# How do Women really perceive men that allow themselves to show Vulnerability/Weakness?



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Why would I care what some guy I don't know does with his free time? 

Why do you give a shit what random you women you will never see or fuck think about your vulnerability? Maybe you keep messing with Feeling women, especially SFJs.


----------



## Ewok City (Sep 21, 2020)

I'm lucky to be born to Asian culture. We don't condemn males for being emotional. In fact, it's good for males to be able to speak up about emotions openly. 

On the contrary, those who are easily triggered / overly angry all the time and run away the moment anything "emotional" is brought to the table are the ones considered weak.

I've always felt sorry about the IxFPs who are born in a culture that doesn't encourage men to express their emotions. Sometimes I wish I could reach out to all of them and assure them that there's nothing wrong with them at all.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Ewok City said:


> I'm lucky to be born to Asian culture. We don't condemn males for being emotional. In fact, it's good for males to be able to speak up about emotions openly.


"Being emotional" or having feelings? I never gush emotions except when cornered. (Just read my posts.) I say one can read anyone's emotions (call them feelings). Just look at what they talk about. THAT is their values.


----------



## Ewok City (Sep 21, 2020)

BigApplePi said:


> "Being emotional" or having feelings?


Indeed, it's important to differentiate between the two!

Being emotional in a positive way, meaning to admit that we're feeling helpless, but we are determined to fight back. While doing so, no verbal aggression, no blaming, or anything that might potentially hurt someone else's feelings.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Ewok City said:


> Being emotional in a positive way, meaning to admit that we're feeling helpless, but we are determined to fight back. While doing so, no verbal aggression, no blaming, or anything that might potentially hurt someone else's feelings.


Expressing "feeling helpless" or wanted to "fight back" sound like feelings backed up by possible emotions to me. Blaming is something different. Blaming can be thinking as well as feeling as in "those people are at fault because they are bad people"... or something like that.


----------



## Infinitus (Jul 12, 2019)

Can’t speak for the ladies perceptions, but for me I don’t care for being perceived as manly. I don’t just hand out to anyone my love, respect, trust, attention, etc. Unless they earn any of these I’m not likely to expose vulnerabilities. Mainly out of self protection from bad actors, but also because I’m a private person. It’s not a front, as I’m not actively hiding anything, but if I wouldn’t trust people with personal information, why would I give access to my deepest vulnerabilities? Don’t hand out the keys to your house then later complain that you got robbed.


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

It depends on the woman and the context in which you are being vulnerable.
Personally, I don't find men who show too much vulnerability too early attractive, nor do I find men who are always very open with their emotions attractive. I find a little bit of stoicism earlier in the relationship intriguing, and vulnerability should naturally come with acquaintanceship and increased intimacy. Sharing your vulnerable side, to me should be a prize to be earned, and thus it's more satisfying when a man opens up.
In the context of a long term relationship, women generally want men to show their vulnerable side on a more regular basis. It's a sign of emotional intimacy and comfort. But women like me who are high strung and emotional also rely on their men to be rational and on a somewhat even keel even when exposing their feelings, although, I know my man will have occasional outbursts from time to time as no one is perfect. It's a balance of feeling that the good is worth the bad.


----------



## Sily (Oct 24, 2008)

I think it depends on the woman. I'm not a fan of weepy vulnerable men, however, if a man's got to cry, a man's got to cry. Husband cries at some stuff. I cry at some stuff. But if he cried all day long, it would get on my nerves. If I was "vulnerable" all day long, I'd seek professional help. I think most therapist that are pushing this vulnerable crap can pretty much shove it up their ass. Vulnerable is not me. It's not authentic to my preferences. There seems to be a push for this tho. To each his/her own. I LOVE hiding my feelings. I hate spilling every single thought and feeling out on the sidewalk. Like a huge, slimy lugie.


----------



## 556155 (Apr 29, 2020)

I consider vulnerability to be part of human nature, regardless of sex (or type for that matter). It would personally make me very sad if a partner was too distrustful of me to express how he feels (I have nothing against people who'd rather deal with their feelings internally and not emoting all day long, however), I mean I don't see the point of being intimate with someone if you can't even relax and let go of whichever attitude you deem better to adopt in society or in a professional setting ... There's a difference however between feeling free to express vulnerability and indulging into it or using it as a way to obtain things or to avoid responsibilities, but that didn't seem to be what you talked about. 
Your post seemed to be about context and timing ? As in expressing vulnerabilities in a social setting where people are mostly armored and playing tough ? Or in a subgroup revolving around very rigid view of masculinity. Well, in this case, ain't a problem either, I have a certain fondness for people who disregard or fail to notice such expectations, plus I probably put my foot in my mouth myself rather often. 
It's going to depend on the women you meet, though.


----------



## Lonewaer (Jul 14, 2014)

Watching actions, experience has shown me that women _really_ do not care for men's feelings, and do lose respect for men who do express their feelings. It doesn't matter if it's weakness or vulnerability or anything else (I don't know why the hell there is even a discussion about the difference between the two, it's extremely irrelevant, and in that context, very much the same¹), even something "positive", it doesn't matter what they say, because with their actions, what they show is : respect vanishing away.

Some women here even conveyed this : men in relationships need to be emotional pillars ; men in relationships need to be stoic. I'm referring to posts in this thread. That means for men to be the emotional supporters, not the other way around, because women do not want to be emotional pillars in the relationship, and arguably, still from experience, are not ready/gifted/able to handle it. If a man is stoic in the beginning of a relationship, he has no reason to change that, because this is what attracted his date. Wanting him to change that is asking him to end the relationship.

@OP : If you need to vent, either go to a male therapist, or to your male friends. Both will have more empathy towards what you're going through than any woman is able or willing to.

¹ : Definitions

* *






Google said:


> *vulnerable*
> /ˈvʌln(ə)rəb(ə)l/
> _adjective_
> 1. *exposed to the possibility of being attacked or harmed*, either physically or emotionally.





Google said:


> *weak*
> /wiːk/
> _adjective_
> 1. lacking the power to perform physically demanding tasks; having little physical strength or energy.
> 2. liable to break or give way under pressure; *easily damaged*.


Being vulnerable leads to being weak, stop promoting the idea that it doesn't. Showing that one's being vulnerable is like an MMA fighter showing his back to his opponent : it's plain stupid, everyone has a back, but don't show it willingly in a fight or you're gonna be hit there.
We know showing we are vulnerable leads to being weak, and we know that people use this and cover themselves after (or before) being caught using it by saying there's absolutely no link between the two. Yes there is (and women have a specific evolutionary interest in using it, due to physical dimorphism in humans).


----------



## letsrunlikecrazy (Sep 21, 2015)

Strength = good
Self-control = good
Emotional constipation  = bad 
Pandering = bad

In seriousness, there are going to be all sorts of arguments about "what women really want" and such, ironically most empathically from men. My final two cents is, do what's right and healthy for you. If you live your life trying to please some amorphous body of anonymous women, all you'll do is make yourself miserable and end up resenting women.


----------



## ENIGMA2019 (Jun 1, 2015)

Sweet but Psycho said:


> I’ve been reading comments and actually context and approach does matter to me.
> 
> For instance, someone once had major issues (real ones) with an ex...he never really talked about it for months. And when he did, it was over a slow period. Then when we were more connected, he opened up about what happened. But he was always very calm in his approach. And he spoke about problems and instances, but weirdly he didn’t have the vibe he was trash talking her, just opening up about his past and sharing his frustrations.
> 
> *But if I was approached by someone after a week of talking and they were ranting and talking shit about how terrible there ex was, I’d be more inclined to question him. To me, there is a mature way to speak about you issues and show vulnerability.*


The underlined should make anyone wonder. Talking shit and ranting about their ex in public esp is a red flag. Talking about issue in a one on one or small group to vent is another story.


----------



## ENIGMA2019 (Jun 1, 2015)

BigApplePi said:


> *How do Women really perceive men that allow themselves to show Vulnerability/Weakness?*
> Vulnerable is different. Everyone is vulnerable.


That.


----------



## ENIGMA2019 (Jun 1, 2015)

TypicalINFP said:


> There is no way to act like a man, *unless you are doing a “helicopter” with your phallus*. There is so much garbage taught to boys about how to “be” men, instead of just being a normal, understanding person


----------



## ENIGMA2019 (Jun 1, 2015)

Lonewaer said:


> Watching actions, experience has shown me that women _really_ do not care for men's feelings, and do lose respect for men who do express their feelings. It doesn't matter if it's weakness or vulnerability or anything else (I don't know why the hell there is even a discussion about the difference between the two, it's extremely irrelevant, and in that context, very much the same¹), even something "positive", it doesn't matter what they say, because with their actions, what they show is : respect vanishing away.
> 
> Some women here even conveyed this : men in relationships need to be emotional pillars ; men in relationships need to be stoic. I'm referring to posts in this thread. That means for men to be the emotional supporters, not the other way around, because women do not want to be emotional pillars in the relationship, and arguably, still from experience, are not ready/gifted/able to handle it. If a man is stoic in the beginning of a relationship, he has no reason to change that, because this is what attracted his date. Wanting him to change that is asking him to end the relationship.
> 
> ...


I disagree with almost everything you said. Have you ever been in a long term relationship? Comparing men to MMA fighters? lmao This sounds like trust factors not what the OP is asking.

I personally have a hard time being vulnerable and it is helpful if there is a balance in that. I am not saying I want them using me like an emotional vampire/exploit it but, being able to draw out my softer/deeper side is a plus. That usually comes with time and trust. I am not an overly emotional female though. Apparently, I can come off as cold with lack of emotional displays(crying or getting externally upset). But, my feelings run deep. Having someone understanding that about me and me understanding that about them is vulnerability imo and that is not a bad thing.


----------



## Lonewaer (Jul 14, 2014)

ENIGMA2019 said:


> Comparing men to MMA fighters? lmao This sounds like trust factors not what the OP is asking.



If you understand what is the goal of a comparison, then yes, I am comparing the two, and your value judgement on that doesn't make a compelling argument. What, we can't handle comparing people to anything now ? Come on. Don't even try to make it look like I just insulted women, this will not work. There are other examples if you feel brave, that does not change the point. 
It is a side-discussion that people were starting to derail on, and this is why it is inside the spoiler with the definitions in the first place instead of outside, with the main discussion. I specifically pulled up definitions so lazy people didn't have to but try to argue something stupid anyway, so don't make me believe you're not smarter than that, and you didn't understand all of that. I don't believe it. I'm sure you are and did.




ENIGMA2019 said:


> I personally have a hard time being vulnerable and it is helpful if there is a balance in that. I am not saying I want them using me like an emotional vampire/exploit it but, being able to draw out my softer/deeper side is a plus. That usually comes with time and trust. I am not an overly emotional female though. Apparently, I can come off as cold with lack of emotional displays(crying or getting externally upset). But, my feelings run deep. Having someone understanding that about me and me understanding that about them is vulnerability imo and that is not a bad thing.


You say you disagree with almost everything I said, yet, you don't have OP's problem, because you don't let that subject reach even surface level. However, I'm calling it, this is gonna get used against you at some point in the future, if that hasn't already happened.

If anything you're providing first hand anecdotal data that goes towards what I'm arguing, meaning : OP's expresses his feelings in front of people, he's being shamed into not doing it ; he sees that happening around him, those men get shamed, it has happened to me, I got shamed, I see that happening around me, those men get shamed, you don't do it, that doesn't happen to you (even if someone noted that _"*apparently* you can come off as cold with lack of emotional displays"_, which is someone notifying you of that because it bothers them which is how what we're talking about starts). In other words, Happened to OP, happened to me, happens to a lot of men all the time, we all observe the same thing ; doesn't happen to you, you don't observe that. I don't know what to tell you. You're behaving in the exact way men have an active interest to behave, and you're reaping the benefits. Sincerely, good for you, so keep going, do not go further. But don't come here and tell everyone that if you expressed your feelings more there would be no change because that is incorrect ; you would experience the same thing as every other man : being shamed and disrespected for expressing your feelings, because society at large doesn't care, women, except for your mother and potential sister(s), specifically don't care.
Again, you can disagree, just look at actions instead of words.


----------



## cosmoetic (Mar 24, 2020)

I think women want a guy to be honest and genuine. If hes cocky and acts like a player, like he could have any girl- no thank you. If hes secure in himself that's a good thing. I dont need him to be emotionally open all the time, but when the discussion between us leads us there, I need him to be honest, even if it means telling me, "this situation made me depressed to the point where I cried everyday". It's a sign of strength to be emotionally vulnerable. Society has looked down on men expressing weakness and vulnerabilities, because that's considered a feminine thing, and apparently the worst thing for a man to be is anything feminine.


----------



## HAL (May 10, 2014)

The woman who broke my heart worse than I could have ever imagined told me at one point that I was "like the woman in the relationship" because I dared to show some hurt feelings about something.

The woman I'm speaking to now, with whom a quite close and obvious-potential-for-relationship connection has formed, is the exact opposite; she says her ideal relationship is one of mutual trust, love, and sharing of emotions. I don't think she means that she would be happy with a cry-baby, but she puts a lot of importance on the ability to be open with one another in a deep, emotional sense. We've already both shared a few deep emotional things with each other, _and_ have talked about our potential for being together (once this covid shit is over), so she certainly ain't scared away by blokes who reveal a bit of vulnerability.

So I think it depends on the person.


----------



## TypicalINFP (Dec 19, 2020)

Lonewaer said:


> ¹ : Definitions
> 
> * *


Women and Men don’t NEED to be anything. Regarding the definition of “vulnerable” and “weak.” These words have a long history and their definitions do not really match what we mean when we use them today -especially when we say “vulnerable” in an emotional and relationship context.












Being vulnerable to criticism is an essential element to communication in a relationship. Stoicism is just an unhealthy mix of emotional suppression, toxic positivity, and refusing to be open to criticism - unless your stoicism is part of your personality I guess. Don’t you see how gender norm discussions have nothing to do w/ discussions about personality btw? 16 options instead of 2✊ MBTI over Patriarchy!


----------



## Lonewaer (Jul 14, 2014)

TypicalINFP said:


> Women and Men don’t NEED to be anything. Regarding the definition of “vulnerable” and “weak.” These words have a long history and their definitions do not really match what we mean when we use them today -especially when we say “vulnerable” in an emotional and relationship context.
> 
> […]
> 
> Being vulnerable to criticism is an essential element to communication in a relationship. Stoicism is just an unhealthy mix of emotional suppression, toxic positivity, and refusing to be open to criticism - unless your stoicism is part of your personality I guess. Don’t you see how gender norm discussions have nothing to do w/ discussions about personality btw? 16 options instead of 2✊ MBTI over Patriarchy!


I'm not even gonna trap myself in that argument, it would be an utter waste of time. Only two things :

1. Yes the definitions do match.
2. You don't know what is stoicism.

That's all I'm gonna say about it.


----------



## TypicalINFP (Dec 19, 2020)

Lonewaer said:


> 2. You don't know what is stoicism.
> 
> That's all I'm gonna say about it.


Lol, uh yeah I wasn’t referencing the ancient Stoics but the modern usage of stoicism as an emotional expression. Again, this word has a different meaning than when it was used in 3rd century B.C.
Get with the times! Also, living in the 3rd century B.C. would be absolute shit! People definitely shouldn’t get relationship advice from the 3rd century B.C.


----------



## Infinitus (Jul 12, 2019)

So you’d prefer I constantly express how much pain I’m in, offloading baggage onto others, out of some misguided notion that it’s otherwise repressed? Rather than keep my shit together, & get on with things without complaining?

Good for you, I guess. I don’t see the use in expressing pain to those who can’t/won’t do anything about it.


----------



## Infinitus (Jul 12, 2019)

What confuses me about this is the attempt to invert meanings. By saying that those who are strong, have a high tolerance for pain or suffering are somehow at fault, because they have developed ways to cope with the shitty parts of life, without spreading negativity around too much. Then saying being vulnerable, or showing weakness, whilst openly spreading woes to all that will hear, is some type of ‘strength’. 

I’m all for the yin-yang concept but this is a little much. At the very least be balanced about it. The strong can show weakness and the weak can show strength. In fact, those are tropes of many stories throughout human history, factual or fictional. But if you want to ‘take sides’ that’s your prerogative.


----------



## Six (Oct 14, 2019)

B3LIAL said:


> I'm caught in an internal conflict sometimes, I sometimes express how I feel regardless of what people think, but sometimes It's difficult to allow myself to show weakness or vulnerability.
> 
> I've seen clear examples of men allowing themselves to be vulnerable and people not appreciating it and calling him a pussy or telling him to man up.
> 
> I find it difficult sometimes not to want to appear manly.


I think in general women who are worthwhile aren't interested in your vulnerabilities. 

What sort of person is interested in knowing your vulnerabilities after all...


----------



## TypicalINFP (Dec 19, 2020)

Infinitus said:


> So you’d prefer I constantly express how much pain I’m in, offloading baggage onto others, out of some misguided notion that it’s otherwise repressed? Rather than keep my shit together, & get on with things without complaining?
> 
> Good for you, I guess. I don’t see the use in expressing pain to those who can’t/won’t do anything about it.


If that's what you need to do. Maybe your baggage is already being expressed in other indirect, more destructive ways. People who are always "keeping their shit together!" are bound to have a shit explosion. I said suppression, not repression. Expression of stoicism is suppression, since suppression involves consciously trying to not think about or express unwanted thoughts or feelings - while repression is an unconscious process. Inverted meanings? Do you mean correct definitions? I am just getting back on track to the definitions of what we mean in a relationship context when using the words stoicism, vulnerability, weakness/strength. I think that people may appear more stoic based on personality, like xNTx types, perhaps even more so with introverted thinkers, since they are most at ease when they escape into their own mind - but even INTJs and INTPs need to understand how to express negative and positive feelings and be open to criticism while communicating with their significant other - regardless of gender.


----------



## Infinitus (Jul 12, 2019)

TypicalINFP said:


> If that's what you need to do. Maybe your baggage is already being expressed in other indirect, more destructive ways. People who are always "keeping their shit together!" are bound to have a shit explosion. I said suppression, not repression. Expression of stoicism is suppression, since suppression involves consciously trying to not think about or express unwanted thoughts or feelings - while repression is an unconscious process. Inverted meanings? Do you mean correct definitions? I am just getting back on track to the definitions of what we mean in a relationship context when using the words stoicism, vulnerability, weakness/strength. I think that people may appear more stoic based on personality, like xNTx types, perhaps even more so with introverted thinkers, since they are most at ease when they escape into their own mind - but even INTJs and INTPs need to understand how to express negative and positive feelings and be open to criticism while communicating with their significant other - regardless of gender.


It’s not so much about what I feel I must do, but how I am. I express myself creatively, so I’d like to think I’m more constructive than destructive. Anybody can have a shit explosion, in my experience emotionally expressive people do this even more often than those who have their shit together. I do think you’re splitting hairs with the definition; if one suppresses things, then surely that makes one repressed. I don’t agree with your definitions of the stoic approach, I’ve more often heard it as: _only focus on that within ones control, & accept and relinquish those things outside one’s control_. Perhaps that’s inaccurate from a philosophical perspective, but it’s a useful take on it. I’d agree that people should be open and vulnerable with their SO, and I’d extend that to family or friends. However, unless I misunderstood, this thread is about men displaying weakness to women_ in general_.


----------



## TypicalINFP (Dec 19, 2020)

@Infinitus

Lol, it is not my definition, but THE definition of stoicism - google it! Not displaying emotions is the main characteristic of stoicism - suppression. Maybe you are thinking of ideas about the stoic approach from the second definition (I put a red X over it) which is an ideology practiced 5,000 years ago and has nothing to do with the modern way of understanding stoicism.


----------



## Infinitus (Jul 12, 2019)

TypicalINFP said:


> @Infinitus
> 
> Lol, it is not my definition, but THE definition of stoicism - google it! Not displaying emotions is the main characteristic of stoicism - suppression. Maybe you are thinking of ideas about the stoic approach from the second definition (I put a red X over it) which is an ideology practiced 5,000 years ago and has nothing to do with the modern way of understanding stoicism.


Fair enough, I’m not that familiar with stoicism, and certainly not ‘modern stoicism’, although a cursory look suggests the way I described it is applicable, since the main difference is focusing less on nature and more on facts. Although I won’t derail further with criticism of reboots of modernity or dictionary definitions.

My main point was that I take issue with attempts to categorise the strong as weak and the weak as strong. If we cannot agree on such basic dichotomies, what can we agree on?


----------



## Lonewaer (Jul 14, 2014)

TypicalINFP said:


> Lol, uh yeah I wasn’t referencing the ancient Stoics but the modern usage of stoicism as an emotional expression. Again, this word has a different meaning than when it was used in 3rd century B.C.
> Get with the times! Also, living in the 3rd century B.C. would be absolute shit! People definitely shouldn’t get relationship advice from the 3rd century B.C.
> 
> * *
> ...


There is a reason why I linked the Wikipedia article rather than the Google definition.

At large, modern stoicism is as Infinitus described, meaning "_only focus on that within ones control, & and accept and relinquish those things outside one’s control_". That understanding of stoicism is a direct link to ancient stoicism. The Wikipedia article says, under "Basic tenets" :


> Stoicism teaches the development of self-control and fortitude as a means of overcoming *destructive* emotions; […] This principle also applies to the realm of interpersonal relationships; "to be free from *anger*, *envy*, and *jealousy*,"


This is what you call "suppressing emotions". The fact that it is one of the basic tenets of a 5000yo philosophy does not mean you call it right. And even if that was "suppressing", it doesn't mean that it's bad or toxic or unhealthy. Maybe it would be if you did that, I don't know how you deal with things, but it isn't for most men. Claiming that it is is you projecting your mental states, abilities, resilience.

This definition about what one can or cannot control and on what to be focused includes "the endurance of pain or hardship without the display of feelings and without complaint". This is not _all_ feelings, this is feelings that make one unhappy. Because pain or hardship generally are out of one's control, unless one can actually meditate their way out of pain (and I hope you realize that represents 0.00x% of the population). It accomplishes nothing to complain about it if it does not solve it, especially with the kind of reception men expressing their feelings are met with. Dismissal, disgust, repulsion, man-up kind of reactions (that are most often had by, drumroll, women), lack of acknowledgment, you name it. If women were met with any of this, they would not push for men to express their feelings as they do currently, and they would also not express their feelings (and it would also be qualified as sexist or misogynistic, too).


----------



## TypicalINFP (Dec 19, 2020)

@Infinitus I’m talking about modern usage of the word stoicism, not modern practice of Stoicism. Just like I posted the modern usage of the word vulnerable. Ideas regarding strength and weakness in partners are always changing.

@Lonewaer definitions matter and understanding modern word usage matters. It is interesting to understand the history of a word, but many words have different meanings or expresses something different than it’s original meaning.









25 Everyday Words That Used to Have Different Meanings — Best Life


Words don't always hold on to their original meanings. Over the years, words evolve like anything else, with definitions morphing into new meanings.




bestlifeonline.com


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

I think its really sad to see many males don't want to see a therapist or psychologist out of stupid oldfashioned macho man gender expectations such as showing feelings is a weekness. It pisses me off to no end. I find that attitude not only scary but hard to grasp.


----------



## TypicalINFP (Dec 19, 2020)




----------



## TypicalINFP (Dec 19, 2020)

@Electra they just got to be macho men! I agree, it is annoying to me too.


----------



## letsrunlikecrazy (Sep 21, 2015)

Infinitus said:


> What confuses me about this is the attempt to invert meanings. By saying that those who are strong, have a high tolerance for pain or suffering are somehow at fault, because they have developed ways to cope with the shitty parts of life, without spreading negativity around too much. Then saying being vulnerable, or showing weakness, whilst openly spreading woes to all that will hear, is some type of ‘strength’.
> 
> I’m all for the yin-yang concept but this is a little much. At the very least be balanced about it. The strong can show weakness and the weak can show strength. In fact, those are tropes of many stories throughout human history, factual or fictional. But if you want to ‘take sides’ that’s your prerogative.


I think you're reading too much into it. The general gist of the replies from the women here is to support the men who want to show vulnerability from time to time, especially in intimate relationships. I don't think anyone is actually arguing that everybody should be exploding with emotions, all the time, or that people who present a calm and capable demeanor are "weak."

There are different ways to be strong or weak in different contexts. That's why women can say they like strong men and also say that showing vulnerability is a strength.

(NOTE: The following isn't directed at you specifically, but is more so just a summary of my thoughts on the topic.)

The ability/willingness to show vulnerability (not to be confused with constant emoting or having no filter) is a strength because it means you are not insecure about how other people perceive your "weakness." Refusing to show any vulnerability is a weakness because it means you are insecure about people's perceptions. @BigApplePi mentioned Donald Trump. Trump is a classic example of someone who indirectly displays weakness by pretending he doesn't have any.

To make a comparison to physical displays of vulnerability, why is it that people display their vulnerable parts when they are displaying dominant behavior? For example, puffing out their chest. You'd think it'd be safer to hide it. Displaying the vulnerable area means you are not afraid of being attacked. This (apparent) lack of fear is a sign of strength.

There's also an interesting behavior with cats where they flip over and show their bellies when their owners approach... Unlike dogs they don't usually like to be petted there, but apparently showing their bellies means complete trust since that area is very sensitive.

In a relationship context (not talking about being in public with strangers, which is a whole different ball game), it makes no sense to walk around pretending you have no weaknesses. Everybody has weaknesses and everybody is vulnerable. Most women know that - they're not fooled just because their partners don't cry in front of them. Actively refusing to show any vulnerability is like walking around in a suit of armor. You could do that with your enemy, but why with your partner? It's like carrying a flashing neon sign, "I DON'T TRUST YOU TO NOT LOOK DOWN ON ME AND I NEVER WILL."

That's not to say the responsibility falls solely on the men. Some women judge men harshly for expressing emotions just because they believe men practically shouldn't have any. And a lot of people seem to think, "Eh, that's just how things are." Well, I think it's fucked. If men don't get a free pass for being sexist toward their partners, neither should women.


----------



## Lonewaer (Jul 14, 2014)

TypicalINFP said:


> @Lonewaer definitions matter and understanding modern word usage matters. It is interesting to understand the history of a word, but many words have different meanings or expresses something different than it’s original meaning.


I will say, for someone who dances around definitions as much as you did to wiggle your butt out of tricky arguments, that is grand to read.



Electra said:


> I think its really sad to see many males don't want to see a therapist or psychologist out of stupid oldfashioned macho man gender expectations such as showing feelings is a weekness. It pisses me off to no end. I find that attitude not only scary but hard to grasp.


You are proving our points exactly. Simply expressing our point of view, not even feelings, just point of view, just because it doesn't align with your beliefs about what is a healthy behavior, is qualified as "stupid", "old fashioned", "machist", "scary", "hard to grasp". All of that in the same post, who knows what you kept inside (probably "sexist" or "misogynistic", right ?). Proof that you are unwilling to hear, unable to understand nor to handle, what's unpleasant to hear. At no point do you even consider that we might be doing it, but that we just do it between ourselves, just not with you, because the reception and reaction is generally better when we talk to other men. You don't consider either that there might simply be reasons for having this point of view, even when we expose them, apparently they're too hard to conceptualize. You _just_ proved the point that it backfires when we do it with women (you're not the only one, mind you). It doesn't help that we are all strangers to each other here and that we do not know each other, but the result is barely different face to face.

It's interesting though, because as much as feminism shouts left and right that experiences shouldn't be dismissed, and that any "shaming" of any sort shouldn't be done when it pertains to women's issues, everyone is supposed to sit, shut up, and listen, but the same is not returned for men's issues/for men when they speak out. It's all a shameful display of hypocrisy, really.



letsrunlikecrazy said:


> That's not to say the responsibility falls solely on the men. Some women judge men harshly for expressing emotions just because they believe men practically shouldn't have any. And a lot of people seem to think, "Eh, that's just how things are." Well, I think it's fucked. If men don't get a free pass for being sexist toward their partners, neither should women.


First of all, thank you. I don't agree with most of your post, but let's firstly ignore that and give credit where credit is due.

There would be a couple of things to answer to you, just to cite them without really going into them : 1) the main problem of your point is that you're generally asking men to ride a fine line between being incredibly attractive to you by showing vulnerability or outright repulsing you by not showing it, and there is very little margin for adjustment, too little expression and it's problematic because we don't do it enough, too much and it's problematic because it's too much, or too intense, or you don't know how to react, etc. Sometimes, again, it's used as ammunition later on during the relationship. It's the worst shit, and it happens _often_. And that fine line varies from woman to woman so we never know. You're basically asking men to guess/read minds, and sorry but that ship has sailed a long time ago. It's a bad idea for us to indulge in it, and it's unreasonable of you to ask that of us. It's very similar to how much flirting is appropriate : varies from woman to woman, and so it's a shit idea to make a guess. 2) The strength of someone puffing out their chest is not in openly displaying their vulnerable part, it's in being able to protect it if it comes down to it. Sometimes puffing it out is a display of that strength, but some people have paid the price of being overly bold by doing it or something similar. It's either a stupid move, a candid move, or an arrogant move, which I personally equate to a stupid move, but a different kind of stupid. Either way, bad idea.


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

Lonewaer said:


> I will say, for someone who dances around definitions as much as you did to wiggle your butt out of tricky arguments, that is grand to read.
> 
> 
> You are proving our points exactly. Simply expressing our point of view, not even feelings, just point of view, just because it doesn't align with your beliefs about what is a healthy behavior, is qualified as "stupid", "old fashioned", "machist", "scary", "hard to grasp". All of that in the same post, who knows what you kept inside (probably "sexist" or "misogynistic", right ?). Proof that you are unwilling to hear, unable to understand nor to handle, what's unpleasant to hear. At no point do you even consider that we might be doing it, but that we just do it between ourselves, just not with you, because the reception and reaction is generally better when we talk to other men. You don't consider either that there might simply be reasons for having this point of view, even when we expose them, apparently they're too hard to conceptualize. You _just_ proved the point that it backfires when we do it with women (you're not the only one, mind you). It doesn't help that we are all strangers to each other here and that we do not know each other, but the result is barely different face to face.
> ...


No, I said what I said because I deeply care about the man I am talking about! They are the least likely in the world to be sexist. Why do you think this? Do you know me? If not then how can you judge my intentions and attitudes? Don't take something I said and twist it into something completely different!


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

TypicalINFP said:


>


Unfortunetly this video didn't show in my country so I don't know which one it is or what it is about ☹


----------



## TypicalINFP (Dec 19, 2020)

Electra said:


> Unfortunetly this video didn't show in my country so I don't know which one it is or what it is about ☹


Oh, it’s a music video - Macho Man by the Village People!


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

TypicalINFP said:


> Oh, it’s a music video - Macho Man by the Village People!


🤭😂


----------



## TypicalINFP (Dec 19, 2020)

Lonewaer said:


> I will say, for someone who dances around definitions as much as you did to wiggle your butt out of tricky arguments, that is grand to read.
> 
> 
> You are proving our points exactly. Simply expressing our point of view, not even feelings, just point of view, just because it doesn't align with your beliefs about what is a healthy behavior, is qualified as "stupid", "old fashioned", "machist", "scary", "hard to grasp". All of that in the same post, who knows what you kept inside (probably "sexist" or "misogynistic", right ?)


Lol, I’m not sure how I wiggled out of anything by providing correct definitions of words like vulnerable and stoicism as they are used today. You seem to want to use old defunct definitions of words. If you read that article that I included in my message above, it mentions that the word Awful used to mean “full of awe,” but now has a pejorative meaning.Try telling someone that they have an awful face, lol. Or say to someone, “I saw your awful face and it inspired me to protect your vulnerabilities. Don’t worry I’m a stoic - a strict practitioner of Stoicism, in fact.” People will think you are mad - or from another time or universe.

Anyone who thinks women have to be like [blank] and men have to be like [blank] is sexist. Do you have any insights about MBTI or personality functions or the Enneagram? Why do you chose to promote binary rigid thinking about gender norms on PerC? Isn’t there a site like OldFashionedGenderNormsCafe.com where you can chat about this? It’s not so much your point of view, but just you repeating tired ideas seeped in patriarchy.


----------



## impulsenine (Oct 18, 2020)

Hexcoder said:


> I don't like weakness. Vulnerability is not the same as weakness and neither is imperfection and being human. We all have struggles, we all grieve, we all deal with problems, and processing emotion is healthy. Without vulnerability there is no emotional intimacy. Imho it's cowardly to be so fearful that you can't be vulnerable with those you're supposed to be close to. Having the ability to be your authentic self, flaws and all, requires some degree of strength, boldness, and confidence. Hiding it all is kind of mousy.
> 
> As for whining, a victim mindset, a quitter attitude, excuses as to why you can't--there's the door. I don't really have the patience for it. If I don't throw myself pity parties I'm certainly not about to accompany someone else in theirs and be dragged down myself. I'm not interested in wasting my time and energy that way.


Subscribe.
I think the same way.


----------

