I KEEL YOU NOW!

[ornoth]

So I was having one of those initial get-to-know-you conversations with a new friend. She’d perused my blog a bit and had a couple interesting observations after reading my most recent post about feelings here.

In response to my lifelong question about whether I have emotions and to what degree, and my pursuit of those elusive feelings, she offered the following: Don’t confuse strength of emotion with depth of emotion.

That’s really an interesting thought: that one can have deep/meaningful emotions without being particularly demonstrative or effusive. Is it true? Can someone have such depth while still showing a placid demeanor to the world?

Certainly there are things I feel strongly about that I don’t visibly manifest for others’ benefit, and sometimes I’ve been criticized for expressing deep emotions in this journal that were hidden from others who were present at the time! So maybe it’s true: when talking about feelings, emotional strength and depth are independent variables.

The other thing dealt with gender roles and preconceptions.

We’re all very used to thinking about men as penile: all about probing and penetration and aggression. What people fail to remember is that men also have testes. And what do testicles do? They hang out. They’re there, but they generally don’t get in the way. They’re pretty simple and easygoing.

Can that be extended to our conception of masculinity? Certainly men have the ability to be laid back, easygoing, strong, and paternal, in a way that women generally do not manifest. It’s that quiet strength and calming presence that often gets very lost in the public conception of masculinity. My friend contrasted it with the nearly hysterical “dyke dramas” that spiraled out of control in an all-female household she’d lived in.

She also extended the metaphor to include the womb in childbirth as an alternative model for the feminine: embodying pushing, rejecting, and loss, rather than the usual welcoming and nurturing.

I don’t have so much to say about that, myself, but I thought it worth including as a point for thought. But I do definitely think we need to do a better job correcting the balance between the image of male as pushy, demanding, and violent versus that reassuring, protective, and steadying presence that is probably a more accurate depiction of masculinity.

Comments

[awfief.livejournal.com]

In fact, in high-drama communities (think the all-girl cat fights, and the cruising part of the gay community), strength of emotion is often seen as "crying wolf" or "protesting too much". The stronger the emotion is conveyed, the less depth is attributed to it. (or less validity, anyway, but generally it's seen that high-drama people are high-drama because they're not actually feeling deeply about the whole situation, just one very small part of it. Maybe that's breadth instead of depth...who knows?)

So yes, there's a balance between being so stoic as to wondering whether you have emotions and being high-drama, leaving other people wondering if you actually have any introspection whatsoever.

I wrote more, but I decided to post it in my journal.

[ornoth.livejournal.com]

Huh. Interesting point. Yeah, there are people who are so high-drama that their protestations do come across as somehow insincere or at least not quite based on a full/broad understanding of the facts. Another interesting point to think upon.

And, uh... When's the rest of your thoughts going to show up in your journal, or were you referring to your private/written journal?

[awfief.livejournal.com]

That's the stoic/foul weather friends thing. I basically was writing a lot of "I see that in me, sometimes" and realized it'd be better off in my lj.

http://awfief.livejournal.com/481257.html