Female tears and the patriarchy

[Donnadogsoth]

So, I've noticed something about the women around me, that I've met in life or are related to, and it's that they tend to visibly cry more often than do the men in my life, including myself.  I gather, that feminism's patriarchy theory explains this by saying that women are encouraged by the culture to cry, and men are encouraged to suppress crying.

 

The problem with this is, how to do you encourage anyone to cry? That is, to cry more often than otherwise?  Crying is sort of an all-or-nothing thing.  Either you cry or you don't.  How can propaganda encourage this?  I suppose you could perceive a tear-jerking movie or listen to sad songs, but will this really foster in someone a tendency to cry at other times?  Do mothers and fathers really instill in their daughters an expectation that they should cry more often than their sons?  How could this possibly instill the necessary emotional responses needed to weep?

 

Could the explanation simply be that women are more emotionally volatile than men, and this explains their tendency to cry more often visibly than men?

[Mister Mister]

So, I've noticed something about the women around me, that I've met in life or are related to, and it's that they tend to visibly cry more often than do the men in my life, including myself.  I gather, that feminism's patriarchy theory explains this by saying that women are encouraged by the culture to cry, and men are encouraged to suppress crying.

 

The problem with this is, how to do you encourage anyone to cry? That is, to cry more often than otherwise?  Crying is sort of an all-or-nothing thing.  Either you cry or you don't.  How can propaganda encourage this?  I suppose you could perceive a tear-jerking movie or listen to sad songs, but will this really foster in someone a tendency to cry at other times?  Do mothers and fathers really instill in their daughters an expectation that they should cry more often than their sons?  How could this possibly instill the necessary emotional responses needed to weep?

 

Could the explanation simply be that women are more emotionally volatile than men, and this explains their tendency to cry more often visibly than men?

It's hard to say how much of this is biological and how much is emotional.  But I think you're asking the wrong question.  It's natural for people to cry when they are upset or overwhelmed - it's not that people encourage this more in girls, but that they discourage it more in boys.  I've heard of several studies that show a woman will respond to a crying girl 3 or 4 times faster than a crying boy.  Later they may hear things like "don't be so sensitive", "man up", "you pussy", etc....So through neglect, shame, and so on, boys learn early on that crying won't earn them sympathy or positive attention, and they don't use this as a strategy anymore. 

  The biological aspect of it is also significant.  Men have more of a tendency/capacity to compartmentalize thoughts and feelings than women.  In other words, if there is a crisis, men tend to be able to put aside their fear and anxiety, and deal with the problem at hand, whereas women tend to look for emotional validation.  This can be seen as a knock on women, but it is not - women need the support of the community for their children to survive, and men are more disposable, and tend to look for solutions in the moment, and process their emotions later.

[Donnadogsoth]

It's hard to say how much of this is biological and how much is emotional.  But I think you're asking the wrong question.  It's natural for people to cry when they are upset or overwhelmed - it's not that people encourage this more in girls, but that they discourage it more in boys.  I've heard of several studies that show a woman will respond to a crying girl 3 or 4 times faster than a crying boy.  Later they may hear things like "don't be so sensitive", "man up", "you pussy", etc....So through neglect, shame, and so on, boys learn early on that crying won't earn them sympathy or positive attention, and they don't use this as a strategy anymore. 

  The biological aspect of it is also significant.  Men have more of a tendency/capacity to compartmentalize thoughts and feelings than women.  In other words, if there is a crisis, men tend to be able to put aside their fear and anxiety, and deal with the problem at hand, whereas women tend to look for emotional validation.  This can be seen as a knock on women, but it is not - women need the support of the community for their children to survive, and men are more disposable, and tend to look for solutions in the moment, and process their emotions later.

 

Hmm.  Do you think women would respond as well as men do to being told "don't be so sensitive," etc.?

 

Or, is telling a man to "man up" playing to his type, and comforting a woman playing to her type?  If we tell men to bawl freely and tell women to stop being pussies, would we end up with women with compartmentalised thoughts and feelings as much as old-fashioned men had, and men seeking emotional validation as much as old-fashioned women had?  Or would the sexes completely equalise?  My questions come down to whether or not there are psychological/emotional types that men and women tend to express respectively.

[Kurtis]

 Do you think women would respond as well as men do to being told "don't be so sensitive," etc.?

 

 

Are you implying that it is beneficial for men to be told this?

[Donnadogsoth]

Are you implying that it is beneficial for men to be told this?

 

"Do you think women would respond as well as men do to being told "don't be so sensitive," etc.?"

 

Here, I am using "well" to mean "efficacious."

[Mister Mister]

"Do you think women would respond as well as men do to being told "don't be so sensitive," etc.?"

 

Here, I am using "well" to mean "efficacious."

I don't think that answers his question.  When you talk about people like that, especially children, in this context, you are referring to people as a means not an ends.  Of course this is how most people see children, what Stef described in a recent call-in show as a vessel to transfer culture from one generation to the next, not as an individual with thoughts and feelings and needs and so on.

 

 

Hmm.  Do you think women would respond as well as men do to being told "don't be so sensitive," etc.?

 

Or, is telling a man to "man up" playing to his type, and comforting a woman playing to her type?  If we tell men to bawl freely and tell women to stop being pussies, would we end up with women with compartmentalised thoughts and feelings as much as old-fashioned men had, and men seeking emotional validation as much as old-fashioned women had?  Or would the sexes completely equalise?  My questions come down to whether or not there are psychological/emotional types that men and women tend to express respectively.

This still gets to the question as to how much of what we think of as "gender" is biological and how much is social.  Fundamentally I'm not sure that it matters from a parenting standpoint.  The two extremes you are talking about, are verbal abuse, and a kind of pathological coddling, which in the extremes create brutes and narcissists.  As I mentioned before, this is done to produce cattle who will serve their role in the culture, rather than what is really best for the child's health and happiness.  Where you are coming from I think, is a perspective common in both religion and statism, which is that the needs and desires of the individual is somehow at odds with the "society".

 

Rather than "playing to his type", I think you ought to treat boys and girls as sovereign individuals, and respond to their particular needs and preferences.  At the same time, as a society we should recognize the general differences between the sexes, while acknowledging and tolerating the exceptions.  I think if we have clear and consistent rational values, these things will sort themselves out.  Men will distinguish between risk-taking for what they truly believe in, and being sacrificial pawns to false gods.  Women will distinguish between expressing real distress, and faking victimhood to manipulate others.  Does that make sense?

[Donnadogsoth]

I don't think that answers his question.  When you talk about people like that, especially children, in this context, you are referring to people as a means not an ends.  Of course this is how most people see children, what Stef described in a recent call-in show as a vessel to transfer culture from one generation to the next, not as an individual with thoughts and feelings and needs and so on.

 

 

This still gets to the question as to how much of what we think of as "gender" is biological and how much is social.  Fundamentally I'm not sure that it matters from a parenting standpoint.  The two extremes you are talking about, are verbal abuse, and a kind of pathological coddling, which in the extremes create brutes and narcissists.  As I mentioned before, this is done to produce cattle who will serve their role in the culture, rather than what is really best for the child's health and happiness.  Where you are coming from I think, is a perspective common in both religion and statism, which is that the needs and desires of the individual is somehow at odds with the "society".

 

Rather than "playing to his type", I think you ought to treat boys and girls as sovereign individuals, and respond to their particular needs and preferences.  At the same time, as a society we should recognize the general differences between the sexes, while acknowledging and tolerating the exceptions.  I think if we have clear and consistent rational values, these things will sort themselves out.  Men will distinguish between risk-taking for what they truly believe in, and being sacrificial pawns to false gods.  Women will distinguish between expressing real distress, and faking victimhood to manipulate others.  Does that make sense?

 

What you say sounds optimistic and realistic.  But I don't wish to sacrifice the ideal on the altar of absolute individualism.  We can think of the sexed populations as bell curves.  Most boys are going to benefit from a traditional boy-centric upbringing, just as most girls are going to benefit from a traditional girl-centric one.  We are not a wild collection of people all over the graph in equal distribution, we are predominantly MEN and WOMEN.  So I fear damaging people by ignoring our sexed natures, and in so doing damaging the culture, which in turn damages yet more people as national confidence and wisdom go down.

 

"Do you think women would respond as well as men do to being told "don't be so sensitive," etc.?"

 

Here, I am using "well" to mean "efficacious."

 

I don't think that answers his question.  When you talk about people like that, especially children, in this context, you are referring to people as a means not an ends.  Of course this is how most people see children, what Stef described in a recent call-in show as a vessel to transfer culture from one generation to the next, not as an individual with thoughts and feelings and needs and so on.

 

 I'm referring to them as ends for their own good.  I could be a doctor administering a drug and asking the same form of question.

[Mister Mister]

What you say sounds optimistic and realistic.  But I don't wish to sacrifice the ideal on the altar of absolute individualism.  We can think of the sexed populations as bell curves.  Most boys are going to benefit from a traditional boy-centric upbringing, just as most girls are going to benefit from a traditional girl-centric one.  We are not a wild collection of people all over the graph in equal distribution, we are predominantly MEN and WOMEN.  So I fear damaging people by ignoring our sexed natures, and in so doing damaging the culture, which in turn damages yet more people as national confidence and wisdom go down.

 

 

 I'm referring to them as ends for their own good.  I could be a doctor administering a drug and asking the same form of question.

Yes, I get what you are saying, although I don't know why have to say the "altar of absolute individualism", that sounds like a caricature of what I said.  What I'm saying is that you consider the individual needs of the child.  At the same time, we can be honest with them about the roles of men and women, not defined by social constructs, but by the constraints of reality, both biological and economic.  This is important especially if they want to have kids one day.  But really the best way to teach this I think is not explicitly through instruction, but implicitly through example; if they see their parents as a happy couple, engaged in the joys of family life, they are likely to want to emulate that one day.  One of the reasons I think that so many young people view marriage and child-rearing with such contempt, is they think the silent misery of their parents is an inevitability, rather than a sign of their own parents' shortcomings.

As for boy-centric or girl-centric upbringings, I dont know if that's the case or not.  I've talked about this a lot with other FDR members, especially those who have kids, and there are mixed feelings about it.  But what we were talking about before, coddling emotions in girls, or shaming them in boys, is abusive and not good for anybody.  I feel like maybe you are caught in a little bit of a false dichotomy here.  You can be firm with a child, while not allowing him to emotionally manipulate you or be overly soft.  You can also be sensitive to a child, while not coddling him/her.

[Donnadogsoth]

Yes, I get what you are saying, although I don't know why have to say the "altar of absolute individualism", that sounds like a caricature of what I said.  What I'm saying is that you consider the individual needs of the child.  At the same time, we can be honest with them about the roles of men and women, not defined by social constructs, but by the constraints of reality, both biological and economic.  This is important especially if they want to have kids one day.  But really the best way to teach this I think is not explicitly through instruction, but implicitly through example; if they see their parents as a happy couple, engaged in the joys of family life, they are likely to want to emulate that one day.  One of the reasons I think that so many young people view marriage and child-rearing with such contempt, is they think the silent misery of their parents is an inevitability, rather than a sign of their own parents' shortcomings.

As for boy-centric or girl-centric upbringings, I dont know if that's the case or not.  I've talked about this a lot with other FDR members, especially those who have kids, and there are mixed feelings about it.  But what we were talking about before, coddling emotions in girls, or shaming them in boys, is abusive and not good for anybody.  I feel like maybe you are caught in a little bit of a false dichotomy here.  You can be firm with a child, while not allowing him to emotionally manipulate you or be overly soft.  You can also be sensitive to a child, while not coddling him/her.

 

I'm not trying to needle you or anything, but individualism can be taken too far and has made childrearing more difficult by instilling "special snowflake" syndrome.  This relates, I think, to the "triggering" and like concepts that have come down the University effluent pipe to us.  Children should at some point be exposed to the idea that there are roles to be fit into.  We don't have to be dicks about it, there are going to b outliers who need accommodation, but the tenor of the times is to accommodate everything as if there were no "biological and economic constraints" and as if heterosexuality and childrearing were akin to one fad of many, rather than being the centre of the social universe.

 

So, I think other than my above statement, we agree.

[Mister Mister]

I'm not trying to needle you or anything, but individualism can be taken too far and has made childrearing more difficult by instilling "special snowflake" syndrome.  This relates, I think, to the "triggering" and like concepts that have come down the University effluent pipe to us.  Children should at some point be exposed to the idea that there are roles to be fit into.  We don't have to be dicks about it, there are going to b outliers who need accommodation, but the tenor of the times is to accommodate everything as if there were no "biological and economic constraints" and as if heterosexuality and childrearing were akin to one fad of many, rather than being the centre of the social universe.

 

So, I think other than my above statement, we agree.

Individualism, as I am referring to it, is to see human beings as individuals, having unique experiences and preferences, not as clay to mold as you desire, based on what culture defines as good and bad.  Rand called it when she said "Man is a end, not a means to someone else's end".  I don't believe you need to teach children to fit into roles, these roles have evolved naturally and will continue to do so without coercion being necessary.

 

What you are talking about is the trend to a kind of narcisstic delusion, where certain individual's feelings and preferences are not seen for what they are, but as trumping reality itself.  Obviously this can't apply to everyone, as people have conflicting feelings and preferences, so it becomes a war over which group's feelings have primacy as we are seeing.  This has nothing to do with individualism as I am describing.  My main point of contention, was with regards to calling boys names, shaming and/or neglecting them, and coddling girls.  Both these parenting styles are harmful and unnecessary.

[Donnadogsoth]

Individualism, as I am referring to it, is to see human beings as individuals, having unique experiences and preferences, not as clay to mold as you desire, based on what culture defines as good and bad.  Rand called it when she said "Man is a end, not a means to someone else's end".  I don't believe you need to teach children to fit into roles, these roles have evolved naturally and will continue to do so without coercion being necessary.

 

What you are talking about is the trend to a kind of narcisstic delusion, where certain individual's feelings and preferences are not seen for what they are, but as trumping reality itself.  Obviously this can't apply to everyone, as people have conflicting feelings and preferences, so it becomes a war over which group's feelings have primacy as we are seeing.  This has nothing to do with individualism as I am describing.  My main point of contention, was with regards to calling boys names, shaming and/or neglecting them, and coddling girls.  Both these parenting styles are harmful and unnecessary.

 

We continue to almost agree.  Man is not merely an evolved creature.  Just as his brain does much of its growing outside the womb, so does his evolved nature develop through culture.  So Men and Women are not merely evolutionary impressions on otherwise undifferentiated wax, but products of cultural development.

 

When a boy grows up, and joins a society of men (men qua men), even if that society is solely influenced by aforesaid evolutionary impression, he will encounter instinctive external pressure to conform to the archetype of masculinity.  In that context, not guiding him towards that archetype will be doing him a disservice.  The same goes for girls.  We don't need to abuse them, but guidance without abuse is possible, and, indeed, is a pillar of good parenting.

 

Otherwise, I agree with your definition of individualism, and of the unnecessariness of abuse.

 

"...it becomes a war over which group's feelings have primacy as we are seeing."

 

Excellent line.