A group known as the "League of Tears" is growing and gaining speed. Their aim; to encourage men to cry....at almost ANYTHING.
I understand that there are times for men to cry (every man has his own rules for when and why) but this group is too much. They actually believe that becaue a man doesn't cry he is disassociated from his emotions. That his community is less because he doesn't cry. They encourage men to sit in circles as a group amd just cry...to weap, to sniffle, and to need tissues.

This is too much.

Views: 867

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I don't cry easily,  I never liked to let people know that the got to me...I am a minister and I have seen a lot of people Die ..done a lot of funerals.  Someone has to maintain and take care of business if you would.  There is a time to Cry and a time not too..I am in touch with my "INNER CHILD" He dosen't cry either...Suck it up and die of a stroke like a man...I'm kidding probably... there is a time and place for everything.

What is the opposite of "strength in numbers"?  Never underestimate the pitifulness of pathetic men in large groups, I suppose.  Then again -- this leaves less competition for men with the gift of backbone.

 

JB 

Very, very well spoken Jack

What is the opposite of "strength in numbers"?

 

Weakness en masse?

Good one and very true Margie, kudos
Hahahaha, i like it!

Ah the pendulum  is swinging the other way.  First we must be stoic, now we must be weepy.

Sounds like another way to find a stress release so some sort.  Some go running, I suppose, some now weep.

 

Now to say that I'm not healthy if I don't sit and have a good weep as my chosen form of stress release would be poor.  

 

 

 

 

 

I agree that men do cry.  I have cried (really cried) many, many tears in my life.  I have also cried inside myself many more times.  I believe that crying is an excellent outlet for stressfulemotion, grief and sorrow.   I believe that our society as a whole would probably be better off if we allowed men to cry more often and more publicly.  That said I do not believe that getting together in some prearranged group to prractice crying is neither realistic nor appropriate.  Do we not already have enough real troubles over which to cry without making a mockery out of sadness?  This is not unlike hiring professional mourners, as some cultures have done - and gotten some very great performances no doubt.  But those people are acting.  Like Actors.  Playing a role.  Do we need to play at grief?   Do we really?
I agree with my Good friend Kermit some folks can cry on Cue...it is put on for their benefit.
Well said!

I think that's something that makes me very old-fashioned : I believe that, as a man, you're not supposed to show your emotions, period. You have to be there in times of depression to help people around you, and that's why you have to be the strong one. I think you should cry in private and that's it.

 

I understand what they mean by being emotionally disconnected, and I agree with it to a certain extent. I think not crying, and choosing to not show your emotions builds a fence inside you, and in the end, you're less connected to your own emotions -not disconnected completely, but less . But is it really a bad thing ? Do we want men that are very emotional all the time ?

Exactly.  That's why some men seem as expressionless as a stone: because men have to, at times, be a stone that does not get shoved around by any emotion.  Imagine if all the American pioneers just sat down and cried any trial happened.  We would be a nation of crybabies waiting for our stronger enemies to conquer us.

RSS

Latest Activity

Shane replied to Dominic's discussion Trump, Flynn, Russians - oh my! in the group The Great Debate
"Trump has sanctioned Russia. He left the previous ones in place, and slapped some new ones on this past week: https://www.voanews.com/a/us-treasury-russia-ukraine-separatists-sanctions/3909028.html US Expands Sanctions Against Russia, Ukraine…"
55 minutes ago
Shane replied to Dominic's discussion Trump, Flynn, Russians - oh my! in the group The Great Debate
"Now I get the question. Thanks Dan."
57 minutes ago
Daniel replied to Dominic's discussion Trump, Flynn, Russians - oh my! in the group The Great Debate
"I thought I knew the mean of the word "sanction", and I did. But apparently it also means the exact opposite: noun 1. a threatened penalty for disobeying a law or rule. 2. official permission or approval for an action. verb 1. give…"
1 hour ago
Vendetta replied to Braeden 2.0's discussion The Horror of Day to Day Life
"I refuse to believe this exists."
2 hours ago
Shane replied to Dominic's discussion Trump, Flynn, Russians - oh my! in the group The Great Debate
"http://nypost.com/2017/06/24/inside-the-shadowy-intelligence-firm-behind-the-trump-dossier/ "Sketchy firm behind Trump dossier is stalling investigators By Paul Sperry Sketchy firm behind Trump dossier is stalling investigators A secretive…"
2 hours ago
Shane replied to Dominic's discussion Trump, Flynn, Russians - oh my! in the group The Great Debate
""Every morning news outlets take the bait.""
2 hours ago
Portnoy replied to Dominic's discussion Trump, Flynn, Russians - oh my! in the group The Great Debate
"This"
3 hours ago
Clinton R. Ausmus replied to Dominic's discussion Trump, Flynn, Russians - oh my! in the group The Great Debate
"an crap in the headlines, is Trump with his incessant idiotic tweeting about it. If he'd shut up about it, it'd be gone with in a week, but every morning the runs off a string of tweets about it, and the MSM talks about those all day."
3 hours ago

© 2017   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service