Because other people literally won't care.
That's not to say that they're horrible monsters: It's just that every person has their own issues. Their own problems. If everyone sought the help of everyone else, who would there be left to carry the burden?
o_o I disagree with that. I think people care. Maybe not
everyone, but... not so few as to guarantee that no one cares. And... if a man has people around him who care, then I don't see why it would be bad to seek support from them.
Of course, the world isn't perfect, so not everyone will have people around them who care. That's true. But, in a situation where you
do have such a thing, I don't see why the idea of going to others for help should be looked down upon.
Humans are social creatures, I think. To me, it seems like it would only make sense that people help each other. Maybe not everyone, maybe not all the time (and of course, there will be times when people can't lend a hand because they have their own problems to deal with), but... that doesn't mean that no one can help anyone ever, lest no one be able to deal with anything.
And I certainly wouldn't say that everyone seeking help from others suddenly means that no one can "carry the burden". People need help with different things. And even then, sometimes all someone needs is a shoulder to cry on or a friend to talk to -- and that isn't something that automatically means that the person on the receiving end won't be able to deal with their own problems. You can have problems of your own and still help others with theirs. Odds are that when you offer to help someone, those problems won't be
particularly intense at that moment in time (because needing to prioritize your own problems over someone else's makes sense), but I don't think it's always necessary to prioritize.
People can help others. People can seek help if they need it. I see nothing wrong with that. o_o
Not to mention, there is nothing more empowering in the world than when you're capable of carrying your own burdens. If you don't have to depend on anyone else to find emotional satisfaction out of life, than you are beholden to nobody else. True independence only comes when you're willing to shoulder the responsibility that comes with that. That is the ticket price to an individual life.
I agree that self-reliance can be a very good thing, and I never meant to say that it was a bad thing. You seem to have gotten satisfaction out of being self-reliant, and I'm happy for you. Thing is, you're strong to do such a thing. I just don't agree with the idea of holding everyone to a certain standard of being that strong. Maybe a man needs some support every now and then -- I don't think he should be looked down upon for doing so. I don't think anyone should.
As well, and again I think this is an issue of genders not reading each other well, but most men...
Do, have other people they can turn to, and talk to. These people count as family, and friends. When I'm wounded inside, unless I'm struggling with an existential crisis or some element of my mental health (both of which are entirely personal and which no others can aid me with no matter how much they may want to), I have friends I can turn to and talk to at any time. The difference being, that they're there for me to talk to them, not for me to shoulder my burdens upon them. I can express pain, among those close to me, and there is no issue with that, so long as I remain in control. A perfect example of this you can find in the real story of
Norah Vincent, who disguised herself as a man to try and figure out male issues and male culture. What she found is something that most men already intimately understand at an unspoken level. I highly encourage you look into it yourself if you're curious.
Well then, in that case, I think that depends heavily on what we define as "in control". o_o Because now it definitely seems like we agreed on more things than it at first seemed.
Going back to the initial "boys are taught not to cry" thing, I never meant to refer to important or professional situations where one would definitely need to reign in their emotions (male or female), but rather, just... on a somewhat more personal, private level. I don't think it's right that people should be expected to never have moments of weakness or never have moments where they feel like they really need someone to turn to.
#1: Women can't be abusers according to the Duluth Model. It's a serious issue in the modern world and it isn't being addressed by and large thanks to cultural movements wanting to pin all the blame on men and male culture. (Ex: Toxic masculinity, mansplaining, male privilege, et cetera.)
I understand the Duluth Model -- I was just confused as to what you were trying to say about it or what you were trying to use it as an example of. I understand that many people believe that women can't be abusers, but I don't think it's
right. That's what I was trying to say. Because, when you get down to it... female-on-male abuse exists. And I don't think it's right to assume that men are the only ones who can ever be aggressive and that men can't be victims.
#2: Because history! Men were expected to shoulder the burden of warfare. The only thing scarier and more destructive than a person consumed with fury is a person consumed with fury who is a 6'2" 260 LBS muscular juggernaut in plate mail wielding a great sword capable of cutting through three men in a single swing. It's why men were expected, more than women, to control themselves, to be disciplined. That's not to say that there weren't expectations on women to be in control of themselves either: Both genders had social rulings to try and maintain civility (see: social etiquette), though over the centuries such rules have changed to better fit the cultural norms of the times. Like how high heels were once
manly. (Yeah, weird to think about it that way, eh?)
I understand the historical aspect of it. I just don't understand why that's still relevant today. I don't see why either gender's standards for emotional control need to be higher than the other -- not in today's world, anyway.
Society doesn't care if men are in emotional turmoil. The primary therapy model for dealing with spousal abuse assumes that the man is the perpetrator. Men have to control their own emotions, because society as a whole, at best, does not care about them. At worst? It considers them the automatic villain in any familial dispute. Regardless of whether that's fair or not, it is entirely and absolutely an important factor as to why men must be in control. Nobody will be there to help us if we're in pain.
>_> But... my whole point was that it isn't right that men are assumed to be the perpetrators of abuse, and that people don't acknowledge that men can experience emotional turmoil, and that they may feel that they can't reach out to anyone if they are.
If society stopped assuming that men are always the aggressors, and stopped assuming that men can't be victims or that men can't experience emotional turmoil, they wouldn't always peg men as the abusers. And then there won't be a reason why men
need to constantly be in control and never show signs of weakness.
I realize I'm speaking idealistically here, but... I never claimed to have all the answers, or that I knew how to solve complicated problems. My presence on this thread merely started with me saying "here's a thing that I don't think is right", and then explaining why I felt that way.
Self control will never be outdated and unnecessary. Men (who are not mentally damaged) do have coping mechanisms that involve talking to other people. They just don't do it publicly, because nothing would ever get done otherwise. Like, for instance, when you and I have private conversations (like, say, if you added me on Skype), you'd find I'd have less defenses over time, and I'd be more likely to express when I'm in pain. Hell, you know this is true, we had a brief talk over PM's recently in which I did, actually, tell you that I was in pain.
There's a difference between public and private, and that difference is extremely important for emotional stability in a lot of men given how masculinity works, and if you'd like to ask about it, again, I'd be happy to explain it. As a man.
I never meant to say that self control was unnecessary or outdated -- only the gendered aspect of it. My problem was with men being held to
higher standards of emotional control than women, not the idea that there were any standards at all (because what I meant with the "teaching boys not to cry" thing
also meant in relation to privately seeking help from others, and we both agree that seeking comfort from others privately is ok).
And then there's also the fact that, well, not everyone is perfect, and, while self-control is of course a good thing to have, people can have moments of weakness, so expecting someone to have perfect self-control is... Well, my views on this are complicated and not so much gender-related at this point, so, I'll drop that bit there.
Well that's because you're a compassionate and kind person, and it's why I enjoy talking with you. You always mean well. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who don't mean well, and they tend to be the loudest.
Yeah, my point was just that you said you
never saw anyone use the term in an attempt to actually
help men, and, well... those people
do exist, with me being one of them, so... It's not exactly a completely non-existent thing.
Psh, you ain't. You haven't tried to pitchfork me with my male privilege.
The issue is that there is no solution to "toxic masculinity" except to outright combat any expression of masculinity which count as toxic... Except, even
that is nigh impossible to define, because how exactly does one define what is toxic? Even something as idealistic as "don't treat women poorly" is borderline incomprehensible when put into action against behaviour and expression. Unless there are physical actions involved (like sexual harassment, which is, y'know, a crime) each person's own idea of what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour differs wildly, and differs from culture to culture. What is one to do? Legislate what people are allowed to say? The tones of their voices? The mannerisms with which they conduct themselves?
Simple: I try to think in terms of changing social attitudes instead of changing laws (because laws are fucking complicated and I am not good at judge at what laws are best, so I'll leave that to people who know better). I try to be a person who leads by example and discussion where social issues are concerned. Instead of trying to police what people do or say, I just say things like "hey, I don't think it's right that society pushes X, Y, and Z ideals, and I think it would be better if..." just like what we're doing now. Obviously not everyone will agree with me, but that's ok. All I want to do is speak up about things I don't agree with, and get people thinking about it, and maybe even get
myself thinking about it if someone presents a counter-argument that I can't immediately combat.
In fact, it always sort of bothers me to see people look at a social issue and say "well, you can't fix that -- how are you supposed to legislate against it??", and, well, you're right, maybe it would be difficult to legislate against -- I don't know because that's not my area of expertise. But, say, for example, all one is trying to say is "I think it's wrong for someone to be a complete fucking asshole". This would be difficult to legislate, sure, primarily because no one knows what exactly defines "being a complete fucking asshole", and then even an attempt to define it would probably bring up other issues that need to be addressed. But... you can still point out qualities that you think are asshole-ish and say that you think people shouldn't act this way. It might not be 100% effective, sure, but that's better than ignoring an issue just because it would be difficult/impossible to legislate against. Sometimes just spreading awareness of an issue is a more appropriate response. ...I mean, that's not to say that no one should ever attempt to make laws about difficult things like this, but... I don't think it makes sense to say that a person's concerns about a social issue aren't valid if they don't have a good solution. I for one will acknowledge that the world is messy and complicated and sure as hell imperfect and that I don't have answers to everything -- but I can at least point to things that I think are wrong and express what I think
should be different about the world, even if it isn't easy to get there. That's better than nothing, I think. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯