Hacker News Reader

Comment by curun1r | Hacker News Reader

I think you're right about society's role, but I see a much more pernicious tendency that I think damages boys and, eventually, men. Society teaches boys to bottle up their feelings. "Be a man" means be strong, and don't show emotion. Crying is a sign of weakness. And god forbid you talk about your emotions...that's a female thing.

But the thing is, those activities are what allow us to be vulnerable and what allow us to bond with others. The more you suppress those urges, the more you end up feeling alone. And loneliness is perhaps the most understandable cause of suicide I can think of.

We need to stop sending this message to young boys. It's okay to express your feelings. It's okay to be vulnerable. You don't have to simply grit your teeth and toughen up to endure whatever is bothering you.

View on HN

My experience has taught me the opposite. My grandfather and father were never taught to express feelings. Both were products of their time and circumstances. And there is nothing wrong with that. Both were successful in life despite the odds being stacked against them.

I do not have children. I would not have a clue how to raise a girl, but if I had a boy, I would be teaching him stoical techniques to dealing with problems, not today's 'share your feelings' approach.

(I am not in anyway telling you how to raise your children, just sharing my opinion as a man.)

I just don't see any evidence that the West's in vogue approach to teaching boys and young men to be "in touch with their feelings" is helping them in anyway. They are not happier. They are not more successful (in life). They are depressed.

The stoics taught that most of what we think are problems, are not in fact problems. And the things that are problems are generally not in our capacity to change and therefore probably not worth worrying about.

Society tells us that every little thing is worth being upset about. We are conditioned to even be outraged on other people's behalf over what really amounts to nothing (think every single twitter shitstorm ever). We are told to pick at scabs until they are bleeding, then pick some more. The theory being that if we pick deep enough we will end up in a state of emotional healing/enlightenment and we will feeling better for it. I don't buy it.

You are conflating two different things. Stoical calm isn't just silence, it's silence when the situation calls for such, when making your voice known cannot improve things. Engagement in communication is encouraged if it is believed to lead to good outcomes(although how "good" is defined is left more ambiguous). Stoic silence works best when it's used to be a good listener.

In comparison, masculine silence of the "strong silent" form, which occurs frequently in my family, and even myself, acts to reinforce existing privileges - it leads to excessive maintenance of a self-assured, unflappable image, not betraying weakness or answering to anyone, even when you need to ask questions, share responsibility for a problem, or should collaborate and submit to a group policy on behavior. It's ultimately built on the kind of anxiety over one's role described in the article, and it's a major penalty to healthy communication within the family, because it creates a stagnant bubble of "shall-not-be-challenged" behavior and outlook.

I'm actively working to disentangle the two within my own life. I've had the listening part down pretty well for a while. I had to learn when my responses were turning into image-asserting judgments, explanations that were unasked for, and other communication-blockers. I still have some trouble asking for things. I still have plenty to learn about when to become more engaged and active.

There's a HUGE difference between "don't sweat the small stuff" and "keep your feelings to yourself".

All of those things you mention are of the former, not the latter category.

One can be stoic and unconcerned with the problems the world throws at you but still connect to people on an emotional level. This is something older generations of my extended family absolutely failed at, due mostly to old-fashioned englishness, and now the younger generations feel few emotional bonds between ourselves and have basically dispersed.

It's OK to be a tough man who can take it on the chin, and also to admit you love your friends and family.

It's OK to be a tough man who can take it on the chin, and also to admit you love your friends and family.

Stoicism has nothing to do with being unable to express love/affection?

I'm not up on the finer points of stoicism as its defined in a dictionary or as a philosophical movement but ... I guess that's what I'm trying to get across, yup!

You can do both: be stoic and also be able to discuss your weaknesses. See toughness as a virtue, but not pursue it to a fault.

They are often at odds, when the pressure to discuss your feelings is external.

Many times in my life people around me have pressured me to express how I feel about some recent event. I often resist this for a number of reasons. I might consider my feelings towards the matter to be deeply personal and private. I may realize that my feelings toward the matter will, if vocalized, cause distress to others. I may not have strong feelings at all, and expressing that may cause distress to others. Sometimes I just have nothing at all to say, and my insistence that I have no thoughts on the matter is taken as me being resistant to share what I think.

Summer camps when I was a teenager, the deaths of distant relatives, and the suicides of classmates that I did not know well are common places to the later examples.

I just need to ruminate on things sometimes, anyone who tries to get me to "open up" is just going to prolong the process by not allowing me to examine and/or get to a spot emotionally where I'm able to accept whatever it is I'm dealing with.

Everybody's brain is wired differently (and infused with a different cocktail of chemicals).

For me, controlling my emotions brings a sense of inner calm -- happiness. There is nothing better than thinking with a clear head, without being dogged by feelings of anger, anxiety, jealousy, fear or sadness.

Often happiness, thrill, arousal is better than thinking with a clear head.

Are they? To me it seems obvious that if one is seeking those emotions actively, then one will be disappointed or worse if they prove unattainable.

For whatever reason, be it psychological or physiological, it is clear that humans cannot maintain a perpetual high. The serotonin is expended, the stimulant wears off, unhealthy dependencies on emotional states are created. An even keel is worth any number of highs in my opinion. The goal should not be an emotion or a high-water mark, but rather to make progress. Progress is tangible, you can hang your hat on it and be proud of it, and most importantly it's available to you no matter how poor your circumstances or station in life are.

Happiness is found by peace in your own reflection. Be happy where you are, with what you have, with who you are. It's not attained by anything further than this. Arousal feels good, but that's not happiness. Thrill feels good, but it's not happiness. These things are distractions, like drugs, hobbies, work. Happiness is contentment within the moment and delight in what the moment brings.

The issue is that 'Better' is a subjective term.

I don't enjoy wild swings of emotion and the loss of control that often accompanies; so level-headed and clear thinking are better for me.

They feel better in the moment, but result in dumber decisions. So they're a lot like alcohol.

> It's okay to express your feelings. It's okay to be vulnerable.

I've thought about this a lot, and I'm afraid its not that simple. In competitive, male societies where a certain bluntness is socially accepted, you cannot unilaterally change the rules. You'll be a welcome victim to the schoolyard bullies. You'll be setting up your son for psychological damage.

Having friends, doing sports, enjoying nature, taking care of your appearance etc. are probably more effective in balancing a boy's psychology.

If you don't have a cute girl's pretty face, nobody will white-knight on your behalf or care about your feelings - instead, people will be embarrassed.

I can't believe you're serious.

If you disagree, please elaborate - its hard to have a discussion based on expressions of moral outrage.

My statement seems controversial, and was at one point even downvoted below zero. I'd be interested to hear the counter-arguments, but alas, the HN downvote-to-disagree anti-pattern is in full effect, so I'll never know.

I said what I said because it reflects the experiences that I've made. Of all the people I can think of, including me, those that got tougher and worked hard on improving themselves, changed their lives for the better. If there is another way, I haven't seen it yet.

In the end, you can only adapt to the society you live in, or must choose to live elsewhere. Becoming an outsider or moving to the woods is an adaption, too. There is a wide range of norms and cultures worldwide, and those with a very masculine culture (e.g. Japan) are often economically successful, but can be harsh on men due to the competitive pressure.

An aspect of this problem is that society not only teaches people how to behave, but defines expected behavior. If a man defy those expectations and do seek help at a psychiatrist, a documented problem is that he won't be taken serious. Male patients get often too little or no medical support, while female patients suffer from over medication and forced hospitalization.

Beyond this, if knowledge is leaked that the man is seeking help, he will lose respect in the eyes of his peers, likely making any existing problems worse. Also, there is the issue of ones psychological health being used against them (such as some people wanting to restrict one's job or rights based on their diagnosed mental health).

There is two sides to this equation. Men need to be taught to express their emotions, but society needs to be taught to be just as accepting of a man who expresses his emotions as one who is stoic, if not more accepting. As it stands, you can teach men to express their emotions all you want, but as long as the stoic man is valued more, we are going to have problems.

Part of the issue is the question of who moves first - individual or society. A man who expresses his emotions, in a society where this is not valued or honored, is going to lose social status. I would not want to teach my son to be that "first man" and take that risk.

Additionally, the specific emotions being expressed matter a lot. I would lose a lot more respect for a man if I saw him crying inappropriately in a business situation (assuming the situation didn't warrant it) as opposed to if I saw him get angry and shout inappropriately.

There is a cost of the man to move first. There isn't a cost for society to be more accepting. Seems like society should move first.

No, just no. You're asking people to act weak and unstable. You're promoting a path that leads to unconscious confidence in decisions you make.

Every decision is wrong, but it's your job as the one who has their shit together in the shit-storm to choose the least fucked up choice.

Expressing emotions doesn't imply weakness or instability.

The problem is that socially it is seen as doing such even if it doesn't actually.

When society is wrong about something, we make progress when those who know better act to change things.

It's OK to be vulnerable, but it is equally OK to master your emotions and and be tough. I prefer the latter route.

The problem is that it quite often isn't actually safe for men to be vulnerable, or share painful feelings yet.

So long as the 'stoic' lack of words isn't an obvious-to-all sullen pout, I can't think of a reason anyone would react negatively to someone who fronts satisfaction in a group setting. Rather, it's over-sharing and over-complaining that will repulse (except in the mutual dance of [platonic or otherwise] intimacy+trust).

I feel like the notion that society teaches boys to bottle up their feelings is more of a myth the internet perpetuates than a reflection of reality.

We don't send these messages to boys. The messages we send is that they should be ashamed just for being boys, and atone for the sins (actual and perceived) of their fathers by being subservient and expecting to be shot down when they try to assert themselves.

This was maybe a useful message ten, twenty years ago.

The problem is that, honestly, a lot of these feelings are messy. They aren't expressions of weakness, they aren't some magical key used to unlock progress, they're not even something that's easily sympathized with.

They can be the white-hot anger of being pulled off a project or ignored for the nth time in class or being made fun of. They can be the bubbling cold black rage of being forced to work on something only to have it stunted at every turn by bad management or being shunned by members of the preferred gender for whatever reason. They can be the bright flash of joy and uncontainable exuberance of having pulled off the impossible on deadline or winning a hard contest.

The point is, in all those cases, boys and men who express their feelings honestly and openly are considered creeps, weirdos, crazy, or unprofessional.

So, no, the problem isn't that they keep these feelings bottled up--it's instead that, when they're honest and open in their passion, people become uncomfortable and afraid or inconvenienced. We celebrate the passionate man, in the abstract, but you bet your ass it's never made things better in the day-to-day.

In fact, we tend to double-down on this nonsense, and so punish the behaviors (sparring, yelling, cursing, whatever) that would formerly be used to defuse the feelings in young folks until they realize such things are counterproductive, and bait-n-switch them.

The idea men should express themselves combined with the limits on socially acceptable expression have always been a strong indicator to me that "men showing emotion" isn't about men showing emotion.

The social limits on expression aren't even based on a laughably bad interpretation of "heathy" expression. It straight up means to continue conforming like you always have, but additionally cry and show emotional weakness when socially cued to do so.

And you expected different? Social life is a game of shared expectations and showing you understand when to lie and not to, how to act by the rules for children and when to break them. Most moral discussion is posturing, just as most social discussion is an attempt to score political points.

And you expected different?

Nope, just agreeing with angersock without wearing my misanthropy on my sleeve.

I'm going to have to fundamentally disagree with you. those activities are NOT what allow males to bond with others. it is OK to show emotion, but not vulnerability or weakness. male friendship and bonding is orthogonally different from female friendship and bonding.

source: personal experience. all of my male friends and I bond through good natured ribbing of eachother. all of my female friends and I bond through shared good emotional experiences.

As a male.. all that "good natured ribbing" really made my life a lot more terrible. Once i finally got new friends who didn't do that, then things went a lot better. I was finally able to be myself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com