For some reason our society has, for quite long (and in fact for much longer than this current social justice ideology craziness went mainstream), had this idea that men should show more emotion than they do, that they should open up about their feelings, that it's ok for men to cry too, that it's bad to bottle up your emotions. Modern feminism did not invent this notion, it just appropriated it (and took it to an extreme, like always, to support their narrative.)
Modern social justice feminism has also taken to the extreme the postmodernist notion, based on the so-called tabula rasa, or blank slate, theory, that all people are born completely equal, as complete blank slates, and that every single aspect of a person's personality is learned, and nothing is innate, and therefore men on average being more stoic is a learned trait, taught by the surrounding culture, rather than an innate one. While modern feminism has taken this concept to its extreme, it doesn't really originate from it. Such ideas have existed prior.
In general, there has been for quite a long time a kind of soft movement against male stoicism, and in many cases this movement has worked perhaps even too well. Stoicism has got a bad reputation, and it's often seen as a synonym for suppressing one's emotions, bottling them in, letting them ruminate inside one's head rather than opening up and letting them out.
That's not what stoicism is. For some reason the idea that some people, especially men, can be more stoic as an innate and non-harmful trait, seems foreign to many people.
For most people stoicism is not something you have to learn and enforce onto yourself. It's something that comes naturally, and is part of your innate personality. It may be coupled to a certain extent with learned and conscious behavior (eg. in the form of making conscious and deliberate decisions on how to act in certain social settings or situations), but for the most part it requires no effort nor particular learning or training.
Fundamentally, stoicism is not getting overwhelmed by emotions, especially in situations where that would be detrimental in some manner.
Stoicism does not mean not having emotions at all (it's not psychopathy). It also does not mean that one actively and consciously suppresses one's emotions, or showing them outwardly (although in some situations that may be warranted and may be happening). It simply means that one does not get overwhelmed by emotions and remains calm, rational, sharp, attentive and in control, especially in situations where getting emotionally overwhelmed would be detrimental in some way.
Stoicism also does not mean that one never feels sad, or even cries. It likewise does not mean inability to feel empathy (again, it's not psychopathy). It's just that these emotions are reserved for situations that warrant them. Losing a loved one can (and should) bring deep emotions of grief and sorrow. Listening to someone's genuinely moving personal story can bring genuine and outwardly feelings of empathy. Even just watching a very emotional and moving film can bring tears to one's eyes.
The point is, however, that in situations where remaining calm, collected and rational is important, one does so, rather than suffering a mental breakdown and panic. This does not necessarily only include situations where a great catastrophe or commotion is taking place, like a mass disaster or something, but also everyday social situations with highly charged emotions (such as, for example, someone angrily yelling at people and making a ruckus).
It is often a good thing if in a chaotic and tumultuous situation, no matter what it is, be it relatively mundane or something where even physical danger may be involved, there are people who remain calm and can rationally assess the situation. People who can act as leaders, and calm the situation down, or rationally assess the best course of action if eg. some kind of danger is involved. People who are not affected by mass hysteria, or anger, or fear, or chaotic confusion.
Even in more normal everyday social situations stoicism can be a good attribute. It allows people to act with decorum and gravitas, in a gentlemanly way, rather than making fools of themselves, or causing needless distress to others by acting inappropriately. Being calm can be calming to others around you as well. Anger, distress, fear, sadness and panic have a tendency to be contagious, in a manner of speaking.
The polar opposite of stoicism would be what some people call "emotional incontinence", where emotions are not only easily shown, but in fact emphasized and even deliberately exaggerated. Even minor things can cause huge outbursts of sadness, crying, joy, anger or fear. Many people who have bought into this whole "men should show emotion" notion have gone to an unhealthy extreme and conditioned themselves to exaggerate to an absolute extreme. Minor inconsequential things may have them jumping and screaming with joy, or bursting into tears.
I don't think this is very healthy, emotionally speaking. These people have learned and been conditioned into reacting to everything with exaggerated emotional responses. It may come naturally to them when they have conditioned themselves long enough, but that doesn't mean it's mentally healthy. Always over-reacting to things is only going to cause distress and trouble. And it's most certainly not going to help the person himself, nor others around him, socially.
Modern social justice feminism has also taken to the extreme the postmodernist notion, based on the so-called tabula rasa, or blank slate, theory, that all people are born completely equal, as complete blank slates, and that every single aspect of a person's personality is learned, and nothing is innate, and therefore men on average being more stoic is a learned trait, taught by the surrounding culture, rather than an innate one. While modern feminism has taken this concept to its extreme, it doesn't really originate from it. Such ideas have existed prior.
In general, there has been for quite a long time a kind of soft movement against male stoicism, and in many cases this movement has worked perhaps even too well. Stoicism has got a bad reputation, and it's often seen as a synonym for suppressing one's emotions, bottling them in, letting them ruminate inside one's head rather than opening up and letting them out.
That's not what stoicism is. For some reason the idea that some people, especially men, can be more stoic as an innate and non-harmful trait, seems foreign to many people.
For most people stoicism is not something you have to learn and enforce onto yourself. It's something that comes naturally, and is part of your innate personality. It may be coupled to a certain extent with learned and conscious behavior (eg. in the form of making conscious and deliberate decisions on how to act in certain social settings or situations), but for the most part it requires no effort nor particular learning or training.
Fundamentally, stoicism is not getting overwhelmed by emotions, especially in situations where that would be detrimental in some manner.
Stoicism does not mean not having emotions at all (it's not psychopathy). It also does not mean that one actively and consciously suppresses one's emotions, or showing them outwardly (although in some situations that may be warranted and may be happening). It simply means that one does not get overwhelmed by emotions and remains calm, rational, sharp, attentive and in control, especially in situations where getting emotionally overwhelmed would be detrimental in some way.
Stoicism also does not mean that one never feels sad, or even cries. It likewise does not mean inability to feel empathy (again, it's not psychopathy). It's just that these emotions are reserved for situations that warrant them. Losing a loved one can (and should) bring deep emotions of grief and sorrow. Listening to someone's genuinely moving personal story can bring genuine and outwardly feelings of empathy. Even just watching a very emotional and moving film can bring tears to one's eyes.
The point is, however, that in situations where remaining calm, collected and rational is important, one does so, rather than suffering a mental breakdown and panic. This does not necessarily only include situations where a great catastrophe or commotion is taking place, like a mass disaster or something, but also everyday social situations with highly charged emotions (such as, for example, someone angrily yelling at people and making a ruckus).
It is often a good thing if in a chaotic and tumultuous situation, no matter what it is, be it relatively mundane or something where even physical danger may be involved, there are people who remain calm and can rationally assess the situation. People who can act as leaders, and calm the situation down, or rationally assess the best course of action if eg. some kind of danger is involved. People who are not affected by mass hysteria, or anger, or fear, or chaotic confusion.
Even in more normal everyday social situations stoicism can be a good attribute. It allows people to act with decorum and gravitas, in a gentlemanly way, rather than making fools of themselves, or causing needless distress to others by acting inappropriately. Being calm can be calming to others around you as well. Anger, distress, fear, sadness and panic have a tendency to be contagious, in a manner of speaking.
The polar opposite of stoicism would be what some people call "emotional incontinence", where emotions are not only easily shown, but in fact emphasized and even deliberately exaggerated. Even minor things can cause huge outbursts of sadness, crying, joy, anger or fear. Many people who have bought into this whole "men should show emotion" notion have gone to an unhealthy extreme and conditioned themselves to exaggerate to an absolute extreme. Minor inconsequential things may have them jumping and screaming with joy, or bursting into tears.
I don't think this is very healthy, emotionally speaking. These people have learned and been conditioned into reacting to everything with exaggerated emotional responses. It may come naturally to them when they have conditioned themselves long enough, but that doesn't mean it's mentally healthy. Always over-reacting to things is only going to cause distress and trouble. And it's most certainly not going to help the person himself, nor others around him, socially.
Comments
Post a Comment