured in hours (hello, Detroit!). The modern man will peaceably talk his intruder into a hearty early breakfast (or late night dinner) while waiting for the fuzz to arrive.

/s, in case anyone was curious.

The 'modern man' feels self reliance is antiquated and passé.

I sincerely hope that article is sarcastic.

It reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHoMDO9SGrw

A list of contradicting expectations of ridiculous perfection that men are supposed to be.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com