Earlier this week, late night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel struggled to get through his segment when the topic turned to the horrific fires that have been ravaging much of southern California.
And one of those ways is that it is not common for me to cry.
Sometimes, when I allow myself to unlock and open that door, I am horrified to see that it seems likely that I may become fully unhinged from sanity if I do not force that door closed again.
The shortest verse in the Bible, “Jesus wept.”Is noted mostly for the fact that it is the shortest verse. I don’t recall anyone referencing the fact that the incarnate creator of the universe fully embodied his humanity even to the most abject expression, and made a point of including it in scripture.
Reading this makes me think that you don’t understand what is being communicated by most men who think this way.
Now, first off, I want to say that you’re completely correct that men are emotional creatures and there are times that it’s completely acceptable for men to cry. No one worth listening to is going to give another man a hard time for crying at his wife’s or child’s funeral.
But I think what you’re missing is the virtue that is being praised among men: self control. There are times when it’s okay to lose control but they’re rare. That’s why they’re meaningful. And it’s exactly why Kimmel’s performance causes such a reaction of disgust.
Kimmel’s political attack reveals his tears for what they are. An attempted manipulation. He’s not overwhelmed by his empathy for his friends. He’s attempting to force empathy in others so they’ll take his hatred of Trump more seriously.
Losing control when it’s something that makes sense to lose control over makes perfect sense. Keeping self control while pretending to lose it to force an emotional reaction? Disgusting from any person but (to most men at least) especially disgusting behavior from a man. It betrays the virtue of self control most of us instinctively respect so much on a very deep level.
Should men in general be more emotionally expressive? Maybe. I’m not fully convinced. Because what I see from most men is not being emotionally repressed. It’s being emotionally controlled until the right time and place to express those emotions fully. The men that I see that are hurting in this area are ones who cannot find a place to express those emotions. Many men have the experience of expressing their emotions and being punished by it by the women in their lives. I see that pain expressed much more often than I see men punishing other men. Admittedly, that may be my bubble but I don’t believe it is. But my point isn’t “women bad, they hurt men.” That’s dumb Tate bullshit.
The problem as I see it is that men in America don’t have a place they can express frustration, sadness, or despair without losing respect and often they’re punished for expressing those things instead of getting the consolation they need. This cannot be solved by telling men they need to be more expressive in their pain. You’re asking them to be as deeply vulnerable as they can be and that’s not appropriate in public settings where it would be seen. The only way to change this is for more men to find what they’re looking for when they do show those emotions and creating that culture is a more complicated problem.
Respect is a very important currency and it’s why people like Kimmel aren’t popular with men. We have no respect for people who behave like him. It’s also why your example of David isn’t counter to men’s instinct. It’s a very common action movie trope for a man to be badly hurt to the point of near madness, weep deeply, and then go slaughter the evil people who did it. We’ll cheer that all day because that’s an appropriate loss of control (the emotion not the slaughtering 😂. But also 🤔.)
Anyway I hope that makes sense. Happy to clarify anything if it doesn’t.
To be fair, I think you may be the one misunderstanding me.
I’m not asking men to snap their fingers and magically be ok with vulnerability. I’m asking men to stop using their influence to bully other men into stoicism. There’s a massive difference.
I agree that self-control is necessary (and lacking) in our culture. But policing when other men are allowed to cry does not seem to me to be a helpful means of encouraging it, and calling them names when they do exacerbates the problem. It doesn’t help it.
No, I get what you’re saying but maybe I wasn’t super clear in what I was saying.
Basically stoicism is something that instinctively resonates with most men (and for good reason) but is perhaps being taken too far. You don’t have to bully men into stoicism because we see stoicism and say “hell yeah!” Most men actively want to be the kind of man who can take the worst the world has to offer and shrug and get on with their day. That just sounds badass and every man wants to be a badass even if the reality of that isn’t good for us.
This is especially true when the alternative of being vulnerable most often comes with extreme downsides and seems to rarely have any benefit. If we want stoicism to be less appealing, the alternative has to be more appealing.
Something I've noticed throughout my lifetime is a very common theme that there are intrinsically more widows than there are widowers. In other words it seems though men die younger than women in a marriage. Now I have not done a statistic search yet but I think holding your emotions in your entire life is just a ticking time bomb. 😐
Hmmm.... No one would mistake me for feminine but I often cry during movies and whenever someone gets a Golden Buzzer on America's Got Talent.
My brain is severely broken in so many ways.
And one of those ways is that it is not common for me to cry.
Sometimes, when I allow myself to unlock and open that door, I am horrified to see that it seems likely that I may become fully unhinged from sanity if I do not force that door closed again.
The shortest verse in the Bible, “Jesus wept.”Is noted mostly for the fact that it is the shortest verse. I don’t recall anyone referencing the fact that the incarnate creator of the universe fully embodied his humanity even to the most abject expression, and made a point of including it in scripture.
Reading this makes me think that you don’t understand what is being communicated by most men who think this way.
Now, first off, I want to say that you’re completely correct that men are emotional creatures and there are times that it’s completely acceptable for men to cry. No one worth listening to is going to give another man a hard time for crying at his wife’s or child’s funeral.
But I think what you’re missing is the virtue that is being praised among men: self control. There are times when it’s okay to lose control but they’re rare. That’s why they’re meaningful. And it’s exactly why Kimmel’s performance causes such a reaction of disgust.
Kimmel’s political attack reveals his tears for what they are. An attempted manipulation. He’s not overwhelmed by his empathy for his friends. He’s attempting to force empathy in others so they’ll take his hatred of Trump more seriously.
Losing control when it’s something that makes sense to lose control over makes perfect sense. Keeping self control while pretending to lose it to force an emotional reaction? Disgusting from any person but (to most men at least) especially disgusting behavior from a man. It betrays the virtue of self control most of us instinctively respect so much on a very deep level.
Should men in general be more emotionally expressive? Maybe. I’m not fully convinced. Because what I see from most men is not being emotionally repressed. It’s being emotionally controlled until the right time and place to express those emotions fully. The men that I see that are hurting in this area are ones who cannot find a place to express those emotions. Many men have the experience of expressing their emotions and being punished by it by the women in their lives. I see that pain expressed much more often than I see men punishing other men. Admittedly, that may be my bubble but I don’t believe it is. But my point isn’t “women bad, they hurt men.” That’s dumb Tate bullshit.
The problem as I see it is that men in America don’t have a place they can express frustration, sadness, or despair without losing respect and often they’re punished for expressing those things instead of getting the consolation they need. This cannot be solved by telling men they need to be more expressive in their pain. You’re asking them to be as deeply vulnerable as they can be and that’s not appropriate in public settings where it would be seen. The only way to change this is for more men to find what they’re looking for when they do show those emotions and creating that culture is a more complicated problem.
Respect is a very important currency and it’s why people like Kimmel aren’t popular with men. We have no respect for people who behave like him. It’s also why your example of David isn’t counter to men’s instinct. It’s a very common action movie trope for a man to be badly hurt to the point of near madness, weep deeply, and then go slaughter the evil people who did it. We’ll cheer that all day because that’s an appropriate loss of control (the emotion not the slaughtering 😂. But also 🤔.)
Anyway I hope that makes sense. Happy to clarify anything if it doesn’t.
To be fair, I think you may be the one misunderstanding me.
I’m not asking men to snap their fingers and magically be ok with vulnerability. I’m asking men to stop using their influence to bully other men into stoicism. There’s a massive difference.
I agree that self-control is necessary (and lacking) in our culture. But policing when other men are allowed to cry does not seem to me to be a helpful means of encouraging it, and calling them names when they do exacerbates the problem. It doesn’t help it.
No, I get what you’re saying but maybe I wasn’t super clear in what I was saying.
Basically stoicism is something that instinctively resonates with most men (and for good reason) but is perhaps being taken too far. You don’t have to bully men into stoicism because we see stoicism and say “hell yeah!” Most men actively want to be the kind of man who can take the worst the world has to offer and shrug and get on with their day. That just sounds badass and every man wants to be a badass even if the reality of that isn’t good for us.
This is especially true when the alternative of being vulnerable most often comes with extreme downsides and seems to rarely have any benefit. If we want stoicism to be less appealing, the alternative has to be more appealing.
"Blessed are the tears that fall. They clean the windows of the soul..."
Amen
Amen!
"Jesus wept." John 11:35
"And everybody used to tell me big boys don't cry
Well I've been around enough to know that that was the lie
That held back the tears in the eyes of a thousand prodigal sons
Well we are children no more, we have sinned and grown old
And our Father still waits and He watches down the road
To see the crying boys come running back to His arms
And be growing young"
Rich Mullins, Growing Young
Something I've noticed throughout my lifetime is a very common theme that there are intrinsically more widows than there are widowers. In other words it seems though men die younger than women in a marriage. Now I have not done a statistic search yet but I think holding your emotions in your entire life is just a ticking time bomb. 😐