How did this western societal idea of how a man should act, and what emotions are appropriate to show come about? How far back in western history does this idea of limiting men’s ability to emote honestly go? And how did these ideas change over time?
It’s interesting to me because I feel like these traditional and limited roles that western society puts on men (and women) are just that traditions. That it’s just something “that we do because past generations did them.” So my curiosity is why did past generations have these societal rules in place? was there a legitimate reason for it, did having men be almost robotic even in the privacy of his home and around his family have some necessary and important reason? If so is that still necessary today?
Edit: had this posted on c/asklemmy but it was suggested this was a better place for this question.
Short answer: It’s complicated.
Medium answer: As above, but in Western culture, this dynamic was reinforced by the advent of private property, which created a need to protect assets. While forms of patriarchy exist without private property, the patriarchy we recognize today is theorized to have been shaped by a perceived “need” for a dominant figure to hold and maintain property. Many factors have contributed to this dominance, but the factors of stoicism and emotional repression you describe are a significant facet tied to enforcing the male role as protector of property.
Long answer: As above, and as Simone de Beauvoir explains in The Second Sex, which is ~1000 pages, these roles evolved into patriarchal systems that have shaped society for centuries. Feminism as a whole is dedicated to unraveling these complexities, and the points above are only a broad overview of a much larger, nuanced topic.
Layman’s answer for those without time to read massive works of analysis: If you haven’t, I highly recommend reading bell hooks’ The Will to Change. It’s available as a free PDF on the Internet Archive. The book is under 200 pages and written to be accessible to non-academics, so feel free to skim and jump between chapters as suits your curiosity. The introduction and chapter 2 may be especially helpful for understanding this topic! 😁
Just read the first section of The Will to Change. As a man, it’s fascinating and enlightening to see a feminist deal with men and masculinity rather than dismiss them.
bell hooks is truly a blessing! she’s certainly not the first to do so, but she’s the most forefront and accessible of feminist voices to attend to the needs and experiences of men under patriarchy.
It makes sense that the physically stronger gender becomes the protector, yes. Who else?
The perceived need you talk about was very real. Women would get raped or killed with no protection.
By whom? 🤔
And yes it does make sense that the physically stronger sex becomes the protector. Feminists will agree with you on this.
But they will take immediate issue with your supposition that men therefore need to be emotionally repressed in order to protect women from… most often, themselves.
I don’t know where that comes from. Emotionally repressed? I agree men doesn’t need to be emotionally repressed.
Well the perceived need I talk about had to do with emotional repression, so looks like you badly misunderstood.
I meant the need to be protected by men.
Thanks for the book, will give it a read
happy cake day