How did this western societal idea of how a man should act, and what emotions are appropriate to show come about? How far back in western history does this idea of limiting men’s ability to emote honestly go? And how did these ideas change over time?
It’s interesting to me because I feel like these traditional and limited roles that western society puts on men (and women) are just that traditions. That it’s just something “that we do because past generations did them.” So my curiosity is why did past generations have these societal rules in place? was there a legitimate reason for it, did having men be almost robotic even in the privacy of his home and around his family have some necessary and important reason? If so is that still necessary today?
Edit: had this posted on c/asklemmy but it was suggested this was a better place for this question.
Are stupid non researched hypothesis allowed? I had in my mind: maybe those roles come from times when life was more violent, so having a strength advantage due to biology was an obvious way to hold power and impose rules that benefit your group/gender. I feel this somehow connects to emotional behaviors that may be required for war and politics, such as not showing your weaknesses. Then you have centuries of cultural development, such as religions, that created layers of justification for the social order that benefited the people in power, even when the physical strength advantage is not relevant anymore, and that’s what we consider tradition.
Reality is probably more complicated.
Is patriarchy and the emotional difference really specific to Western society, if we compare to Arabic, Indian or Chinese traditional cultures, for example?
your hypothesis isn’t stupid and in fact i think it lines up quite nicely with quite a few theories put forward by feminist scholars, including the one i summarized in my own response to this post. violence and the maintenance of control is a big element tied to most models of patriarchal masculinity :) you got good instincts