Suicide: "Men heal sitting side by side with each other"

[DooDoot]

Dear forum

I am currently listening to this video about suicide, which I thought is relevant for the forum.



At 10:40, a man says: "Men heal sitting side by side with each other"

This was spoken to highlight their view of how women tend to easily talk about their problems while men do not yet need a more silent support, which supports the independence of men.

I must confess I rarely talk at depths with & to men in my life but do talk to women often because women are very easy to talk to.

Please discuss. Thanks

[Bundokji]

From my own limited observations, men tend to think about their problems more objectively, i.e to analyze how legitimate their feelings are, so how they feel is not the center of their attention but how justified/rational that feeling is.

Women on the other hand, tend to approach their problems more subjectively. A feeling is legitimate by virtue of them feeling it, hence talking about it with others might make them feel better.

[mikenz66]

From my own limited observations, men tend to think about their problems more objectively, i.e to analyze how legitimate their feelings are, so how they feel is not the center of their attention but how justified/rational that feeling is.

Women on the other hand, tend to approach their problems more subjectively. A feeling is legitimate by virtue of them feeling it, hence talking about it with others might make them feel better.

I'm not sure this matches my observations. In my experience in leadership roles, it was mostly (some!) men who seemed clueless about their feelings and how their actions were affecting others (i.e. the feelings of others). These were also the ones that got petulant and angry when their shortcomings were pointed out, or they didn't get their way, and tended to blame others for issues.


Mike

[mikenz66]

From my own limited observations, men tend to think about their problems more objectively, i.e to analyze how legitimate their feelings are, so how they feel is not the center of their attention but how justified/rational that feeling is.

Women on the other hand, tend to approach their problems more subjectively. A feeling is legitimate by virtue of them feeling it, hence talking about it with others might make them feel better.

I'm not sure this matches my observations. In my experience in leadership roles, it was mostly (some!) men who seemed clueless about their feelings and how their actions were affecting others (i.e. the feelings of others). These were also the ones that got petulant and angry when their shortcomings were pointed out, or they didn't get their way, and tended to blame others for issues. Some women would get upset, but would be more aware of their feelings, and didn't seem do the blame-shifting so much.

Of course, this would vary with country, type of workplace, etc...


Mike

[Mr Man]

From my own limited observations, men tend to think about their problems more objectively, i.e to analyze how legitimate their feelings are, so how they feel is not the center of their attention but how justified/rational that feeling is.

Women on the other hand, tend to approach their problems more subjectively. A feeling is legitimate by virtue of them feeling it, hence talking about it with others might make them feel better.

I'm not sure this matches my observations. In my experience in leadership roles, it was mostly (some!) men who seemed clueless about their feelings and how their actions were affecting others (i.e. the feelings of others). These were also the ones that got petulant and angry when their shortcomings were pointed out, or they didn't get their way, and tended to blame others for issues.


Mike

As a slight divergence.

I'm not sure that there is there is the same separation between thoughts and feelings in Theravada. Feelings in Theravada are physical sensation.

Thought and feelings, as above, are equal and both arise dependent on conditions.

[Bundokji]

From my own limited observations, men tend to think about their problems more objectively, i.e to analyze how legitimate their feelings are, so how they feel is not the center of their attention but how justified/rational that feeling is.

Women on the other hand, tend to approach their problems more subjectively. A feeling is legitimate by virtue of them feeling it, hence talking about it with others might make them feel better.

I'm not sure this matches my observations. In my experience in leadership roles, it was mostly (some!) men who seemed clueless about their feelings and how their actions were affecting others (i.e. the feelings of others). These were also the ones that got petulant and angry when their shortcomings were pointed out, or they didn't get their way, and tended to blame others for issues.


Mike

Thanks Mike,

I was referring to the urge to justify (or find a rational basis) for their feelings to be stronger in men than in women. This in itself does not make men's feelings more justified or rational than Women's.

If we think of it in terms of excess, i think men would be more inclined to be in denial or defensive (as you mentioned) while women would be less able to see that a lot of what they feel is purely subjective.

I also think that there can be a biological and evolutionary basis for the above. A lot of kids can be objectively unlikable hence women's subjectivity and unconditional (irrational) love of their children seem to have an evolutionary/survival value for the species.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Bundokji,

I think what you're saying is very accurate and insightful, here and in the earlier post.

It also accords with what DooDoot spoke of in the OP (though I haven't seen the accompanying video).

Metta,
Paul.

[mikenz66]

I was referring to the urge to justify (or find a rational basis) for their feelings to be stronger in men than in women. This in itself does not make men's feelings more justified or rational than Women's.

OK. Thank you for the clarification. I've certainly seen some rather irrational men in my time...


Mike

[binocular]

From my own limited observations, men tend to think about their problems more objectively, i.e to analyze how legitimate their feelings are, so how they feel is not the center of their attention but how justified/rational that feeling is.

Women on the other hand, tend to approach their problems more subjectively. A feeling is legitimate by virtue of them feeling it, hence talking about it with others might make them feel better.

I disagree.

I agree that the above is a rather popular view about men, women, and the differences between them.
I suppose it serves some social agenda to hold and promote this view.

But I don't think it is accurate at all. I have never seen any evidence of it. I my experience, men and women rationalize or intellectualize equally. The only difference in how they communicate with someone is in how close they are with that person. I find that if I am on close terms with someone, they will emotionalize, whether a man or a woman. If the relationship is more distant, they emotionalize less.

I conclude that it is the (prospective) nature of the relationship that determines the nature and the quality of the communication, and not the person's gender/sex/whatchamacallit.

[binocular]

I must confess I rarely talk at depths with & to men in my life but do talk to women often because women are very easy to talk to.

I find men are easier to talk to than women.

[Bundokji]

I disagree.

I agree that the above is a rather popular view about men, women, and the differences between them.
I suppose it serves some social agenda to hold and promote this view.

But I don't think it is accurate at all. I have never seen any evidence of it. I my experience, men and women rationalize or intellectualize equally. The only difference in how they communicate with someone is in how close they are with that person. I find that if I am on close terms with someone, they will emotionalize, whether a man or a woman. If the relationship is more distant, they emotionalize less.

I conclude that it is the (prospective) nature of the relationship that determines the nature and the quality of the communication, and not the person's gender/sex/whatchamacallit.

I am not sure if it serves social agenda or not, but i admit that what we tend to believe can become self-fulfilling.

I agree that the nature of the relationship determines the quality of communication, but not its nature of the topics often discussed. For instance, women in general have the tendency to spend more time on the phone discussing matters of personal mundane nature (subjective) which adds no value to the listener if measured against it being "useful knowledge".

The nature of the fields of which men and women are interested in supports the above view. Most disciplines and sciences that offers higher degrees of certainty seem to be predominated by males and vice versa. In my current job, which focuses on the environment, females seem to be over represented in comparison with other disciplines because determining causality in this field is very difficult if not impossible, so everything goes! I think humans call it "mother nature" (feminine) for a reason, maybe because it does not discriminate.

[chownah]

I think with respect to the title: Suicide: "Men heal sitting side by side with each other" that it might be better to say that "there is a type of man who is suicidal and who heals sitting side by side with other men."

Best to not over generalize.
chownah

[binocular]

I am not sure if it serves social agenda or not,

Of course it does. For example, tIt helps to maintain the social status quo and reduces the versatility of the psycho-social landscape, thus making it easier to navigate.

but i admit that what we tend to believe can become self-fulfilling.

Of course.

I agree that the nature of the relationship determines the quality of communication, but not its nature of the topics often discussed. For instance, women in general have the tendency to spend more time on the phone discussing matters of personal mundane nature (subjective) which adds no value to the listener if measured against it being "useful knowledge".

Again, I think that depends on the nature of the relationship.

The nature of the fields of which men and women are interested in supports the above view.

Which can also be the result of some self-fulfilling beliefs.

Most disciplines and sciences that offers higher degrees of certainty seem to be predominated by males and vice versa.

Or because there is a long history of people being socially conditioned toward particular interests based on their biological sex.
"You're male, therefore, you should be interested in ..."
"You're female, therefore, you should be interested in ..."

I think humans call it "mother nature" (feminine) for a reason, maybe because it does not discriminate.

It's because she gives birth, not because she doesn't discriminate.

[binocular]

Best to not over generalize.

Indeed!

It's so tedious when one gets pigeon-holed.
"You're x, therefore, it can only be that you like y."
"You're x, therefore, it can only be that you don't like z."

Such labeling is a way to avoid actual communication ...

[Bundokji]

Of course it does. For example, tIt helps to maintain the social status quo and reduces the versatility of the psycho-social landscape, thus making it easier to navigate.

Maybe, but i am not sure if this is a good or bad thing. Usually, people would associate the word "agenda" with negative connotations. Conservative leaning intellectuals, for instance, would describe the attempts to dismiss all theories that highlights meaningful differences between men and women to be driven by "social engineering agendas". This is why, i think setting "agendas" aside and focusing on the message rather than the possible intention/agenda behind it can lead to better discussion.

Which can also be the result of some self-fulfilling beliefs.

Your position in this discussion can be equally described as self-fulfilling. Your views are advocated mostly by feminists, so the refusal to accept meaningful differences between the sexes is a feminine feature (subjective). In other words, you get into a situation when you try to show weaknesses in my arguments, you prove my point right (you are doing it out of your inability/refusal to discriminate). This seems to be inevitable in discussions between objectivity and subjectivity keeping in mind that the nature of objectivity is to reach conclusions/reliable knowledge, and that subjectivity has a natural aversion towards certainty.

Or because there is a long history of people being socially conditioned toward particular interests based on their biological sex.
"You're male, therefore, you should be interested in ..."
"You're female, therefore, you should be interested in ..."

Why dismissing the biological and affirming the social is not self-fulfilling?

It's because she gives birth, not because she doesn't discriminate.

Nature gives both, birth and death, hence it is about lack of discrimination.

By the way, if there is an underlying equality between discrimination as muscular feature, and nondiscrimination as a feminine feature is that both equally flawed. Both are extremes in my opinion.