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: 825

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

Pale Horse replied to Shimmel Goldberg's discussion Introduction
"Welcome, Shimmel."
10 minutes ago
Pale Horse replied to Mongoose's discussion I Propose Removing Gender-Division in Bathrooms in the group The Great Debate
"Nope. This all started with people like Mayor Porker who try to impose their inane positions on private business with HRO amendments. Now it's coming back to bite them."
12 minutes ago
Steve Dallas replied to Mongoose's discussion I Propose Removing Gender-Division in Bathrooms in the group The Great Debate
"Cause the laws in place against molestation, peeping, touching, etc aren't even up for consideration. That saying that they will come next is hyperemotional over reaction."
34 minutes ago
Roughshod replied to Mongoose's discussion I Propose Removing Gender-Division in Bathrooms in the group The Great Debate
"Would you consider that proposed law in NC to potentially be a slippery slope?  I think you do, whether you admit to it or not.  Many a proposed or passed piece of legislation has led to a slippery slope leading to decline vs. an uplift…"
1 hour ago
Daniel replied to Mongoose's discussion I Propose Removing Gender-Division in Bathrooms in the group The Great Debate
""Sometimes a minority fringe group needs to accept its plight as the hugely disliked and even feared tiny minority that it is, and keep it to itself and out of the public eye." I thought this was about roving bands of laughing rapists…"
1 hour ago
Steve Dallas replied to Mongoose's discussion I Propose Removing Gender-Division in Bathrooms in the group The Great Debate
"Slippery slopists also deserve to be mocked"
1 hour ago
Steve Dallas replied to Mongoose's discussion I Propose Removing Gender-Division in Bathrooms in the group The Great Debate
"I like to mock those that get angry about a situation that has no basis in reality, so if the person doing so loses their opinion about me, I personally don't lose anything anyway."
1 hour ago
Roughshod replied to Mongoose's discussion I Propose Removing Gender-Division in Bathrooms in the group The Great Debate
"It is in reality orders of magnitude different.  She is of a less than tiny minority.  What is proposed could affect a huge majority. Shall we so empower every tiny fringe group in America?  They are legion.  We could see men…"
1 hour ago

© 2016   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service