>
 |
| Boo fucking hoo. |
As many of you have no doubt noticed — what with the literally dozens of news stories and op-ed pieces on the subject that have appeared in the media in the last week or so — incoming Speaker of the House John Boenher is a bit of a weeper. While some have scoffed at his public crying jags, quite a few people, including some who don’t like his politics at all, have stepped forward to defend his right to cry.
Women have been especially quick to jump to his defense, at least when it comes to the crying thing. In the Washington Post, Ruth Marcus announced that she wanted “to celebrate the lachrymose speaker-to-be and hope that he helps make the world safe for public crying.” Rachel Maddow devoted a whole segment of her show to a defense of his shows of emotion — while pointing out that while Boehner has been moved to tears by the plight of American schoolchildren, his policies will inevitably result in massive budget cuts for education.
But the most, er, original interpretation of the whole crying thing comes from one commenter on NiceGuy’s MGTOW [Men Going Their Own Way] forum, who sees this female defense of Boehner’s right to cry as … an evil female plot to make him look bad. As Phloridian put it in a recent posting:
By now many of us have become aware of the crying episodes of John Boehner who is soon to become the next Speaker of the House.
Women all over the media have been insisting that it is alright, but snickering about it covertly. The piece on 60 Minutes has virtually doomed any chance of becoming President and he is beginning to become a laughing stock.
This is why women are not to be trusted. They will encourage men to cry, and expose their vulnerabilities all in an effort to weaken the man. That’s what’s being done here and it sickens me.
Women are devious creatures indeed! It makes me want to cry.
>I do not really care if he cries.What I want to know is:How good is he at playing footsies in the men's room at an airport?
>I like how he thinks they are secretly snickering. Once you project evil motives on to an entire class of people any facts can confirm your reality.
>Although I think that the quoted comment is an unfair and inaccurate indictment against all women, I do agree with the commenter in one respect. I think that it's true that a substantial number of people lose respect for men who release their emotions, whereas a similar outburst from a woman would gain her sympathy. So any man who hears masculinity being criticized (as somehow oppressive for its suppression of male emotions) should be wary, lest he be ostracized by the same people who offer up that very critique. It would be nice if men felt more free to open up to other men without their manhood being called into question, but unfortunately many people who agree with this statement can't help but feel revulsion when a particular man does express sadness or pain.Still, there's something positive to be said about a man who doesn't let his emotions pour out like a thunderous waterfall. Within reason, I think that holding in emotions can demonstrate a degree of self-control in a man, and that is true both for blubbering as well as rage.
>He probably just needs more sleep.
>@John Dias, except, here, the complaint involves the fact that women have been largely and extensively defending this man's right to express his emotions." I think that it's true that a substantial number of people lose respect for men who release their emotions" Except the people being complained about by the MGTOW are precisely those who are arguing that Boehner should be allowed to express his emotions without censure."whereas a similar outburst from a woman would gain her sympathy." No, tears from a female politician are taken as a sign that she is weak and unfit to lead. There has been a grand total of one woman in the history of the US to hold Boehner's position and tears would likely have ended her career. Here's an article published during the election from when Hillary Clinton didn't cry, but had tears well up http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4097786&tqkw=&tqshow=&page=1 Newsweek said this about it:"There will no doubt be comparisons to the teary press conference former Colorado representative Pat Schroeder held to announce that she wouldn't run for president, thus confirming that anyone who needed to carry Kleenex in her purse was unfit for the highest office in the land. "A woman who cries in public is not seen as sympathetic, she is seen as weak, incompetant, over-emotional, and piteous. If you think that crying gets women respect, you are flat out wrong. It may get a certain small subset pity, but it doesn't garner respect."help but feel revulsion when a particular man does express sadness or pain." Again, the MGTOW are complaining about people DEFENDING Boehner, including people who oppose his politics. Also, you yourself are doing this with you second paragraph "there's something positive to be said about a man who doesn't let his emotions pour out like a thunderous waterfall. Within reason, I think that holding in emotions can demonstrate a degree of self-control in a man, and that is true both for blubbering as well as rage." So emotions shouldn't be shameful, but expressing them is a sign of lack of self control and is negative?"So any man who hears masculinity being criticized (as somehow oppressive for its suppression of male emotions) should be wary, lest he be ostracized by the same people who offer up that very critique. " Wtf? There is zero evidence that the people criticizing standards of masculinity here are 'ostracizing' anyone. They are defending Boehner's right to express his emotions even though it may go against what is seen as appropriately masculine. Policing yourself out of terror of being seen as feminine and therefore viewing yourself as inferior is not the fault of women, feminists, or feminine people. It isn't the women defending Boehner who are pushing toxic notions of masculinity, it is the MGTOW.
>"No, tears from a female politician are taken as a sign that she is weak and unfit to lead. There has been a grand total of one woman in the history of the US to hold Boehner's position and tears would likely have ended her career. Here's an article published during the election from when Hillary Clinton didn't cry, but had tears well up…"And prior to Hillary Clinton having that moment where she had tears welling up, she was soundly lambasted for being too cold, emotionless, robotic, etc. Either way you slice it, the media deemed her unfit for leadership… she was either too tough to lead or too weak to lead. I wonder if Boenher would suffer those same criticisms if he didn't shed a tear.
>First of all, its pure feminist speculation that Nancy Pelosi would have lost the Speakership if she had ever shed tears (in fact, she lost it because of the election). Secondly, Hillary Clinton gained politically as a result of her tears; she won the New Hampshire presidential primary. Contrast that with Ed Muskie, former Senator and 1972 Democratic candidate for the U.S. presidency. Due merely to the perception that he was crying, he lost subsequent primaries and went on to lose the Democratic nomination, despite being the perceived front runner. His purported tears did not benefit him, unlike those of Hillary Clinton. The Muskie campaign pointed out that his supposed tears were merely melted snowflakes that had landed on his face, but he was still punished. And guess what… despite the fact that Muskie politically suffered a devastating loss for being perceived as crying, his wife benefited from his display of emotion. A New Hampshire newspaper had attacked her, and Muskie's passionate defense of her integrity was what cost him the nomination (namely in the eyes of historians). So while Hillary and Muskie's wife — both women — benefited from tears, Muskie the man suffered.And that's just an example of how women have an advantage in politics. However, my original point pertained to women in society. Women can cry and get sympathy for it, whereas a man can merely express pain — not even cry — and receive scorn. I agree with Warren Farrell's statement that a woman's facade of vulnerability is her greatest strength, whereas a man's facade of strength is his greatest vulnerability.
>John, you do realize that the Muskie crying thing happened nearly 40 years ago, right?
>@David Futrelle:"John, you do realize that the Muskie crying thing happened nearly 40 years ago, right?"I did cite the year as being 1972, so yes, I am aware of it. Time only reinforces my point, rather than negating it. We're still seeing the same phenomenon today as we saw back then.
>Come to think of it, the same phenomenon — men being punished more than women for displaying "excessive" emotion — has also happened more recently. In a 1988 GOP rally, when Dan Quayle was announced as the running mate for George Bush Sr., rather than calmly walking he burst onto the stage in a display of irrational exuberance, shouting "Let's get 'em!!!" After this he was considered a liability to the Bush Sr. ticket. Then in 2004, Howard Dean showed a similar level of irrational exuberance, trying to rally his supporters after a loss in the Iowa caucuses, when he shrieked his "Dean scream."Contrast that to Barack Obama, who has maintained his cool so well that it earns him humorous praise and sometimes even criticism. Also contrast that to Bush Jr., who coasted to re-election when he was perceived (rightly or wrongly) as strong and resolute in his reaction to 9/11.The takeaway from the above examples is that politically, men are rewarded for displays of calmness in the storm, rather than displays of emotion. Men in politics are punished for displays of emotion, whether for expressing emotional pain or exuberance.Men in society (let alone politics) are well-served to release emotion carefully and only with people who they deeply trust. It's just a reality. Also a reality is the fact that women are privileged in the realm of expressing emotion (politically or not), and are far more likely than men to benefit from it.
>John, I know you know when the Muskie thing happened, I'm just saying that attitudes towards men displaying emotion in public have changed radically since then. As for the Dan Quayle thing, I think the fact that he's a blithering idiot made more of a difference than one public display of overenthusiasm. And Howard Dean? You really think a female politician would have gotten away with something similar?
>"John, I know you know when the Muskie thing happened, I'm just saying that attitudes towards men displaying emotion in public have changed radically since then."Evidence?"As for the Dan Quayle thing, I think the fact that he's a blithering idiot made more of a difference than one public display of overenthusiasm."That display of overenthusiasm preceded all of Quayle's later rhetorical foibles, and yet at the time he was skewered for it."And Howard Dean? You really think a female politician would have gotten away with something similar?"Perhaps not. But the point is that in order to be a leader, you must display masculine traits. Women are privileged in the realm of expressing emotion (since they are more often rewarded for it and less often punished). Certainly this is true in society as a whole, but it's also somewhat true in politics insofar as crying (i.e. vulnerability) is concerned. The fact that the public expects masculine qualities in a president is deemed by feminists to be sexism, and feminists claim that women have to try "extra hard" to portray themselves with a tough exterior. In reality, however, it only "seems" extra hard to a woman, because by adapting to the public's expectations of masculine leadership she's simultaneously abandoning her emotional privileges (privileges that men as a whole — and male candidates — never had in the first place).That's an observation that is common to feminist critique; the privileges of women are constantly portrayed by feminists as burdens. It's a lie, and unfortunately many non-feminist people swallow that lie without so much as a hiccup.
>Hey David- Do you think it would be too much for MRA's to understand that the fear of not being respected because you cried IS being emotional. Would they understand it if I explained that fear and pride are emotions? I think not. The irony of keeping your emotions in because you're emotional is lost on them. I had to have a giant belly laugh at the caption under the picture. It reminded me of those motivational posters. Thanks.
>Valerie, you're critiquing male reasoning while using female criteria, and as a result you totally miss the point. The concern with most men is not primarily about status or attaining social validation (as is often the case with women). On the contrary, men are being mindful of losing their leverage. Showing excessive emotional vulnerability might mean that a man's girlfriend breaks up with him, or he might lose an opportunity to arrange a date with a particular woman, or over time an emotional man might get divorced by his wife and subsequently lose all that he has. An excessively emotional man (where "excessively emotional" is defined by the conventional societal wisdom) can lose a job, he can lose his freedom (due to the loosely-defined criteria of domestic violence laws — "shout at your spouse and lose your house"), he can lose his kids (if his disgusted wife divorces him and moves for full custody), and he can even alienate his male friends.But even in the realm of emotion, many men are more emotionally vulnerable than women precisely because of the lack of support they receive. That's why it's important to understand the immense value to men of close male friends, but also the value he places on the intimacy and trust that he has with his female partner. Especially with his female partner. Women have no idea of the sheer enormity of their power, because many men have "put all of their emotional eggs in one basket" as Warren Farrel has said. In other words, a lot of men disclose their most sensitive feelings primarily (or solely) to their wives or girlfriends, giving such women enormous leverage. Even privately, she could completely decimate him with a single comment, and then later when he protests about this she can claim that he is being too sensitive. It is she who is being insensitive, and it is he who is vulnerable.
>Perhaps not. But the point is that in order to be a leader, you must display masculine traits.Do elaborate. A list is fine. Not being snarky, just wondering if your POV is a trifle dated.
>@ahunt:Any list of masculine qualities that I might list would be attacked by you as not uniquely masculine. Your very request for a clear definition masks what I suspect is an ideology that despises clear definitions, denigrating them as narrow-minded. Why don't you first reveal your beliefs, so that I can judge you, and determine if your POV is a trifle dogmatic?
>@John Dias,In the large number of divorces every year, what percentage of these actually involve domestic violence laws?
>@John Dias,It's an exaggeration to say "shout at your spouse, lose your house". If a man is continually shouting at his spouse, which most likely is due to an entitlement issue, will probably get left eventually and one of the parties will likely have to buy the other out of the house. Bottom line…people don't get arrested, much less convicted, for DV simply for shouting. And very, very few people actually lose their kids, even those who should not be around kids. People who claim to be victims because they've lost custody of their kids generally have done something to lose them that they aren't telling you about. Yes, there may be a high percentage of people in the MRM who have had these experiences, but there is also a very high level of entitlement among the group when it comes to relationships which leads to conflict. Just because a person claims they were arrested for DV or lost their children for nothing, doesn't make it true.
>@Christine WE:It's an exaggeration to say "shout at your spouse, lose your house"… Bottom line…people don't get arrested, much less convicted, for DV simply for shouting.You have ignored the fundamental reason behind the "shout at your spouse, lose your house" reality. The law allows judges to impose a restraining order without any substantiation AT ALL. A restraining order doesn't entail criminal charges; in fact, a person has more rights being formally indicted for domestic violence than he has merely being targeted by a restraining order. It's actually worse than "shout at your house, lose your house." You can be perfectly peaceful, and your wife can get you kicked out of your home merely by telling the police that she is in fear for her life, on the pretext that you "might" do something violent.The point is that it's all perfectly legal for any woman to do this, whether her live-in male partner has behaved abusively or not. A restraining order requires no proof at all. The fact is, shouting at your spouse is the provocation that would motivate someone to demand a restraining order, out of pure vengeance.Again, the point is that it is completely legal for all of this to happen. No woman who exaggerates or lies in an effort to get a restraining order will ever get prosecuted for it, or receive a contempt of court citation. It just doesn't happen. And if a restraining order is granted, not only does a man lose his possessions and his home, but he effectively loses custody of his kids. The issuance of a restraining order is considered valid evidence in family court for proving that the target of the order deserves to lose custody of his kids.It's all legal. Whether it's likely or not all depends on a woman's mood. Don't make her mad.
>@John Dias,Your post is an exaggeration and misrepresentation, or perhaps a misunderstanding, of how Protection From Abuse laws work and of why they are in place. First, officers do not grant orders, judge's do. A person has to fill out a detailed form and present it to a judge – usually a judge who is trained in risk assessment. The person who requested one doesn't always get it, and if they do, they ALWAYS have to prove it's needed with evidence, usually within 14 days. Any protection order granted or loss of visitation with children beyond that court date is not likely to be frivolous at all. If a man or woman is whining that he/she has permanently lost custody of their children, they have done something they are not admitting. And there isn't an advantage to a woman lying to a court for personal gain in the end, judges do not take kindly to this at all. The judge will be, at the very least, annoyed, and in the end, that person will not have a protection order in family court and assets will be divided as provided by divorce law. Protection From Abuse laws are in place to save lives, not to strip men of their assets. There are multiple domestic related murders and attempted murders every single day and every day more officers and judges must deal with the fallout of having made decisions regarding many of those cases – good and bad. As long as these murders are occurring, there will be legal efforts to prevent them. MRA's should think about this when issuing warnings that more will occur because of these laws or applauding these murderers for their choices. In reality, these murders are not a response to the laws. The laws are a response to the murders.
>One thing to add to my post above, anyone who believes that domestic homicides occur because of laws should research the topic of 'fatality reviews' that are taking place across the U.S. to study the backgrounds of the cases. The results of these reviews are often used to make decisions as to how DV cases will be approached. Also, there are some informative books written on the subject such as 'Why Do They Kill?' And other similar books. In most cases, there has been ominous behavior and severe entitlement on the part of the murderer long before any court ever became involved or an attempt to escape the relationship was made.
>Christine WE: And there isn't an advantage to a woman lying to a court for personal gain in the end, judges do not take kindly to this at all. The judge will be, at the very least, annoyed … There is a difference between the law itself and law execution. Real life is quite different from abstract laws. So far as we see it as MRAs, to be a female and a liar is frequently very effective and lucrative.The man will not only be arrested or at least be kicked out of the home, he also will be financially weaker and has problems to pay for a good legal defense with experts and lawyers.He has hardly even an opportunity to take his own belongings with him. Often the car is also taken for use by his wife (ex-wife).It is very difficult to defend yourself as man against a female accuser in your own home, as he can only say, I did not do that…As I said in many previous postings, MRAs understand that laws are against men. Best solution: PREVENTION. Stay single and no female into your private rooms. It's difficult to accuse you for DV if you are alone in your home.For accused men, MRAs recommend to move away as quickly as possible. Far away. Women often claim harassment after the man is kicked out. In case the woman is claiming something, you can prove you have not been there. – Maybe the best way to defend yourself…
>@yohan,Accusations of violence don't occur at all in the majority of overall divorces, so the majority of women are not doing what you claim they are. You are a drama queen.
>A drama queen who makes up his own "facts" about everything he comments about, from DV to online dating. Also, Yohan, what's the deal with all these remarks to the effect that "MRAs say this,," "MRAs recommend that," etc? Uh, who died and made you king of the MRAs? Different MRAs believe different things, and a lot of your generalizations about MRAs are just about as accurate as your generalizations about feminists, which is to say not at all.
>@CHRISTINE WEYou know, I wasn't going to post anymore on this blog as arguing with feminists really is like banging your head against a brick wall, but while lurking I noticed John Dias' post and I thought, well there's no way someone could debate his post. And then I saw your post, and again wanted to bang my head into the wall.You state: "Your post is an exaggeration and misrepresentation, or perhaps a misunderstanding, of how Protection From Abuse laws work and of why they are in place. First, officers do not grant orders, judge's do. A person has to fill out a detailed form and present it to a judge – usually a judge who is trained in risk assessment. The person who requested one doesn't always get it, and if they do, they ALWAYS have to prove it's needed with evidence, usually within 14 days."I have two words for you. David Letterman. Remember him? A woman actually got a TRO against him because of alleged attacks via televison. "Colleen Nestler of Santa Fe claimed that Letterman has used code words to express his desire to marry her and train her as a host on his show. Nestler said Letterman has forced her to go bankrupt and caused her "sleep deprivation" and "mental anguish" since 1994, the Associated Press reports. Nestler's temporary order, which she is trying to have made permanent, states that Letterman must stay at least three yards away from her and not "think of me, and release me from his mental harassment and hammering." A state judge granted the temporary order, but attorneys for Letterman are seeking to have the order quashed." Nester GOT HER TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. So, Christine WE, where were all those risk assesing judges of which you speak? Where were all those experts who wouldn't allow a frivilous TRO to become active, eh?If a woman can claim a rich celeb is sending her secret messages and then actually gets a TRO, what chance does a normal man in a normal situation have?Risk Assessment my ass.Random Brother. http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,1143004,00.html