Rose, Brooke, Kara, I have to agree. There really will be no “ideal” man (or anything else for that matter), because our ideals always change. As we grow older, we perceive, or believe that we perceive, flaws with our ideals and change them only to change them again later.

Joseph, I was rather certain that she would behave in that manner after reading the blurb on her, so I decided not to go to that lecture. I have no problem with feminism, like most other things, when it is a moderate action. Almost anything taken to an extreme is, to me at any rate, generally distasteful.

I believe that crying or the showing of most other emotions can be a healthy thing if done in the proper manner (as in being non-destructive, or as non-destructive as possible). You will find that there are different reasons that some people refuse to show them. Most people, it’s true, simply try to live within the bounds of the stereotype that is a sign of weakness for men to cry while others have other reasons.

Speaking personally, I do occasionally show those emotions when I feel them and it is safe for me to do so. For the most part, I tend to save most of my emotions for when I am alone or with my group. Instead, I just try to walk a path somewhere between what, for me, would be “overly emotional” and cold. The reason for this is much the same as the reason for my reluctance to speak about a lot of my past: I dislike laying too many cards on the table at any one time, so to speak. I’ve done it in the past, and it’s gotten me, as well as a few others, in a great deal of trouble.

The issue of men crying. Well My father is Europen and I am not saying all European countries are like this, but my father was raised never to show any emotion. If your spouse, child or parent dies you aren't supoosed to show emotion to anyone. You are to deal with your problems alone. When my father cam to America in the late 1960s there was the Revolution going on. He got in touch with his emotinal side. Now my father cries when it hurts, when he is happy, at movies and what not. He is no less and no more a man for doing so. Is a woman less of a woman if she keeps her emotions in?

I have been reading through other people's comments and I completely agree with just about everything everyone has had to say. I believe it is not only okay, but good and needed for a healthy human spirit for men and women and children to be able to cry when they need to. A lot of men are taught that it's not a good thing to do. I also think, though (and I could be completely wrong) that it's, at times, kind of an instinct for men not to cry especially in front of their wife because by not crying they're letting her know that it will all be okay (whether it will be or not). It's not necessarily logical but, then again, humans aren't logical. There's a lot more to this issue than that but I don't want to have to write a book. If I did, I'd hope I wouldn't have as many flaws in it as Coontz does in her books. I also agree with others that she needs to work out some personal issues she has with men before she can feel qualified to write about them in a respectable fashion. It's like she's got a vendeta against them and, frankly, it REALLY ticks me off that people consider her qualified to write about men and they actually make decisions based at least some off of what she says. That's wrong! Anyway, have a good weekend.

Essay 19 speaks on the issue of men crying in public: "...public display of sensitivity such as crying, rather than signaling weakness, has instead become a legitimizing sign of the New Man's power." This statement is unacceptable because this "legitimizing sign" is written in a language that many Americans can not understand. This lack of understanding is not due to any type of ignorance to the changing times, but rather to the fact that there are still a many number of Americans who feel that men shouldn't cry. Even in my own family, my mother likes the fact that my father can be sensitive, but they both know that if Mommy sees Daddy shed tears, there will be total chaos. My mother has always depended on my father to be strong and steady in his emotions, which, at times, may make him appear hardened to emotional extremes, but his consistency and solemnity in expression allows the rest of the family freedom of emotional distress. A lot of this emotional distress is released through crying, and often times, my mother and sisters cry for no apparent reason at all... my fayher and I understand. Even though I've never seen my father cry, and I haven't cried since I lost a fight in the third grade, neither on of us feels that crying is unacceptable. At the same time, we definitely don't feel that it has become a "legitimizing sign of the New Man's power."

Edited by author 05-10-2002 05:01 PM
Commenting on the essay discussed in class about men crying, well I have to say that the only time I saw my father cry, was when my grandfather (his father)passed away.
I can remenber all the family standing around my mother's bedside as we watched her take her last breath at age 37, and I remember seeing my father hold back tears. I am sure he was tryng to live up to the idea in front of everyone, that men don't cry. I can still picture him being calm and collected, but he must have had a terrific burden on his shoulders at the time. I think that society has cast a shadow on this idea that men should not cry, but I believe it is ok, after all we are all human with feelings and emotions. Now, for the Andrea Dworkin lecture! If you missed it, consider yourself lucky. This woman is no doubt a gifted writer and knows how to keep your attention, but she hates men, or is just making lots of money pretending she does. I could hardly believe she quoted "male homosexuals and males" were responsible for all prostitution! She made no distinction at all and how can a writer make such comments and expect to be respected. All of her essays put men down, and led me to wonder if this woman ever married, or as mentioned, is keeping the world attracted like one of the daytime soap operas with her view of ALL men?

I found that yesterdays discusson on issue #19 was very interesting. In fact I really enjoyed the reading itself. I found that it generated a lot of discussion among the class. I would like to put my 2 cents in about the whole men crying discussion. I personally feel that it is ok for guys to cry no matter what the situation, but at the same time I feel that society looks down upon men who cry for any other reason besides a death of a loved one or something of that nature. Most men are stereotyped as being "gay" if they cry over a girl or a movie or something. On a personal note, I have two younger brothers and I remember as we were growing up that if I fell down and scratched up my knee or something it was ok for me to be upset and cry about it, but if my brothers did that my dad would tell them to stop crying and suck it up like a man. I feel that most men have probably grown up in this same situation, like many guy friends that I know. I personally feel that it is ok for guys to cry and show there emtions. I wish that society felt the same.

I have to say that I was very disturbed by comments made in the past essays we have been assigned to read. That so-called educated, professional individuals have made such IGNORANT comments simply astounds me. Marginalized people often strive to make a meager existence. That seems, to me, to be ignored. To call poverty a cultural pathology rather than the response to institutionalized disadvantages, again, leaves me in disbelief. Essays #12, #13, and #19 indicate that there is, indeed, an issue of social inequality that causes various dilemmas in the 'underclass'. But then again, who has the right to deem someone or peoples of a certain race as an UNDERCLASS? Does a degree give you that right? I understand that there are people at low, middle, and high class levels...but simply UNDER? Simply not even on a level?! That is ridiculous to me. Yet then again, I do not have a degree in sociology oy economics like the "experts" who so frankly gave bits of their expertise in these essays that reach many readers, and help influence decision makers. Many people in the majority do not understand or oftentimes even ATTEMPT to understand what it is like to be part of what others call an "underclass". High economic status and the indicators thereof, are much easier to come by when you look like one of the few in power who make decisions. I suppose that people are ignorant, and will remain so until they experience the life of those they deem less than themselves. Otherwise, no empathy is used when making these decisions that don't affect them, the white, priveleged upper class policymakers.

I'm going to give my 2 cents on the poverty issue. A poverty stricken area in my hometown, which has an elementary, middle and high school in the area, has been boarded up, torn down and residents had to move. These residents lived there for a long time, it was near a busline for them to get to work or they worked in the area. The residents that lived in this area were given section 8. Section 8 apartments and buildings were built further away from these schools and these children had a long walk to school. (Yes, they had to walk, no busing) Some of these apartments were not near the busline, so the residents had to find jobs closer or didn't work. The residents were also able to use their section 8 to move to other areas in the city that accept section 8. These apartments however, had slum lord landlords and these buildings were eventually condemned and the residents were forced to find somewhere else to live. Now, the "government" or whomever runs the section 8 claims to be helping these poverty stricken residents find adequate housing, but how is this really helping them? It's not making it better, its making the problem worse?

I agree with what Rose and Brooke said to some extent. No one is perfect, and no one ever will be because we're human. But I also have known a man who, in my eyes came clos to the man described in the text, though he was most certainly not perfect. He was, however, a college-educated professional, and much more nuturing and expressive of his feelings than my mother was. I consider this ironic because I've only seen my mom cry twice, but my father has cried many times. He is extremely expressive of the way he is feeling in comparison to her; he will explain and talk about the way he's feeling and why, while my mom sort of keeps things to herself a lot of the time. So in this example, my dad was nuturing, caring, etc. even though he was a working professional.

The text we read on Thursday was a "walk in the clouds", as far as I am concerned. In my experience, no one I have ever known was white, college-educated, nurturing, etc. That is an ideal, and like most women, that would be something I would find very appealing. However, as Brooke asked, why haven't we found him? I think the text and society in general found something on a sitcom, or some other type of show, and decided that that was the way it should be, so let's adopt it! Let's pretend that this ideal is something attainable, desirable, available. If there were more men (no offense guys!) like that, I don't believe there would be as many unhappy and divorced people in the world. And if more women were ideal, too, well.... Hey, this is the "real" world, and as much as I'd like to think that the ideal man exists, I've yet to meet one. Instead of us all looking for something that we all pretty much agree isn't there, let's celebrate who we are as people and don't muddy the waters of logic looking for an unrealistic television view of what they think is "real".

I found yesterday's discussion extremely interesting. I didn't get a chance to read the text before I came to class but I was very quick to read it when I got home. What I thought was interesting was on page 343 when Messner talks about the new man " he is a whil, college-educated professional who is a highly involved and nurturing father, "in touch with" and expressive of his feelings, and egailtarian in his dealings with women." Now is this what he thinks is the ultimate man? A man's man? I took it as "yes". So here is my thought? Isn't this what women want in a man too, to pretty much be perfect. Well how come we haven't found it?? :)