+
“A balm for the soul”
  review on Goodreads
GOOD PEOPLE Book
upworthy

masculinity

Family

When his young son was bullied for wearing pink this dad had a truly badass response

"Men need to be the example for young boys."

@dougweaverart/TikTok

Imagine if all boys had this kind of support to embrace all parts of themselves.

We often hear about how binary gender norms affect young girls, but any man who’s ever been made fun of for being sensitive or liking “girly” things during childhood can tell you they influence young boys as well. And perhaps the worst offense of these arbitrary limitations is the way they keep individuals from truly knowing and expressing all parts of themselves, which can lead to a slew of interpersonal problems late in life.

Boys in particular are often taught from an early age to shun the qualities in themselves considered to be feminine—things like empathy, compassion, having strong emotions, etc. It’s so well documented now how not nurturing these qualities leads to isolation and loneliness in adulthood, and yet messages like “boys don’t cry” or “pink is for girls” still persist.

Artist, TikTok creator and Doug Weaver (@dougweaverart) recently made a few excellent points as to why adult men need to be the example for young boys if we truly wish to see a change.

In a stitched response to a video where a mom lamented that she knew how to help her daughter “fight back” against gender norms, but not her son, Weaver argued that above all, it’s important for young boys to see grown men “defy” the expectations culture puts on them.

“Society will try to beat boys down until they fall in line,” Weaver said, sharing his own experience of seeing his son come home from school after being bullied for wearing pink and liking unicorns (which, of course, are “for girls” only).

Weaver said that the only solution he saw was to “pinkify” his own life, and be that example his son so desperately needed.


@dougweaverart @Mel | Med Student raising boys is scary, because we know just how much society is built to tear them down. #men #masculinity #parenting #boydad #greenscreenvideo ♬ original sound - dougweaverart

“I added so much pink to my wardrobe,” he explained, saying that he even painted his nails pink so that he’d be seen as the “problem” instead of his son.

“They don’t say anything to me. If they’re not brave enough to confront the color pink, they’re not going to confront me.”

Weaver added that the larger conversation he tries to have with his son is how this is a “fight worth having,” not just for men with feminine qualities but for “but for everyone society tries to reject.”

He then used this example: a boy who secretly wants to wear a dress to school, but doesn’t to avoid getting bullied. Weaver said that solution only works temporarily, since the dress is only a small manifestation of a larger aspect of the boy’s identity, which he would be repressing to fit an expectation.

“They’re getting bullied for what they wear now, they’re going to get bullied for who they are later. And if changing their clothes made the bullying go away when they were younger, they might think that changing their personality will make the bullying go away when they are older.”

What’s more, for this hypothetical boy, for Weaver’s son, and for any boy really, there’s something very vital that’s lost in chasing this idea of masculinity.

“The people who want to take colors from him also want to take his creativity,” Weaver explains “They want to take away his kindness, they want to take away everything that is soft in his life. His feelings and his emotions. They wanna take away his ability to love people who are different from him.”

Yep, that hits the nail of the head perfectly.

And that is why Weaver prioritizes being the example for his son, because “if he sees people criticize me from time to time, and he sees how unaffected I am by it, that is an example to him of the strength and tenacity that it takes for anyone to just be their authentic self.”

And, perhaps more importantly, Weaver is teaching his son that he will be loved and accepted, no matter how he expresses himself. Imagine a world in which all children were taught this valuable lesson.

From Your Site Articles
kids
Pop Culture

Guy teaches little brother his 'duties as a man' in video that takes the most wholesome turn

"I promise that I will make all the girls around me feel safe."

Photo by Hafit on Unsplash

Guy teaches little brother 'duties as a man' in sweet video.

Families often have different ages that they teach children about a big life topics. Some conversations are bigger than others, but generally speaking they're had with the best of intentions. Anish Bhagatt felt like the time was finally right to teach his younger brother, Dhruva, his "duties as a man." The little boy had just turned 12, so certain talks needed to be had and Bhagatt felt he was best suited for the job.

The older brother picked Dhruva up from school to take him on his journey to manhood. From the look on the little boy's face, he knew he was in for a treat hanging out with his older brother. This may not have been the chat he was expecting, but the boy soaked up the knowledge eagerly.

Bhagatt started the video by saying, "So Dhruva, you're a big man now," before the little boy happily interjects stating, "Yes, I'm 12!"

Immediately the conversation shifted into a direction that surprised commenters. Instead of launching into a talk about the birds and the bees, Bhagatt asked if his younger brother knows about periods, which did not come with any of the stereotypical middle school boy disgust. Dhruva was engaged as his brother explained what periods were and why women have menstrual cycles. He even showed the preteen how to purchase sanitary products. People were impressed.

"This is healing generations of silence and toxicity. Well done, gentlemen," one woman says.

"The fact that it was his BROTHER that took him to go buy sanitary pads. Not his mom, not a sister. His brother. This is what good male role models are like," another writes.

"Ok guys, this is what people mean when they say healthy masculinity! Big bro is a Saint, and little bro is so sweet and compassionate! I am amazed and thrilled that people like this exist," someone else gushes.

"I am literally CRYING right now! Oh my gracious… these young folks will save us," a commenter cries.

The video is beyond wholesome and may serve as an example of what it looks like to educate young boys on what half the population goes through. In the end the boy declares, "I promise that I will make all the girls around me feel safe," and if he keeps having these kinds of chats, there's no doubt that he will do just that.

From Your Site Articles
healthy masculinity
Health

Historians take to Reddit to gloriously dispel the 'boys don't cry myth'

"Masculinity and tears have not always been at odds."

Canva

Time to stop believing this myth once and for all

Who decided "big boys don't cry"?

It's not rare to see powerful and high profile men overcome with emotion at times, but when they do, it's usually met with some form of criticism or seen as a display of weakness. Simply put, in today's world boys and men are simply not expected to display vulnerable emotions like sadness and grief. (But anger is usually A-OK!)

When we think of the founding pillars of "manliness," we think of strength, bravery, and stoicism, and we often assume that it's just always been that way. After all, ancient Greek warriors didn't cry! Medieval knights didn't cry! Men just don't cry! It's, like, biology or something! Right? Right?

Well, actually...

A couple of historians recently took to Reddit to debunk this myth once and for all.

A user named Sassenacho prompted the thread on the r/AskHistorians subreddit with a simple question: "Today, there are voices that call for (much needed) acceptance of men's emotionality, but it is still kind of taboo. I was wondering when and why this changed in western society."

Photo by Luca DG Photography on Unsplash

The explanations that ensued were fascinating.

Cassidy Percoco, a curator and historian at the St. Lawrence County Historical Association and author of "Regency Women's Dress" kicked things off, explaining that "masculinity and tears have not always been at odds."

Those rough and tumble medieval knights with their shiny armor and big swords? Percoco says they were actually expected to weep on occasion.

"In the Middle Ages there was a trope of masculine weeping being a mark of religious devotion and knightly chivalry; by the sixteenth century it was well-established that a masculine man was supposed to have deep emotions and to show them — in some cases, through tears."

It was a part of the whole chivalry thing and a sign of religious devotion.

As far back as Biblical times and in the age of Greek and Roman heroes, crying out of grief or sadness was just something men were expected to do.

From there, Percoco jumped forward to 17th and 18th century England. Hundreds and hundreds of years later, men crying and sharing their feelings — a gentlemanly trait known as "sensibility" — still hadn't gone out of style.

"A gentleman was to be courteous to women and other men, to talk problems out, to keep from bursting into loud displays of anger or drunkenness. You might think that that would also put the kibosh on weeping — giving way to feelings of all sorts — but this was not the case. Another gentlemanly trait of the eighteenth century was sensibility, which today sounds like it ought to mean "rationality" but is actually being aware of and susceptible to one's finer emotions."

Alex Wetmore, assistant professor in the English department at University of the Fraser Valley, chimed in as well to explain that in the mid-to-late 1700s, popular fiction often celebrated male leads who cried "a lot"!

"People are often interested to hear that there was a period of time of a few decades (1740s to 1770s) where fiction devoted to men who cry (a lot!) was not only acceptable, but, in fact, tremendously popular and widely celebrated."

Wetmore identified an archetype, which he calls "The Man of Feeling," who appears in a ton of novels from that era. (Wetmore even wrote a bookon the subject.)

"When I try to explain this recurring character type to students, I usually describe him as like a comic book superhero ... BUT with the notable exception that the 'superpower' of men of feeling is an ability to spontaneously shed copious amounts of tears."

It's quite the contrast to the unflinching action heroes we see today.

Photo by Sander Sammy on Unsplash

It wasn't until the early 1800s that things began to change, and men started feeling the pressure to hold those tears in.

Percoco and Wetmore were both hesitant to prescribe a definite cause and effect relationship, but they do suspect the Industrial Revolution played a big part in turning the tide. (Reportedly, some factory managers actually trained workers, usually men, to suppress their emotions in order to keep productivity high.)

The age of the stoic and emotionless cowboy (a la John Wayne, who most people agree never cried in a movie) wasn't far behind, followed by the gun-wielding "Die Hard"-ian action heroes of modern cinema.

But ... while fictional macho men may have been suppressing their tears, the real men of the real world were doing the same thing they'd always done: wearing their hearts on their sleeves.

For instance: General Ulysses S. Grant cried when the Civil War finally ended. President Eisenhower cried on the eve of D-Day. And baseball legend Lou Gehrig cried when the Yankees retired his number.

And, yet, since it took hold about 200 years ago, the expectation that "boys don't cry" persists.

Today's world is certainly not one that celebrates open displays of emotion from men, often to their detriment.

Research shows that these repressed feelings can often come out in unhealthy and harmful ways, and it's all so we can meet a standard of masculinity that, likely, never truly existed.

Next time you catch someone bemoaning the "wussification of American boys" and yearning for a time "when men were men," it might be worth asking them when, exactly, they think that was.

This article originally appeared on 11.20.17

From Your Site Articles
history
Family

Mom who wants her boys to pee sitting down makes pro-standing dad clean the bathrooms

"I said it was his idea for the boys to stand to pee, so he had to deal with the consequences."

Images via Unsplash

Parents argue over bathroom etiquette for boys

There’s a growing trend in some countries where more men are sitting to pee instead of standing up. This trend has caught on most prominently in Germany, where 62% of men now say they sit every time or most of the time.

The reasons for the change in public opinion in Germany are that it’s more hygienic for men to sit because there’s no splash back and it’s much easier to aim. In some places with communal living, standing to pee is greatly discouraged, and it’s now considered rude to stand to pee when visiting a friend’s house.

Things aren’t the same in the USA, where only 23% say they sit most of the time. The stand versus sit debate has caused a problem in a family, so a pro-sitting mom of three took to Reddit’s AITA forum to ensure she wasn’t in the wrong.

“After we potty trained our sons I kept making sure that they were sitting to pee. They are young and don't really care. They can use a urinal when we are out somewhere,” she wrote. “My brother-in-law was over last month and saw my oldest boy in the bathroom by accident. … Anyways my brother-in-law made a joke about my son not stinking up the bathroom. My son told him that he was just peeing. For some reason my BIL took offense at this and started bugging my husband about his sons sitting to pee.”

This is where things get interesting because, in many cultures, it’s seen as effeminate for men to sit and pee, which is probably a big reason why nearly 4 out of 5 men in America prefer to stand.

“My husband then started telling the boys that if they are only peeing that they should stand,” the mom continued. “They boys don't have great aim, but they make up for it with a short attention span. When I went in the bathroom after a few days of that it was gross. I turned around and walked out.”

The mother then told the dad that if the boys were going to stand to pee, then he could take responsibility for cleaning the “toilets, floors and walls” in the bathroom. “I said it was his idea for the boys to stand to pee, so he had to deal with the consequences,” the mom wrote. “He did it but he is upset about me unilaterally making this decision. Like he did about the boys.”

One can see the dad’s reasoning for having the boys stand to pee. Because if they sit to pee at school, they could deal with bullying from other boys. The mom’s position—that if they’re going to stand instead of sit, she’s not cleaning up the mess—also makes sense.

The commenters on the post overwhelmingly sided with the mother.

“I will never understand why it's socially acceptable for boys and grown-ass men to spray bathrooms like tom cats because they choose to stand to urinate. It's unnecessary and unsanitary. Either aim better, clean up after yourself, or sit," Consistent-Leopard71 wrote.

“All the people with penises can clean up after their penises,” Turkeygreen added.

The consensus among the commentators was that there’s nothing wrong with sitting to pee and it shouldn’t be seen as masculine or feminine. Many folks also thought that if you’re adamant about the kids doing something less hygienic, you should probably clean up after them.

From Your Site Articles
parenting
Trending Stories