Men showing emotion are "whimps"!

py2006

Ok, I am just after watching yesterdays Xfactor (I know, shoot me later). It was a high pressure scenario and the contestents got emotional. At the start there was a string of wonderful female singers who shed tears getting through to next stage.

The first male to come up got emotional when his baby son was mentioned and Sharon Osbourne (who we have spoken about before on here) preceded to say, "I don't need whimps, I need balls".

I think this is a classic example of yet another double standard in society. I believe it is one of the contributing factors to the severe mental health issues that is rampant among males. Men are not supposed to show emotion or they are accused of being whimps/girls/gay/not real men etc etc. As a result of this men are extremely uncomfortable displaying emotion in public and are at times accused of trying to be 'macho idiots'.

Sharon Osbourne who in the past (on a day time all female panel talk show) has laughed at a man who had his genitalia mutilated and severed by a woman is a classic example of self professed strong and independent women who seems to think that that means putting men down if they don't conform to 'What men should be and do'. Its this strand of feminist (hate to bring that 'f' word up again on here) that really makes my blood boil and does not in any way help the genuine women in society.

D1stant

I thought she already had balls?

* wipes away tears

Panthro

She's not a feminist, she's just a bit of an idiot who comes out with such tripe to see if she can spark a reaction.

Legs.Eleven

Ever actually heard her state she was a feminist?

Zombienosh

She's a dope.

py2006

Ok, lets not make this about feminists. The point of my post was men showing emotion and the reaction to it.

Panthro

py2006 wrote: »

Ok, lets not make this about feminists. The point of my post was men showing emotion and the reaction to it.

py2006 wrote: »

Its this strand of feminist (hate to bring that 'f' word up again on here) that really makes my blood boil and does not in any way help the genuine women in society.

You used the "F" word first...:pac:
Happy to rephrase my earlier post..."She's just a bit of an idiot, full stop."

Zombienosh

Well her point of view is nothing new. Loads of people still hold that view, I'd say the majority of men today still wouldn't cry in public or in front of friends/family.

DazMarz

Men showing emotion wimps?

In the past week, we've seen the like of Ger Brennan, Bernard Brogan, Davy Fitz, Jonny Cooper and so on all showing pure, unbridled emotion after the All Ireland Finals.

Beside me on Hill 16 last Sunday were Dublin men and Mayo men, both in tears (for differing reasons).

Witness a few years ago when José Mourinho managed Inter Milan to the Champions League. He was in floods.

Maybe men who cry and sporting events are "excused" for it for some reason, but I see no difference. It's showing emotion. It's men showing pure, raw emotion. Tears are shed, feelings run high. It's the way it is.

Personally, I feel nothing wrong with men showing emotion, if they need to. I've seen nearly all of my close friends crying at some point. And not over sports either. Sometimes life can just get to you so much and you need to show emotion.

Does it make you any less of a man? Does it fúck. It just means that you are a human being and that you are in touch with your emotions. It shows that you just need to let something out.

I have dealt with friends who have been sobbing and can't control it. I've had friends who are struggling not to cry, not to let it out, but a few silent tears just roll from their eyes and they try to hide it. But they can't.

It is nothing to be ashamed of. Absolutely not. Especially if you're with one of your friends. Your friends will be there for you.

And to Sharon, as if Ozzy has never cried before. Get a grip, woman.

Starscream25

She shouldn't be allowed to of had children she's so much of an idiot

py2006

Just to add, some men have that response too. Men are even uncomfortable seeing other men showing emotion.

I'm anything but the alpha male macho type (my eyes even watered when the Irish girl sang yesterday ) but I am still uncomfortable and reluctant to display strong emotions in public.

SilverScreen

I agree there is a double standard in society where it seems okay for women to show some masculine traits (tomboys) but seemingly not okay for men to show some feminine traits. It should be okay for men to show some emotion in public and not be labelled a 'wimp' by some macho and possibly homophobic idiot.

I think gender roles are far less relevent in this day and age but there will always be some backwards-thinking people who still draw their ideologies from the 1950's.

py2006

Actually, the guy on the show was uncomfortable with his own reaction. He had to turn his back to the judges and crowd and try to get it together so he wouldn't display his wimpishness and lack of balls.

P_1

Something I have noticed alright. It seems that for whatever reason men are not supposed to display certain emotions in public in certain ways. In simple terms, 'good' emotions are fine to display 'bad' emotions are not ok to display.

For example:
Joy is fine to display
Anger is fine to display
Sorrow is not ok to display

vitani

I was watching The Biggest Loser a while back and there was an episode where one of the trainers asked a therapist to come in and talk to the contestants. All of her team, who were female, had a session with the therapist. The men went off to climb a mountain, egged on by their trainer, laughing about how they were men and didn't need to talk to anyone.

All of these people had eaten themselves to the point where they were morbidly obese, yet the idea of sitting down and talking to someone about this was literally laughable to them.

I think it's disturbing that men are encouraged not to show emotion.

Zombienosh

Oh yeah, men are allowed get emotional at football and other unimportant bullsh1t sports events but they are not allowed show emotions at times that actually matter.

ancapailldorcha

py2006 wrote: »

The first male to come up got emotional when his baby son was mentioned and Sharon Osbourne (who we have spoken about before on here) preceded to say, "I don't need whimps, I need balls".

Sharon Osbourne isn't a feminist, she's a misandrist. I really wish that she wasn't back getting airtime on that awful programme.

squirrelohara

py2006 wrote: »

"I don't need whimps, I need balls".

Coolwhip?

iptba

SilverScreen wrote: »

I agree there is a double standard in society where it seems okay for women to show some masculine traits (tomboys) but seemingly not okay for men to show some feminine traits. It should be okay for men to show some emotion in public and not be labelled a 'wimp' by some macho and possibly homophobic idiot.

Unlike some people, I think there are some average differences between heterosexual males and heterosexual females; I don't buy into the tabula rasa (blank slate) theory that heterosexual males and heterosexual females all start out the same and it is due to socialising that all differences can be explained (where, for example, does homosexuality fit into this - I don't believe homosexuality is socialised).

Anyway, the point I want to make is I don't see that crying should be seen as more female than male.

[while I do think something like playing and watching contact sports is something heterosexual males enjoy more on average than heterosexual females and similarly I think dancing and watching dancing is something heterosexual females enjoy more on average than heterosexual females and that this isn't simply due to socialisation].

Sleepy

I dunno, sometimes I think our society has spent so much time telling people that it's a good thing to show emotion that many seem to have forgotten that while it's one thing to acknowledge one's emotions, it's quite another to allow them control you.

GalwayGuy2

I dunno, sometimes I think our society has spent so much time telling people that it's a good thing to show emotion that many seem to have forgotten that while it's one thing to acknowledge one's emotions, it's quite another to allow them control you.

+1

Lets not go overboard. Men should be allowed to show emotion, but there is a time and a place for everything.

Pawwed Rig

I don't believe society is as adverse to male expressions of sadness or tears of joy* as seems to be the common belief here. I have witnessed men crying many times in my life at funerals and on occassions where someone is seriously ill. I have also had heart to heart conversations with guys who feared for the mental health of family members who had no problem opening up.
Unfortunately we may be over exposed to US TV which is a much more macho culture than our own.

The criticism of mens love for sports events I thing are a little unfair as we can get an emotional attachment to a team that can be a very strong bond. It emcompasses a sense of belonging to a group of people with common goals and aspirations. Whether that team is your old schools rugby team or Tottenham Hotspur doesn't make the emotional attachment and less.

I would also have to agree with Sleepy, your emotions shouldn't control you.

*which is what we are talking about rather than emotions as a whole.

Liam McPoyle

Xfactor has been one of the most cynical and exploitative tv shows of modern times so it really shouldn't come as any surprise when retarded stuff gets said on it tbh.

Festy

Completely agree with the OP. It's a bloody disgrace.

I too think it's one of the main reason why so many young men take their own lives,because if men want to talk about their feelings they are seen as weak or wimps in this case. :mad:

tsiehta

iptba wrote: »

Unlike some people, I think there are some average differences between heterosexual males and heterosexual females; I don't buy into the tabula rasa (blank slate) theory that heterosexual males and heterosexual females all start out the same and it is due to socialising that all differences can be explained (where, for example, does homosexuality fit into this - I don't believe homosexuality is socialised).

Anyway, the point I want to make is I don't see that crying should be seen as more female than male.

[while I do think something like playing and watching contact sports is something heterosexual males enjoy more on average than heterosexual females and similarly I think dancing and watching dancing is something heterosexual females enjoy more on average than heterosexual females and that this isn't simply due to socialisation].

How do you define what falls into which category? You've put contact sports on the heterosexual (I dunno what sexuality has to do with anything, but anyway) male side of the spectrum, and dancing on the heterosexual female side of the spectrum, but crying is neither. Why?

Anyways, this is a perfectly legitimate men's issue to discuss, but it's always bizarre to see feminism brought up as supporting the enforcement of male gender roles. It's just simply not a prevailing feminist view in the slightest. In fact, I've read plenty of feminist/social justice articles and discussions which are very much for men being able to show emotions.

Why is feminism being blamed for the enforcement of male gender roles which have been enforced by society for centuries predating feminism's existence, and why does every topic on a men's issue have to be used in some way as a stick to bash feminism with?

iptba

tsiehta wrote: »

You've put contact sports on the heterosexual (I dunno what sexuality has to do with anything, but anyway)

(ETA: Oops, longer than I intended)

So are there no average differences in any areas between homosexual and heterosexual men in their interests, likes, some careers they are more likely to go into, etc.?

I think there are and I'd put contact sports in there (based both on going to an all-boys school and looking at the breakdown in terms of playing contact sports (looking back now with knowledge of people's sexuality) as well as other observations). That's not to say either that all heterosexual men are into playing or watching contact sports, or vice versa, although some people seem to have difficulty with this concept; sexuality would only be one of the variables related to interest.

I don't see how it harms anyone for me to think it (while I think there are difficulties if one believes in tabula rasa and then tries to explain sexuality; it seems much more likely with that model one could believe any interests, that are more or less heterosexual, have been socialised and so try to push a boy in certain directions to stop him being gay). Hopefully science can eventually give us answers, although I'm afraid I'm not always convinced all answers are equally acceptable to all social scientists.

In some people's minds, perhaps this (that there are any differences at all believe heterosexual and homosexual men) is politically incorrect and we're supposed to say that there are no average differences just as some seem to feel it necessary to claim men and women are exactly the same on average, when a lot fewer people in practice seem to believe it (some people sometimes claim to believe but it will often come out later e.g. we need women on the committee because they're different to men in ways X1, X2, etc.).

That's what really gets me: the inconsistency and hypocrisy. Some people will quite happily lecture others for not saying men and women are exactly the same, while in other statements say they themselves don't believe it.

I don't see why a simplistic model, men are exactly the same as women on average in every way, should be the only one allowed to be said.

However, perhaps discussing this would veer away from the specific point, which I am quite happy to see discussed and explored.

Aside: the reason I brought sexuality (very briefly) into my original comment was simply that that's a variable that minimises differences.

The Corinthian

Should it be acceptable for men to not repress their emotions to the degree that we presently do. Absolutely; the standard of almost Vulcan-like endurance to emotion that men are expected to keep a 'stiff upper lip' to is exaggerated and most likely unhealthy psychologically.

Given this, and I'm going to turn this around, neither should men be as open with our emotions as women are presently encouraged to be. And nether should women.

While suppression of emotion is not always a good thing, neither is no suppression. Breaking down crying the moment the slightest disappointment in life hits you is little more than an abdication of responsibility, a cry for help, whereby someone else will solve your problem for you - after all, that's what crying was designed for on an evolutionary level.

So, should men show their emotions more? Sure. But women should show theirs less also, with both genders arriving at a reasonable and healthy middle ground.

py2006

While there seems to be a lot of hate for the Xfactor which I don't necessarily get to be honest. I can appreciate a good singer...

The point of the thread is that woman's response to a display of emotion from a guy who was only showing the same emotion that some of the girls displayed prior to him. Even Sharon herself got all watery eyed with the girls yet ridicules the guy in front of thousands.

Ash.J.Williams

py2006 wrote: »

Ok, I am just after watching yesterdays Xfactor (I know, shoot me later). It was a high pressure scenario and the contestents got emotional. At the start there was a string of wonderful female singers who shed tears getting through to next stage.

The first male to come up got emotional when his baby son was mentioned and Sharon Osbourne (who we have spoken about before on here) preceded to say, "I don't need whimps, I need balls".

I think this is a classic example of yet another double standard in society. I believe it is one of the contributing factors to the severe mental health issues that is rampant among males. Men are not supposed to show emotion or they are accused of being whimps/girls/gay/not real men etc etc. As a result of this men are extremely uncomfortable displaying emotion in public and are at times accused of trying to be 'macho idiots'.

Sharon Osbourne who in the past (on a day time all female panel talk show) has laughed at a man who had his genitalia mutilated and severed by a woman is a classic example of self professed strong and independent women who seems to think that that means putting men down if they don't conform to 'What men should be and do'. Its this strand of feminist (hate to bring that 'f' word up again on here) that really makes my blood boil and does not in any way help the genuine women in society.

in a normal situation you are correct however this is xfactor where people use emotion pathetically to further themselves in a competition. I hope he cries so much his body dries up and he dies.

The Corinthian

py2006 wrote: »

The point of the thread is that woman's response to a display of emotion from a guy who was only showing the same emotion that some of the girls displayed prior to him. Even Sharon herself got all watery eyed with the girls yet ridicules the guy in front of thousands.

Yeah, we get it - there's a chauvinistic double standard.

As to whether Osbourne is or considers herself a feminist or not, it's a bit moot. What feminism even is anymore is difficult to define and the moment a woman is successful you'll have at least some feminists appropriate her as a poster girl for the movement regardless - look at some of the debates that have been doing the rounds on Thatcher.

But that there is a sexist double standard, that idiots like Osbourne are happy to perpetuate, I doubt anyone would deny. So, given the conclusion has been reached, is the thread finished?

py2006

Corinthian, if you are fed up with this thread please move on. I was kind of hoping for some discussion on the topic in general and to read peoples experience of it.

The Corinthian

py2006 wrote: »

Corinthian, if you are fed up with this thread please move on. I was kind of hoping for some discussion on the topic in general and to read peoples experience of it.

Actually, discussion on this topic would be interesting, but if all we're going to do is limit ourselves to discuss what is already a given, we're really not going to go anywhere interesting. Hence my first post here.

But it's your thread, so fair enough - I'll bow out.

Sauve

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, discussion on this topic would be interesting, but if all we're going to do is limit ourselves to discuss what is already a given, we're really not going to go anywhere interesting. Hence my first post here.

But it's your thread, so fair enough - I'll bow out.

Mod

Corinthian, if you have nothing to add to a thread, please refrain from posting in it.
Belittling others' discussions of an event or topic because it doesn't interest you is not acceptable.

Guyanachronism

iptba wrote: »

Unlike some people, I think there are some average differences between heterosexual males and heterosexual females; I don't buy into the tabula rasa (blank slate) theory that heterosexual males and heterosexual females all start out the same and it is due to socialising that all differences can be explained (where, for example, does homosexuality fit into this - I don't believe homosexuality is socialised).

Anyway, the point I want to make is I don't see that crying should be seen as more female than male.

[while I do think something like playing and watching contact sports is something heterosexual males enjoy more on average than heterosexual females and similarly I think dancing and watching dancing is something heterosexual females enjoy more on average than heterosexual females and that this isn't simply due to socialisation].

It's a big issue and you're crossing numerous aspects of people. Gender is what you're concerned with, which yes the idea that it is a purely social construct is now quite widely accepted. It's a debate I've had many an evening over pints. But I don't get what homosexuality has to do with it, except if you're resorting to sterotypes. There are a lot of behaviours we can point to that are social conditions, the gendered divison of most labour, men having to initiate when dating etc. There might be a bedrock of genune gendered behaviour, but then again is it a product of breeding based on gender roles or genuine product of ones sex.

The dancing one is also an odd choice because anthropology would say that females dancing became a way to display assets consciously and subconsciously to prospective partners. There is science to back it up, best dancers have symetrical bodies meaning they're healthy. As well as women having to be attractive etc.

It's obviously a big debate but I don't think expressing emotion is anything but a socially constructed gender norm, everyone is emotional but we are conditioned into thinking whether or not it is acceptable to express particular emotions at particular times.

But as other posters have said, celebrity culture has gone to the point of milking emotion and people expected to be over emotional. The reaction to the death of princess Diana being a prime example. But that said men are more constrained about emotional expression that women, although women in the west don't get free pass either. But you see in other cultures, at tragedies women are allowed wail and moan while the men are expected to remain stoic and silent.

So I don't know how I want to society to deal with expressions of emotion but men are more constrained when it comes to expressing emotion.

py2006

With regards Mrs Osbourne being a feminist, I thought that was a given? Not necessarily because of her comment on Sat but in general that was something I always thought she was. Perhaps I was wrong?

With regards to the general issue of men showing emotion, I do recall the subject coming up in conversation some years ago with some colleagues. One woman made it clear that she didn't want to go out with a 'girl' and that her boyfriend was a real man. She 'had enough for her girl friends crying on her shoulder without a man having to do it'. I didn't really think much of it at the time.

Admittedly, the males present shifted uneasy in their chairs, cleared their throats in a manly way... haha

pwurple

Sharon Osbourne's moronic comment aside, it's pretty brutal that the program must stress people out so much, that they are in tears at all. It's completely meaningless, and yet it's the end of the world when they go from one round to the next?

D'Agger

pwurple wrote: »

Sharon Osbourne's moronic comment aside, it's pretty brutal that the program must stress people out so much, that they are in tears at all. It's completely meaningless, and yet it's the end of the world when they go from one round to the next?

Don't think the OP is looking to discuss the merits of the show tbh - different things can spark different emotions in people, the query by the OP is whether men are subjected to being considered weak for showing such emotions.

Legs.Eleven

py2006 wrote: »

With regards Mrs Osbourne being a feminist, I thought that was a given? Not necessarily because of her comment on Sat but in general that was something I always thought she was. Perhaps I was wrong?

I thought you weren't going to bring feminism into it?


She's only a feminist if she considers herself one. You can't just slap that label on any woman whose actions you don't like. I've never once heard her state she was a feminist and I don't know many feminists who would support men bottling up their emotions (I certainly wouldn't). Sounds like she has very traditional ideas of what a man should be and I wouldn't call that feminism as feminism usually goes against what are considered to be "traditional roles". I'd say feminists would be very much in support of men being in touch with their feelings as opposed to a stereotypical macho man.

Ash.J.Williams

Sharon Osborne is whatever they agree will be better for ratings in the pre show meeting, there is nothing real or genuine about her...seriously if you want a proper discussion forget about sharon and x factor.

Legs.Eleven

As Corinthian stated, whether she is a feminist or not is irrelevant - men are just as intolerant of other men showing emotion as women.

iptba

Guyanachronism wrote: »

It's a big issue and you're crossing numerous aspects of people. Gender is what you're concerned with, which yes the idea that it is a purely social construct is now quite widely accepted.

Which I'm not convinced it is i.e. lots of people may think it's a purely social construct but I'm not convinced it is.

Guyanachronism wrote: »

But I don't get what homosexuality has to do with it, except if you're resorting to sterotypes.

Do you think there are no average differences in any areas in terms of interests between heterosexual and homosexual men? Just because something is a stereotype doesn't mean there isn't something to it.

As I subsequently explained, the reason it is useful to bring it up is that I believe it can bring noise to data. So in some things, if one strips out gay men, differences between heterosexual men and women will be more pronounced. Of course, some people don't want that as the answer so may not make much effort to analyse data as well as they might if they were more convinced of the goal e.g. a medical treatment.

Guyanachronism wrote: »

It's obviously a big debate but I don't think expressing emotion is anything but a socially constructed gender norm, everyone is emotional but we are conditioned into thinking whether or not it is acceptable to express particular emotions at particular times.

I'm inclined to agree.

iptba

The Corinthian wrote: »

Should it be acceptable for men to not repress their emotions to the degree that we presently do. Absolutely; the standard of almost Vulcan-like endurance to emotion that men are expected to keep a 'stiff upper lip' to is exaggerated and most likely unhealthy psychologically.

Given this, and I'm going to turn this around, neither should men be as open with our emotions as women are presently encouraged to be. And nether should women.

While suppression of emotion is not always a good thing, neither is no suppression. Breaking down crying the moment the slightest disappointment in life hits you is little more than an abdication of responsibility, a cry for help, whereby someone else will solve your problem for you - after all, that's what crying was designed for on an evolutionary level.

So, should men show their emotions more? Sure. But women should show theirs less also, with both genders arriving at a reasonable and healthy middle ground.

It perhaps might be useful to draw distinctions between different scenarios when people cry.

If one is crying because of a sad movie, for example, one isn't looking for anybody to fix it, it doesn't seem to be a cry for help.

Also, if one were to start crying after being told one had a very serious illness, that is perhaps different from crying every single day afterwards, which might suggest depression/a lack of adaptation to the new situation one found oneself in.

Guyanachronism

iptba wrote: »

Which I'm not convinced it is i.e. lots of people may think it's a purely social construct but I'm not convinced it is.

Do you think there are no average differences in any areas in terms of interests between heterosexual and homosexual men? Just because something is a stereotype doesn't mean there isn't something to it.

As I subsequently explained, the reason it is useful to bring it up is that I believe it can bring noise to data. So in some things, if one strips out gay men, differences between heterosexual men and women will be more pronounced. Of course, some people don't want that as the answer so may not make much effort to analyse data as well as they might if they were more convinced of the goal e.g. a medical treatment.

Name a behaviour of Women/Hetreosexual Men/Homoesexual Men that you think is an inherent product of their sex/sexual orientation and not their socialisation? I think the absolute majority of gendered behaviour is socialised and there might be a certain amount that is genuine but I am not sure. There is no humane objective way to prove it.

That goes for gay men. They will be socialised differently and react to different expectations and pressures from their peer group and environment.

If there is a underlayer of genuine naturally gendered behaviour it still kind of irrevelant. What are the real world implications? It still wouldn't be right to force anyone who deviates to conform to gender norms.

Tabula rasa in principle has no apparent harms.

clairefontaine

Sharon's Osbourbe does not represent humanity.

Men can express emotion as long as they don't include fear, sentimentality, anything mushy, or vulnerability. No whining. Big no no.

But on the other hand , women are also expected not to or they"ll end up in the just another irrational or hysterical woman box.

iptba

Guyanachronism wrote: »

That goes for gay men. They will be socialised differently and react to different expectations and pressures from their peer group and environment.

This is why I think gay men are interesting. One can claim men and women are socialised differently, but I think the point is much more debatable with gay men.

I think differences between gay men and heterosexual men start emerging before any peer group and environment. Gay men invariably are brought up like straight men.

Guyanachronism wrote: »

If there is a underlayer of genuine naturally gendered behaviour it still kind of irrevelant. What are the real world implications? It still wouldn't be right to force anyone who deviates to conform to gender norms.

Tabula rasa in principle has no apparent harms.

That might be the stock phrase people are thought in their sociology class or whatever but I remain to be convinced although haven't fully thought it through.

We have an interesting example in this famous case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer
where his penis was accidentally destroyed in a circumcision and he was brought up as a girl but it didn't work out well.

py2006

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

I thought you weren't going to bring feminism into it?

I didn't initially but I was interested in the responses claiming she wasn't one. I genuinely thought she was

She's only a feminist if she considers herself one. You can't just slap that label on any woman whose actions you don't like.

As I said earlier, my assumption was that she was a feminist and not based on her remarks.

The reason I initially wanted to avoid the feminism angle was I don't this thread turning into another feminism debate. Lets not go down that route as different people have different views on what it really means.

Lets get back on topic...

Legs.Eleven

py2006 wrote: »

I didn't initially but I was interested in the responses claiming she wasn't one. I genuinely thought she was



As I said earlier, my assumption was that she was a feminist and not based on her remarks.

The reason I initially wanted to avoid the feminism angle was I don't this thread turning into another feminism debate. Lets not go down that route as different people have different views on what it really means.

Lets get back on topic...

Either did I. You're the one who asked the question though so I answered it and actually your first post was looking to put the blame squarely on Feminism, which had to be challenged as judgement of men displaying emotions comes from both genders.

iwantmydinner

py2006 wrote: »

I didn't initially but I was interested in the responses claiming she wasn't one. I genuinely thought she was



As I said earlier, my assumption was that she was a feminist and not based on her remarks.

The reason I initially wanted to avoid the feminism angle was I don't this thread turning into another feminism debate. Lets not go down that route as different people have different views on what it really means.

Lets get back on topic...

You blamed feminism ("this strand of feminism") for telling men what they should and should not do/be allowed to do. That is not an effective way of avoiding the "feminism angle" and as Legs said, has to be challenged.

SO has never, to my knowledge, identified as a feminist. I really can't see any connection between her awful remarks and feminism.

She's clearly just a misandrist idiot.

Pawwed Rig

Mod note
Lads - The Op has already says he wants to focus on the topic at hand rather than Feminism (which is actively being discussed in other threads). Please stay on topic.

py2006

To me it appears (to some) that the only socially acceptable display of tears from men is at funerals and even then its only when they simply can't hold it together any more.

I remember when my mother passed I didn't cry and I didn't cry at her funeral. Actually, I didn't even feel I needed to so it wasn't a case of holding it in as I am a man or whatever. That always stuck me as odd and at times I felt guilty for it.

iwantmydinner

py2006 wrote: »

To me the only socially acceptable display of tears from men is at funerals and even then its only when they simply can't hold it together any more.

I remember when my mother passed I didn't cry and I didn't cry at her funeral. Actually, I didn't even feel I needed to so it wasn't a case of holding it in as I am a man or whatever. That always stuck me as odd and at times I felt guilty for it.

I'm not being facetious here, I'm genuinely confused. You're slating Sharon Osbourne in the OP for insulting a man who showed emotion ... And you're now saying that men should only be allowed show emotion at funerals??

Am I missing something?