Writing from a male's perspective?

My issue for not making gender the foremost issue is that it can lead to some pretty lame or cliched ideas about the
opposite sex. I totally believe that men and women have different viewpoints, reactions, the way they observe things
and hash things out and the way they present themselves but I also think that the individual is the key to tying
everything together. It's a mix and match situation. Not an out and out denial.

My pastor has on the occasion kissed men on the forehead a sort of bless-you kiss. The guys receiving the kiss had
varied reactions - some seemed startled, a few bristled in a whoa don't do that kind of way - one totally broke down sobbing.
It all depended on the individual how they took it, processed it and how they wanted to be seen.

 

Well, if we were scientists, we'd need to. If, say, I were writing guidelines for determining the sanity of accused criminals on trial, it would be immensely important that any conclusions based on a male criminal crying be backed up with solid science. The same for employment screenings, or evaluating medical symptoms, or writing guidelines for the behavior of teachers or daycare workers, or all sorts of other areas.

And if I were writing a novel about humans that were raised without our usual social customs and pressures, it would matter, though I suspect that it would be all but impossible to get definitive answers, and therefore I'd have to make some big assumptions anyway.

But when writing other kinds of fiction, I just don't know if it matters. We know that men do cry, and we know that men crying is not vanishingly rare. We also know that our society exerts very strong pressure on men not to cry. There's enough complexity in that that I don't really feel the need to strain out the biological element from the societal element. And I say that as someone who usually does want to dig down to the bottom of the truth.

I do feel that it would be very useful to know the thought and feelings of men on the subject, because my saying "it's societal" doesn't mean that I have any true understanding of what it's like to experience the societal expectations placed on a boy or a man. And if I took the opposite position and said, "it's biological" that still wouldn't give me a true understanding of what it's like to experience the biological state of being a boy or man. Either way, the statistics come apart into individual anecdotal people.

My gut says that it's society, and in this specific situation I see no harm in my going with my gut. So I do, while making it clear--as I did--that I have no proof.

I agree. The study is based on a very large unproven assumption, an assumption that in part drives the study to the expected conclusion. I'm hoping that they're well aware of that, and that they would perform other studies, based on other assumptions, before coming to any firm conclusions.

 

You are back to missing the point of my post. Upon what evidence are you basing the conclusion adult crying has no gender based biological component?

 

A writer need not know the underlying biological basis for a person's characteristics. But in the thread it's being dismissed that biology has anything to do with the difference in adult crying frequency. If one is going to dismiss biology, should it matter if the conclusion is false?

The point I am making is not which answer is correct, it's unlikely nurture plays no role here. My point was about making those "gut" assumptions without considering alternative hypotheses.

 

Let's not forget that crying has a huge psychological toll.
It's also a mechanism that brings in relief and focus after crying.
It helps deal and move on from situation that were enough to shake someone up.
It's why you always hear people telling others it's okay to cry as it's a legitimate thing to do to help yourself get over something.

 

1. The lack of any scientific correlation between X- and Y- chromosomes and crying
2. 60 years of observed behavior of adults putting intense pressure on male children (including me) not to cry but little or no similar pressure on female children
3. The common usage of words and phrases denigrating men who cry but not women.

I could go on, but I'll stick with those for the moment.

 

It matters when it matters.

My position is that in these circumstances, I don't really care that much if I'm operating with the truth. If, ten years from now, I were presented with absolute proof that crying and not crying is almost totally based on biology, my response wouldn't be "Oh, my God, I was *wrong*! I feel terrible." My response would probably be, "Huh. I was wrong. Interesting."

I do think that wrongly assuming that men and women have big inherent differences is a more dangerous position than wrongly assuming that they don't. If I can't have proof either way, I prefer an unproven assumption that encourages me to treat people equally, than an unproven assumption that tends to justify treating them un-equally. But they're still both unproven assumptions.

The world is full of unproven assumptions. If I'm going to chase one down, I need to care for practical reasons (for example, because my holding an incorrect belief might harm someone) or care because I'm interested. For me, with this issue, neither of those things are true. I don't care enough to go beyond the evidence of my own life and my own observations.

 

Saline secretion therapy is effective without regard to gender, although often more difficult to induce in the presence of testosterone intoxication.

 

I agree with all of this. It was only the insistence in some posts that it was all nurture and no nature that I was addressing.

 

Consider the following only an exercise in critical thinking rather than a debate supporting one conclusion or the other. I haven't looked into the issue until now.

Are you considering the effects of hormones rather than only considering direct genetic links, and, have you looked before at the Y chromosome genes as it relates to this question? Without including that nonsense that women are limited by their emotions (because that's crap) there is evidence estrogen has an impact on emotion. Postpartum depression is certainly related to hormonal changes.

And then there are sex linked traits where the genes are not on the X or Y chromosome but they are expressed differently in different genders. The classic example is male patterned baldness. In the presence of testosterone the genes are expressed differently.

I think we can both agree on this one.

I think this goes with 2.

I don't think that because there is an observable nurture component that necessarily rules out any biological piece. I suspect young children cry for similar reasons regardless of gender. So if one were to hypothesize that the biological component didn't take effect until puberty, the social pressure for little boys not to cry might be explained by social pressure to be like men, while 'be like men' might have a stronger biological component.


I don't think any of us cares enough to investigate too deeply the actual biological influence on adult male crying. I'm just reminding people that one can draw false conclusions about what are or are not biologically based physical differences between genders. In trying to be PC about it we can go too far and overlook true gender difference. I consider myself a feminist, very independent, putting up with being labeled aggressive when I would call myself assertive. And yet I have no problem with the fact I am not a male and with the fact we are different.

I like the saying, "Vive la différence."

 

And yet, reading back over your contributions to this thread, I would draw the conclusion that such is exactly what you wish to investigate. I can only say that the "evidence" that you have referenced here is unconvincing. While heightened estrogen levels may be linked to post-partum depression, one could easily point to the other end of the spectrum, those women who experience depression during menopause when, IIRC, estrogen levels are quite low. And then there is the question of whether men who are more likely to cry than other men also tend to have higher levels of estrogen. There may be biologically-based causes of tendencies to cry, but they have not, to my knowledge, been conclusively documented. OTOH, the environmental causes that I have cited are not only readily observable, but you yourself have agreed with them.

I suggest we leave it here. It has already taken up way too much of this thread, and is mostly irrelevant to the OP. Besides, I fear that any further discussion would be nothing more than hair-splitting.

 

No Ed, you would be wrong. My interest is in critical thinking and drawing unsupportable conclusions. If I were defending a position on biology, you would know it, it wouldn't be a passive defense.

It's not a problem leaving it here, but I do wish you would look at my posts in a different light than you seem willing to look at them in.

 

Ginger, I am not going to get into a discussion of how one should or should not look at your posts. Not here, not anywhere else.

 

So you are just going to call me a liar then? Nice.

"I don't present the following as convincing evidence, I've not done enough research to say that, this was just from a quick Google search. But it is valid to look at behavior in non-human primates and even other species to sort out social from biological traits, even though social traits also evolved."
"The point I am making is not which answer is correct, it's unlikely nurture plays no role here. My point was about making those "gut" assumptions without considering alternative hypotheses."
"Consider the following only an exercise in critical thinking rather than a debate supporting one conclusion or the other. I haven't looked into the issue until now."
"My interest is in critical thinking and drawing unsupportable conclusions. If I were defending a position on biology, you would know it ..."​

 

That's really, really not what he said. I believe that you are taking personally something that is not personal. No, Ed is not viewing every little nuance of this discussion in precisely the same way that you are. He is not experiencing your posts in precisely the way that you apparently intended them to be experienced.

That does not mean that he is attacking you and it does not mean that he is calling you a liar. Not every disagreement has to be thrashed down to a point of absolute understanding, and even when that understanding is never reached, the people in that disagreement don't have to walk away angry. Sometimes it's best to look at the cloud of confusion that has formed and accept that it's just not worth the breath that it would take to blow it away.

 

Yes, it is what he said, and now he's gone and said he's leaving the forum, obviously blaming me for his choice. I'm sorry, but I said in 4 separate posts I was not taking a position on whether or not biology was involved, and to quote ED , he said: "I would draw the conclusion that such is exactly what you wish to investigate."

How else do you interpret that except saying, "Ginger, I don't believe you?"

I posted exactly what I said that Ed ignored. He called me a liar, made no attempt to understand what I said. And it's not that I didn't try, I said it 4 different ways in 4 different posts.


People have just as much ability to stop arguing as I do. I am not the only one with the power to end a discussion. If people don't want to keep arguing, then they shouldn't. When I don't want to, I don't. I don't hold the other person responsible for my choices to continue the discussion or not.


It mattered to me that people weren't considering real gender differences exit, it's overcompensating to blame it all on socialization. It was a simple concept people are welcome to disagree with, but why am I supposed to not care about an issue that matters to me?

 

I would probably interpret it as, "That's not how I'm experiencing your posts, and I'm not interested in thrashing out the misunderstanding." I have no idea if that's what was meant. But I prefer to assume that offense is not meant, because usually its's not, and even when it is, it's usually just not worth the energy to fight with someone that is really trying to attack. If someone *wants* to hurt me, why should I hang around in range?

You have every right to care. They may just, like me, choose not to care. I do realize that you read and respected my post in which I explained my not-caring. I hope that we have an understanding there. But my point is that even if you and Ed haven't formed a similar understanding, that's not tantamount to him attacking you.

 

Considering I took care to put those 4 specific statements, one each prefacing or explaining the nature of my posts, "not how I'm experiencing your posts", is essentially, "not what I believe you really are saying". Ed's not dumb, he can read and he read those posts because he replied to them. Saying you don't believe something a person said in 4 directly stated comments is saying, you're a liar.

Compare that to our discussion, you said why it didn't matter to you and I said I absolutely agreed, the how it occurs did not matter in a decision about portraying a character. I said what the issue was, several comments in the thread assuming without considering other options that a specific gender difference could be attributed to socialization.

No, Ed chose to argue about a straw man that he blamed on me, and then said he didn't believe the straw man was not my argument.

 

If I go any further, I'll exceed my already-excessive risk-of-speaking-for-Ed. So I'll stop here. I'm actually interested in discussing the whole issue of perceived personal attacks and possible misunderstandings and blah blah blah, but it's off topic for this thread and probably for anything but private conversations. If you're interested in that conversation, let me know. Not that I have brilliance to offer, or anything.

 

Sure, I'll send you a PM. It's definitely much too far off topic here now.

 

My god, did I wander into the debate room again?

Could we possibly keep discussions on topic instead of turning them into a research debate which then dissolves into yet another personal argument between 2-3 participants? If people can't discuss without taking every damn thing personally, for heaven's sake stay out of the discussion until you can.

And yeah, it's late, I'm tired, and I'm sick of seeing this crap constantly.

 

Ditto!

I can't speak for anyone else, but I come to these forums to see members express themselves, and their ideas, to see what resonates with me with regard to my own writing. And not just for that... I come to character watch. I'm sure I'm not alone in that. I mean, sod character sheets, who needs 'em? We have living breathing characters in type right here.

I've had more than enough inspiration of late, to fully flesh out and fuel several character types, just watching these arguments escalate.

Talking of character watching. Who amongst us has misread someone in terms of their gender, only to later find out their assumptions were wrong? From my own experience I can think of one. (You know who you are, bud.) And I'm sure @Alesia can remember the reaction when he put up a pic of himself in the members gallery.

Personally, I think as long as we treat the character first, understand their mindset and give the reader a sense of it, whether they should or shouldn't cry is down to us as authors. We just need to ask ourselves, is it justifiable, knowing what we and the reader know? I think the same applies to all these perceived differences. We should look to the individual first. There are just too many variables to hash out otherwise.

 

I'm getting gender wrong all the time online. And I know more than a few people here and elsewhere that would swear I'm a guy. Probably why I don't get bent out of shape about "gender voice".

 

I feel it's quite simple to write from a male's perspective.

 

How to write from a male perspective? The majority of works have the male POV. Watch or read those.

Joking aside, I know all about how men and women act. With that said... I look upon my own knowledge, and ignore the hell out of them. I don't like the idea of my male characters being macho men, as I hate the idea behind machoism (sp?), so I don't write about it. And to cover my behind, I even have the males raised to be isolated away from mainstream society involving boys and men, and even surrounded by females. Come to think of it, I also raise my heroines away from society of girls and women. That way, they cannot be expected to behave in stereotypical ways of the sexes.