Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 09:22 AM Oct 2012

Poor Pitiful Men: The Martyr Complex of the American Husband

The Guy Code, which boys learn from their male peers and older men, prizes action rather than words. It teaches boys, as the sociologists Deborah David and Robert Brannon pointed out decades ago, to be highly competitive “sturdy oaks” with little vocabulary for anything other than ambition or anger. The Guy Code teaches men how to pursue women, how to court, and how to charm; it teaches us nothing about how to be in an actual relationship with a woman once we’ve succeeded in catching her. (If you’re getting an image of a dog who looks bewildered and helpless when he’s finally managed to catch the cat he’s been chasing, you’re not far off the mark.) Once in a relationship (much less a marriage) with a real-honest-to-goodness human being who didn’t grow up with the Guy Code (and thus wasn’t shamed out of her ability to articulate her feelings, as most of us were as boys), we’re often in awe of what seem like her “naturally” superior emotional abilities. Women seem to have this extraordinary capacity to describe their feelings with precision; they seem to be so much better at remembering the nuances of conversations we’ve long since forgotten.

Many young—and not-so-young—men feel overwhelmed by what seem to be the superior verbal and emotional skills of female romantic partners. When a man has grown up learning not to display feelings, or to talk about them, he may end up feeling as if he’s a first-year French student suddenly plunged into a conversation with fluent native speakers. He hasn’t got—or he feels he hasn’t got—the vocabulary with which to keep up. This isn’t because of testosterone, of course, or some inherent aspect of the human brain; it’s the hangover from growing up with the “guy code.” And the guy code, followed rigidly, leads to a kind of learned emotional helplessness.

*

It’s tempting—oh, so tempting—to attribute our own comparative inarticulateness to our testosterone, or to our Y chromosome, to God’s plan for marriage, or anything that is sufficiently immutable so as to excuse us from having to engage with these heavily-armed wordsmiths as equals. Thanks to the Guy Code, we confuse what we weren’t given with what we can never learn. It’s an alluring mistake; if we buy into it, we can lapse into the grim satisfactions of martyrdom (I’m such a heroic knight, why can’t she appreciate me?) or we stray into emotional or physical affairs with women who seem so much more understanding (My secretary really gets me. She makes me feel like a man. Not like my shrew of a wife who cut my balls off and keeps them in her underwear drawer). And all the while, we submarine, self-deprecate, and endure. When men are raised with little sense of how to “fight fair,” particularly with romantic partners, they often lack the discernment to determine a legitimate criticism that ought to be taken to heart from an unfair attack. Women aren’t the only ones who fall for the myth that wives, girlfriends, and sisters know the guys they love better than they know themselves; for different reasons, men and women alike are attached to that sexist conceit.

This assumption that men are a mystery to themselves can function, for some men, to legitimize anything a woman says in anger. And sometimes in anger, we—men and women alike—say unfair things to our romantic partners. We speak from a place of pain, frustration, and rage, and we say what we know will wound. Women do this, men do this. The difference is that many men, thanks to their “learned obtuseness,” are particularly unlikely to be able to differentiate between the legitimate criticism uttered in a healthy fight and the unjust accusation blurted out in a moment of wrath.

http://thecurrentconscience.com/blog/2012/04/11/poor-pitiful-men/


i like hearing mens point of view. interesting. i have a son dating a girl. he was all over expressing how he felt, what he felt he was experiencing and her total lack of being able to express what she felt. drove him mad. and ultimately, was the painful part of the end of the relationship. now i watch him with another girl. and again, he express and discusses all feelings and thoughts. she is right there with him. such a mellow, comfortable, easy going relationship.




17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

ismnotwasm

(41,986 posts)
1. Heh
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 09:52 AM
Oct 2012

Like I always say, men are grown ass human beings responsible for their own behavior. I have a tougher time with expressing romantic feelings than my husband does, but we both get there eventually.

I dislike the idea that men and women somehow speak a different language or come from different planets. I've never found this to be true. All sexes have personality types, and you'll find a little of all of then in human beings. It's the social conditioning and social expectations that's the problem, not ability.

redqueen

(115,103 posts)
2. Oh, I dunno... doesn't it make more sense to explain the traditional 'stoic male' ideal
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 10:27 AM
Oct 2012

using evo psych, the intelligent design for atheists?

I'm sure we could come up with some just-so stories to rationalize this behavior. Shit like that is wildly popular with a public desperate to cling to the gender binary... unlike anything which demonstrates it to be complete and utter nonsense.

Maybe they evolved to swallow and stifle their emotions because they had to go fight and kill other human beings. Yeaaah, that's the ticket.

MadrasT

(7,237 posts)
4. My favorite as of late...
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 01:22 PM
Oct 2012

...is the one where the EvoPsychotics claim men invented hunting so they could use the meat to bribe the wimminz (who stayed back in the cave tending to the home, of course) to give them sex as a reward.

redqueen

(115,103 posts)
6. LOL... yeah, nothing to do with, y'know... EATING or anything
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 01:54 PM
Oct 2012


Oh and just ignore that pesky evidence that adults of both sexes hunted in groups.


Here's a good one. They came up with a theory called the "daughter-guarding hypothesis," in which they figure that people have evolved to keep daughters home and protected later at night than sons because we have to preserve their 'mating value'.

http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep06217233.pdf

MadrasT

(7,237 posts)
7. Priceless.
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 02:02 PM
Oct 2012

A "study" of the modern day effects of patriarchy presented as some sort of EvoPsychotic "finding".

Excuse me...

redqueen

(115,103 posts)
10. Heh, there's so much fail in these sexist, racist, heteronormative theories...
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 03:00 PM
Oct 2012

finding one to laugh and shake one's head at is no problem.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
11. what gets me is they look at today, create a story for the beginning of time, and scream fact,
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 03:30 PM
Oct 2012

unless of course you are anti science.

ismnotwasm

(41,986 posts)
12. And this of course
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 04:11 PM
Oct 2012

Explains away the development of monetary value of daughters, the ability to sell them, father/daughter incest, marriage of 10 year olds-- they wanted to 'protect them'

All evolved from a time when human beings didn't actually realize sperm fertilized an egg, and used magical thinking to describe life. Got it.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
13. All evolved from a time when human beings didn't actually realize sperm fertilized an egg
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 04:22 PM
Oct 2012

once this was mentioned a while back, and it dawned on me how little the minds were evolved with NO info,

i see the bogus of all of this so much more

redqueen

(115,103 posts)
14. LOL, yep... 'intelligent design for atheists' pretty much nails it.
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 04:23 PM
Oct 2012

It doesn't have to make sense, so long as it supports the desired conclusion (which, coincidentally I'm sure, is almost always a justification for patriarchal 50's style social norms! Imagine that!)

Dash87

(3,220 posts)
15. Evo psych is really stupid. Most of the time, it's used to excuse bad behavior
Thu Nov 1, 2012, 12:25 AM
Nov 2012

and cultural problems.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
17. men use to have the bible to do the same as what they are using evo psych for today.
Thu Nov 1, 2012, 07:51 AM
Nov 2012

anytime any one thing give ALL the advantage to one gender, and ALL the submission to another, is a pretty good heads up there is a problem.

Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»History of Feminism»Poor Pitiful Men: The Mar...