Raising scaredy-cat men

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, January 6. 2011

Women like their men to be brave in the face of what life presents. Women appreciate men who will take it on, and not hide, retreat, or run from the things in life. Furthermore, they appreciate men who will get out there and take things on, new things, challenges, and mix it up with life. Not in a sociopathic way, but boldly.

However, many or most men are full of secret fears and timid in some ways about the risks in life. In many ways, more so than the average female (but that is another post). Fears of being hurt, killed, lost, confused, vulnerable, humiliated, ego-damaged, etc. Especially ego-damaged.

An important part of being and feeling manly is confronting fear, uneasiness, and discomfort, and overcoming the fear. Vitality entails risk. I suppose those are cliches, but true. Males are supposed to put on a game face when they are nervous or afraid. Life isn't meant to be easy, and males are meant to exit the comfort zone and to enter the jungle. The women of America are sick of pussified, metrosexual males who are afraid of splinters, rock-climbing, snowstorms, rough water, and strong women.

Two things brought this ancient topic to mind:

Banning Bravery: From Yale to the NFL

Are Americans Wusses or Just Fond of Trash Talk?

Posted by Dr. Joy Bliss in Our Essays, Psychology, and Dr. Bliss, The Culture, "Culture," Pop Culture and Recreation at 13:59 | Comments (25) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

PingBack

Weblog: www.frombearcreek.com
Tracked: Jan 06, 20:17

PingBack

Weblog: www.frombearcreek.com
Tracked: Jan 06, 20:17

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

So just where does John Boehner's bawling fit into all this? Jeez, I'm not above a tear or two, but he takes the male sensitivity thing to a whole new and embarrassing level. I guess his game face involves sniveling into his hanky.

#1 Alex G on 2011-01-06 14:02 (Reply)

I wouldn't be too hard on Boehner. Is there anything besides his inability to hold back a tear that makes you think this? I sure haven't seen anything.

When my dad died at the age of 48 of a sudden heart attack, I was the strength that held my family together. But, it ripped my heart apart so bad that that to this day I can have difficulty with my emotions and choking up like Boehner does is something I'm sure I would struggle with in his position. The thing that gets to me most are heart tugging things related to our military. I had to take two handkerchiefs to get thru a graduation ceremony I attended at Parris Island.

Not that I'm the most manly guy you'll meet, but I think my wife would tell you I mostly fit Dr. Joy's description. I boxed as a kid, did 4 years of military, started my business 25 yrs ago and am not afraid to discipline my coworkers, as I did my sons. We do what we have to do to get the job done. Granted, I couldn't have done much if any of this were it not for my dependence on God's Holy Spirit, but then my measure of a man is Jesus Christ.

All this to say, give Boehner a break, and don't be surprised if he's got some Winston Churchill in him.

#1.1 steve boggs on 2011-01-06 15:14 (Reply)

I agree with you, Alex!

I find it very distasteful for the "leader" of the House to be so unable to control his emotions. I suspect he has had too much of the drink. Perhaps he is so emotionally distraught because deep within his conscience he knows he and his ilk have been responsible for the ruin of a once great nation.

There is a time and a place for everything and being able to express one's sensitive side is nothing to be ashamed of. However, the time for that is with family and close friends under appropriate circumstances....the loss of a family member or the suffering of a friend as examples. But to blubber on national television over the state of the economy or as he accepts the news of his impending rise to Speaker of the House is weakness and perhaps even a display of mental imbalance. At this point, I expect nothing less from the dead elephant party. They are all pathetic.

#1.2 Kevin on 2011-01-06 16:17 (Reply)

As a fellow Ohian, you can kiss Boehner's ass and mine.

#1.2.1 steve boggs on 2011-01-06 16:22 (Reply)

I suspect that if you girlie boys from Ohio can do no better than offer up a pussy like Boehner, then you both will enjoy kissing each others asses. Have fun!

#1.2.1.1 Kevin on 2011-01-06 18:29 (Reply)

...and I had to laugh when I read that Ted Williams is also a "fellow Ohioan" ...er con-man! Could be something in the water.

#1.2.1.2 Kevin on 2011-01-06 18:38 (Reply)

pussified, metrosexual males

Hey - chest waxing HURTS!

#2 Ben David on 2011-01-06 14:10 (Reply)

I tend to agree, but by the same token, as much as "The women of America" are sick of the "male sensitivity" thing, perhaps "they" should take stock of their role in contributing to it. Perhaps instead of telling men how they should be or what they want them to be- they accept that men are who they are, as much as they want men to accept women for who they want to be.

#3 JC Loophole on 2011-01-06 14:30 (Reply)

Very true. In fact the Bible discusses this in Genesis. Whether you believe it to be divine or not, it's still a profound insight from several thousand years ago.

I respect Dr. Bliss' comments, but I think she has some of it wrong on this topic. Men have fears, but it's not insecurity that holds back many of them. It's a rational assessment that they don't have the help they need to do challenging things. From a Biblical context, that's supposed to come from their wives, and in a bigger way, their God-fearing community of worship.

But, as feminism has taken hold of western culture, including the Christian church, they don't get support and help from anyone.

In fact, it's the insecurity thesis that's an example of the problem. Men know that every time they ask for help, it will be refused, or even ridiculed:
Their wives are the ones w/ the insecurities, so they balk when it comes to taking risks, and working through them. Then wives can't figure out why they're husbands bore them, and they file for divorce at 2x the rate of men.

Their churches are led by fearful pastors, ones who don't want to see their congregation do hard things that might reduce the offering collection or challenge them to take on societal evils. So they preach this message and others that serving God means being timid parishoners who obey their wives and pastors.

#3.1 DrTorch on 2011-01-06 16:19 (Reply)

And perhaps they should quit using parenting tactics that suck the very spirit out of the boys that would lead them to fulfilling their role as men. I am appalled by some of these women I encounter who constantly correct a boy's agressiveness as he is trying it on, cut off his risk taking, and shackle him with safety factors, and then coddle, berate, or pretend it does not matter when he gets hurt or screws up. Hell, by the time they are 18 these young men do not have a clue how to even develop the facets of their being that make them male because it has all been parented out of them.

#3.2 Another Ohioan on 2011-01-07 13:28 (Reply)

Amen! (public schools anyone?)

(I'm also a native Ohioan)

#3.2.1 DrTorch on 2011-01-07 14:29 (Reply)

If the women of America are sick of sissies, they are hiding it real well - at least on college campuses.

On the other hand - during my young Marine days... Marines on a weekend leave seem to be able to attract young women in incredibly short order.

#4 NJSoldiers on 2011-01-06 14:44 (Reply)

I think you are quite right NJ.

This is all a result of the feminization of our culture. Women should be the last to complain, they have reaped what they have sown.

#4.1 feeblemind on 2011-01-06 16:22 (Reply)

Now just wait a second here! What kinda rock climbing are we yapping about? Is the the sheer cliff face stuff that only lunatics participate in or the fad crap? Either way, discretion is the better part of valor.

As for the rest, OK. Rock climbing my fat arse!

#5 Knucklehead (Link) on 2011-01-06 15:03 (Reply)

I thought the topic of both articles was whether our society is becoming wussified, not simply the men. You know, afraid to go out of doors when the weather is bad, the idea that kids must be emotionally protected from losing or even competing, that you can't even ride a simple bike around the block without knee pads and a helmet ... that type of thing.

And leave Boehner alone. I think his crying when he gets emotional is more of a personal quirk than anything -- like some people sweat when they get nervous. Steve Stricker cries when he wins golf tournaments. He would be wussified if he cried when someone else won.

#6 D on 2011-01-06 15:36 (Reply)

I think in large measure it is a city and/or regional centric kind of thing. I know around here, you can't start an Explorer program without having high insurance, you can't have kids do this that and the other, yada, yada, yada. That's assuming you can even get kids to join an Explorer program.

Now down south, my youngest is involved in a Explorer/Cadet program with the police agency he is with. He has to turn applicants away because of high participation. The parents support the programs, the understand that risk is part of the educational program and that in large part, this is good exposure for youth to the real problems in the world, problem solving, discipline, etc.

It's also lawyers. We are a sue happy nation and that automatically leads to risk aversion for liability reasons and the potential of scoring a quick buck or two.

#7 Tom Francis on 2011-01-06 17:11 (Reply)

If you don't have fears you're broken in my book. Stepping up is what makes the difference. Doc's got it right....

Since my divorce I cry a lot when I'm praying...mostly out of joy. Really, I like being able to feel grief deeply. No problem with crying in its place. You know, if you have a buddy who cries, step up if it makes you uncomfortable...that's your crap. But if he's a wet rag because his team loses or his two-week relationship is over, you know, take him aside after he's had his moment and with all the compassion you can muster tell the dude he's a pussy and he needs to man up.

#8 Jephnol (Link) on 2011-01-06 17:57 (Reply)

My son was born in 1986. As a child he had his ups and downs in school, sports, play yard. I had to tell him that if he had to cry, make sure he waited until he was home with me, in private. Boys crying in public are still targets.....things have not changed since I was a child many moons ago.

#9 J on 2011-01-06 19:16 (Reply)

To begin with, I love manly men, macho guys who step up to the plate in a crisis, and usually save the day for the rest of us. But I agree with and understand what Jephnol is saying. Manly men cry on occasion -- when they suffer great losses, or sometimes when they achieve goals they have long struggled for. Boehner's tears, and they were not a full-out crying jag, as Kevin and Alex G are implying, were probably his remembering his long struggle from obscurity to his present achievements. I watched the entire ceremony, in which Nancy Pelosi seized the microphone and the moment away from Boehner and recited a long list of what she considers are her achievements. Boehner, when he finally was allowed the microphone, had a moment when he dabbed his eyes, and then proceeded to give a fine speech, not focused on himself, as Pelosi was, but on the coming struggle to help America return to solvency and traditional values.

If Kevin and Alex G. would bother to research his past life as the eldest of twelve children who were raised in a two bedroom apartment and who helped their Dad and Mother run their bar and keep the family unit going, maybe they would have a little more respect for his achievements, and cut him some slack for being a little emotional.

Kevin and Alex G -- one question. Are you guys crypto-Democrat trolls roaming the Internet trying to cause trouble? I don't believe I've ever seen you post here before. And how come you don't man up and sign your real names? I sign mine. It's

Marianne Matthews, because I sincerely believe what I write. How about you?

#10 Marianne Matthews on 2011-01-06 20:52 (Reply)

Now Marianne, don't go getting me too wrong here...I'm good with livestock, I've been on a bull, been thrown by a bull, been tossed by a horse or two, love to hunt, shoot, ride, drive fast and meet ladies. I scratch what itches and think guys who drink alcohol with umbrellas should be sent to the front line. I like war movies, I don't cry at weddings and I'm not going to cry if a cat gets run over. Okay, I'll admit I lost it when my dog died, but he went Old Yeller style, enough to make R. Lee Ermey shed a tear or two. ;-)

#11 Jephnol (Link) on 2011-01-06 21:43 (Reply)

I will try to address your questions, Marianne.
For starters, I have a sort of love/hate relationship with Maggie's Farm. I am a long time Dylan fan and the blog name caught my attention a few years ago, linked from Westernrifleshootersblog.
If you know of that blog you may have an idea of my political leanings. If not, I'll summarize: I lean toward the Libertarian side of most issues though they have disappointed me deeply, especially on their position on the current war(s). I voted Libertarian whenever I could until I stopped voting entirely after Clinton was re-elected. My thinking was/is that if the American people are so stupid as to re-elect that creep they deserve whatever befalls them and I am clearly way out of step with mainstream American political thinking.
I am a member of what is best described as the 3%....look it up if you are not aware of what that means.

While I enjoy some of what I read here at Maggie's, I find there to be a propensity toward elitist snobbery and much of what passes for "Conservatism" here is what most Libertarians would call the mush in the middle. Look that up as well. There is also way too much adoration for the military and LEO's here for my tastes. Maybe you (Maggie's, not you personally) should look around at the growing documentation of outrageously lawless behavior on the part of LEO's instead of so blithely licking badges and boots.

However, there is some common ground with a mutual distrust of and strong dislike for Democrat (read Marxist/collectivist) policy and especially the current occupant of the White House. No "crypto-dem-troll" here! But do not think for a minute I have any faith in the Dead Elephants saving us. This is evidenced in part by the cry-baby Mr. speaker. I watched him on 60 MINUTES where he broke down in tears no less than 3 times! This is not leadership it is a lack of self discipline. As I said before, I suspect it is brought on by the drink. But should we expect anything less from a congresscritter? This same Ohioan who "struggled from obscurity" to work with Newt Gingrich on the Contract with America and got nothing accomplished....ZERO! and we are supposed to believe they will fix things now? He/they are part of the problem.

Not to high-jack the thread but your comments needed to be addressed. Boehner strikes me as a blubbering loser. Time will prove that.

#12 Kevin on 2011-01-06 22:01 (Reply)

Please take no offense, but I often wonder exactly what "Libertarian" means. From my reading on the subject, it would seem that Libertarianism is about as confused and segmented as any other political belief.

Kind of like cafeteria politics. From rugged individualism to communal cooperation and everything inbetween. Its the ultimate gray philosophical blend which, to me anyway, means nothing, stands for nothing and is promoted as "individualist" when it is anything but.

#12.1 Tom Francis on 2011-01-07 07:54 (Reply)

OK Mr. Francis, here's Libertarianism in a nutshell from one who has been involved in this mad adventure for nigh onto 30+ years.

These principles are not the be-all and end-all of the matter, only my observations born of long experience.

1. Basic philosophy: Since no-one is going to die my death for me, it follows that no-one has the right to live my life for me. Put otherwise: My butt; my problem.

2. Principle of application: Adam Smith was correct in his assessment of collective work. However, in experience, we find that the most efficient collectives are those formed by Individualists. That each member of a group is participating out of self-interest only serves to promote their commitment the group's success.

3. Political consequence: The only valid function of governance is to manage the Commons. Anything else is parasitism.

4. Political objective: To discover and implement rules of behavior which will make any governance (e.g. Corporate, State, institutional) self-reductive. e.g. Sunset provisions for law, strict separation of regulation from activities which are being regulated, liability applied to behavior and not the means used to effect behavior.

Pretty much anything else you're likely to hear involves the application of these principles, or the mutterings and musings of those who desire a Libertarian outcome without much consideration of what it takes to get from here to there.

#12.1.1 Michael Scott on 2011-01-24 10:57 (Reply)

Kevin ... Thank you for answering my comments, and forgive me for being a little hot under the collar about yours. But I still stand by mine. There's a big difference between 'blubbering' [which is self-indulgent self-pity] and shedding a tear or two, possibly of relief and joy at attaining a long-held objective. Strong men cry or have cried, and need not be ashamed of it.

I suggest you and I watch and see what develops. I sincerely hope the next two years will be more politically impressive than the last two.

Marianne
.

#13 Marianne Matthews on 2011-01-07 00:00 (Reply)

There is an old saying about fighter pilots: There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.

I had a good friend who was afraid of nothing. Fought with anyone and that included the police. I miss him! He was the epitome of what we all think of as real men. He was the John Wayne of my friends. Did I mention he is dead??? I on the other hand sat out many of the thrilling episodes of our youth while my good friend boldly went where no man had gone before. I have 8 grandchildren and I expect a few more. I am reasonably healthy and comfortable in retirement and intend to live into my late 80's. I have NO intention of showing off to impress the women (or men). I avoid dangerous situations (although I applaud our brave police and firemen). So who is smarter? Me who is careful, planned ahead, take care of my health, or my much braver and more "manly friend who died young but did indeed impress the women???

#14 GoneWithTheWind on 2011-01-07 13:35 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, January 6. 2011

Raising scaredy-cat men