![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
castalieOh boy, I just finished something, and I'm so proud of the result! *schnuzzles self* [/cryptic comment]
Hey, I read someone's LJ today, and there was the infamous 'how dare they write InsertNameofMaleCharacter as a woman' speech, and I realized I was getting a little tired of that term, and that I didn't agree with the definition in the first place...
To me, talking about how a male character is acting like a woman because he's suddenly weepy or whiny - talking about 'womanizing' him isn't the correct way of describing the thing.
So what? If a male character suddenly whines, weeps, bitches, and acts wimpy he's supposedly acting like a woman? I'm always a little surprised when no one ever argues that the expression is actually pretty offensive. Being weepy and wimpy and weak equals being a woman? And I only ever heard women mentioning it, which is pretty ironical if you think of it. The term only refers to the stereotypical behaviour of a woman who's supposed to be hysterical and wimpy as a way of life, and if male readers were to use it, I would understand --I still would hate it and I would call them sexists and macho jerks, but from a twisted POV, I would understand-- but coming from female readers, it just sounds weird somehow *shrug*
I mean, to me the idea of 'womanizing' a male character is a) offensive and b) pretty reductive anyway, and uh c) not accurate at all. Try to portray Miss Parker from The Pretender as wimpy and whiny and you'll have a nice case of womanizing her because she just never acts that way - but obviously she's already a woman, so I don't see how those attributes could be described as turning her into a woman, right? Hell, try to portray Sam or Janet that way, and we'll see the reaction, too. They would just act out of character - nothing else.
To make a long story short, to me, it's just a matter of writing a character out of character - and only that. I understand how using the other term is an easy way to describe the phenomenon, after all, everyone understands what point the other person is trying to make, and technically, I see why we would use it - but still, I don't agree and I don't like it *g*
Oh and yes - obviously that's how I see it, now how it should be, all right? Different opinions and all of that *g*
Hey, I read someone's LJ today, and there was the infamous 'how dare they write InsertNameofMaleCharacter as a woman' speech, and I realized I was getting a little tired of that term, and that I didn't agree with the definition in the first place...
To me, talking about how a male character is acting like a woman because he's suddenly weepy or whiny - talking about 'womanizing' him isn't the correct way of describing the thing.
So what? If a male character suddenly whines, weeps, bitches, and acts wimpy he's supposedly acting like a woman? I'm always a little surprised when no one ever argues that the expression is actually pretty offensive. Being weepy and wimpy and weak equals being a woman? And I only ever heard women mentioning it, which is pretty ironical if you think of it. The term only refers to the stereotypical behaviour of a woman who's supposed to be hysterical and wimpy as a way of life, and if male readers were to use it, I would understand --I still would hate it and I would call them sexists and macho jerks, but from a twisted POV, I would understand-- but coming from female readers, it just sounds weird somehow *shrug*
I mean, to me the idea of 'womanizing' a male character is a) offensive and b) pretty reductive anyway, and uh c) not accurate at all. Try to portray Miss Parker from The Pretender as wimpy and whiny and you'll have a nice case of womanizing her because she just never acts that way - but obviously she's already a woman, so I don't see how those attributes could be described as turning her into a woman, right? Hell, try to portray Sam or Janet that way, and we'll see the reaction, too. They would just act out of character - nothing else.
To make a long story short, to me, it's just a matter of writing a character out of character - and only that. I understand how using the other term is an easy way to describe the phenomenon, after all, everyone understands what point the other person is trying to make, and technically, I see why we would use it - but still, I don't agree and I don't like it *g*
Oh and yes - obviously that's how I see it, now how it should be, all right? Different opinions and all of that *g*
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 07:44 am (UTC)my little bit
j
Re:
Date: 2004-02-19 04:59 am (UTC)I don't remember men bursting into laughter ever causing people to talk and to call them women, right? Why this double standard for tears or other emotions?
My little bit as well lol
no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 08:06 am (UTC)Personnally, I love when the cultural cliche of men and women is fuzzed. I love characters that are not ashamed or even make an issue of acting like the other gender is expected to be acting in our culture. I really hate those damn reductive male/female roles in our society.
Of course, the only problem goes when that sort of behavior is out of character, as you said.
I think the 'womanizing' term refers more to the way women are portrayed in our culture (tv, movie, books) and to the cliche of what a woman do, than to an actual believe women are really like that (which would be reductive).
Also, we could say this writing behavior is due to the Mary Sue syndrome ;) The writer (female) write her character as herself.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 11:04 am (UTC)well said - and I totally agree with that... then again, fics are often cliched, aren't they?
Also, we could say this writing behavior is due to the Mary Sue syndrome ;) The writer (female) write her character as herself.
argh, that goddam Mary Sue! lol true, so true!
Re:
Date: 2004-02-22 10:55 am (UTC)You gotta have some ego to include yourself in a fic, really ;)
Re:
Date: 2004-02-19 05:05 am (UTC)Exactly. That really gets to me, all right.
I think the 'womanizing' term refers more to the way women are portrayed in our culture (tv, movie, books) and to the cliche of what a woman do, than to an actual believe women are really like that (which would be reductive).
We agree here. It's totally stereotyped.
Also, we could say this writing behavior is due to the Mary Sue syndrome ;) The writer (female) write her character as herself.
Oh boy, I totally forgot that factor! lol You're right... hmm so, in that particular case, those male characters would *be* womanised for real since they would actually embody 'their' female writers. Damn Mary and Marty Sues lol It's definitely getting complicated lol Let's say they belong to a category in and of itself, and that they're a bad example *g*
no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 08:38 am (UTC)The traditional relationship is between a man and a woman.
Slash is (in this case) about two men. So if one character is portraied as the weaker one (from a mlae perspective, i.e. showing his feelings, talking about things, crying), all those things that "real" men don't do, we assume that he is written as the female part of the relationship, hence the feminization.
So it really is more of a sign that we still live with lots of prejudies about men, than a sign that we think women are behaving like crying, whining little bitches.
Because if the character behaving likle that was actually a woman, we wouldn't see it as a weakness.
Just my theory of course. *g*
I hate it for one simple reason: I read slash because it is about men.
Now, if Blair says "JIm, we gotta talk about this", then i can buy it.
But Daniel and Jack are so very male, with all the prejudices I have and enjoy about men, that I really can't see any of them acting differently. And it is so terribly out of character that I DON'T want to read about it. Ever.
I read slash because I want to see how men deal with the problems in their relationship (or whatever else could make a character cry), not because I want a stereotypical male/female relationship being played by two men.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 09:29 am (UTC)/rant off.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-19 05:15 am (UTC)Also, and from what I read in those often-occurring rants, those male characters aren't called 'women' if they're being more in touch with their feelings, or more talkative about said feelings- usually, it doesn't bother the majority, no every rant I read was about the weeping and neediness etc... That's why I think there's such a negative connotation to the term. DOn't know if I'm making sense here, btw- suddenly I'm wondering lol
I know what you mean about reading slash because you want to read about Jack and Daniel as men, and I'm definitely there. But here again, we're all looking for characters, uh 'in character'. Daniel crying over something important to him wouldn't be OOC per se (and I'm not talking about Daniel crying because he's worried about his mutts or I don't know what) because we got to see him doing it in the show, and no one would ever think of calling him a woman for that...
Anyway, to make a long story short and before I digress even more and make even less sense, I don't like the negative connotation of the term- that's what I don't like, and yes, I don't think it's accurate either *g*
Thanks for taking the time to give your opinion btw *g* I enjoy reading other people's thoughts *g*
no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 09:34 am (UTC)right now, it fits me like alove, thank you - 100% whiny and weepy - fucking hormones *grumbles* *sees Daniel crying on background* *weeps*
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 11:09 am (UTC)I meant "glove", "it fits me like a glove" - very nice lapsus though.
anyway: you know how I like my men portrayed in fics: non whiny, non weepy - then again, I say "men" cause I mostly read slash, but it's true for most of the characters in fics: bring me a woman whining and see me close the window. I don't like reading about whiny people - whining is for RL, not for smut fic. It bores me to death. Just my opinion *g*
no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 09:41 am (UTC)Daniel has been gendered as male. So has Jack. Carter has been gendered as female. And that means she is "allowed to" and does certain things that the guys don't.
Like weeping openly when someone she loves dies. Like requesting hugs. That doesn't make her whiny or hysterical or wimpy, it just makes her Sam, and I love her for it.
But it's not how Jack or Daniel would behave, and yes, it's simply ooc, but it is ooc because Jack and Daniel have been socialized as male.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 09:57 am (UTC)I beg to differ, Daniel does cry when he looses something important, i.e. Menace, the Light. He does high drama when he gets upset, One False Step and others. He does emote, where Jack does not. So it seems to me that the line is blurred and that's because there isn't really a line. It's like saying, gendered man, can't show feelings, gendered woman can show feelings. It's just not that cut and dried. It's all about proportional response. You can't put characters in neat little boxes with labels and say they only do male or female things even though the evidence doesn't support it. Because Sam does lots of male things as well but she's female. But if you take each character on their own merits, with all their male/female-ness in tact, you get a much more balanced picture of not only the character but people overall.
It also falls into facsist territory to say that all of one thing should act one way. It's a fallacy that's both untrue and dangerous.
And it's unfair to the character and men at large to say that because they're gendered male, they have only so many options for responses when the only real options are the honest one's they perceive in themselves, regardless of the gender image attached to that reaction. I'm sorry but you deny Daniel an essential part of his Daniel-ness when you take away his intuitive response and replace it with 'male' only gendered responses. He is intuitive. He does express emotion. He is sensitive and sympathetic. And I'd say Jack is as well, but he doesn't show them. Neither one is feminized by this nor denied their individual maleness. They are people. People respond like people.
J
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 01:57 pm (UTC)Daniel's responses in Light and One False Step are drug-induced. His response in Menace is a good point, but while he is sobbing, he isn't openly weeping, and I think that's a point. Even when he's being emotional, even when he's let his defenses down the most, he's still controlled and contained. It's obviously (to me) a release of all the negative emotions that have been building up for years.
Perhaps the problem is in saying there are "male things" and "female things"? Daniel is a man and gendered male and that means that he's been exposed to huge amounts of socialization that encourage him to act in certain ways, and he emits certain signals that let *everyone* know that he is male. Because we all do, regardless of how enlightened we are. Biology is not destiny, but our gender identity defines us in deep and subtle ways.
It also falls into facsist territory to say that all of one thing should act one way. It's a fallacy that's both untrue and dangerous.
And it's unfair to the character and men at large to say that because they're gendered male, they have only so many options for responses when the only real options are the honest one's they perceive in themselves, regardless of the gender image attached to that reaction.
Allow me to clarify. I'm not making a value judgement about any kind of behavior, but rather saying that we live in a society in which gender norms are strictly enforced. I cannot dictate anything about what Daniel should or shouldn't do because he's a fictional character. I won't dictate what other male people should or shouldn't do because I don't neccessarily think gender norms are a good thing.
I c
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 02:37 pm (UTC)I wouldn't say, strictly, I'd say insidiously. I've never been outright told I can't do something or other because I'm a woman. But by insidious treatment during school re-inforced certain ideas that I chose to change for myself. We certainly have 'things' we're given from the cocktail party that we're born into that makes us appear as socialized or gendered.
To change that perspective, for myself, I had to change how I view it as not being generated by me, nor affecting me. I can't get rid of it, or the history it's given me, but I can change how I react to what I've been lead to believe or given without my consent.
The challenge in fiction is to tell the story in such a fashion that the reader, not every reader possible, but the reader who wants to, can be convinced of the voracity of the characters. This obviously will change depending on the reader.
Good story telling is in the eye of the beholder.
I think we've come a long way towards loosened gender norms. Perhaps the contrast you see is greater because of your life perspective, which we've talked about before. And I agree. It is greater to you.
I still see gender norming. It's not gone.
And as in other convos we've had, the perception of gender norming, masculinity representation and fictional voracity will lie with the individual reader.
Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this convo again.
It sorta seems like you can change the content, but the underlying structure of the convo is that generalizations don't work in real life. Where the rubber hits the road, we all use our own perceptions.
By your past writings, I can tell that you want to be taken for who you are as a person, not any particular label you may be identified with.
You are the sign, not the signifier.
This is a powerful distinction.
Leotard was right. We will never agree on what the sign is saying, because we see it through our own filters/perceptions.
j
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 03:04 pm (UTC)I'm reminded of Jack Nicholson in As Good as it Gets.
Anyhoo.
;)
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 05:41 pm (UTC)Mumble mumble no canon sexual orientation mumble mumble.
I think part of the problem stems from being women writing men.
I think that's mostly the whole problem, actually.
Also, we're authors writing about soldiers, I'm a philosophy major writing about an anthropologist, and most of us are twentysomethings writing about thirty-or-fortysomethings.
And apparently, about half of my last comment got cut off. Grr.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 05:49 pm (UTC)I'm forty actually, and married to an x-marine who's forty four. So the age thing I've got.
And the military thing.
It's just that pesky penis-social conditioning thing.
rats.
j
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 06:24 pm (UTC)But dude, people write about people who aren't like themselves all the time. It doesn't neccessarily mean the writing is bad. Or even worse than it would be if written by people exactly like the people we're writing about.
Because, truthfully, I think many slashers, certainly those we love the most, are better writers than Jack O'Neill would be. You know?
& I don't think that women shouldn't or can't write about men. It's just that the fanfic I enjoy the most is that which seems to me to take into account most fully that Jack and Daniel are male.
*Shrug*
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 06:31 pm (UTC);)
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 11:32 am (UTC)I have to disagree with this one. I think that the writers did an excellent job in the early seasons in developing the characters on the show.
We're given insight through Jack's background and experiences as to why he is so closed off emotionally. The loss of his son, his time in an Iraqi prison camp, his job in black ops.
On the same note, we're given some insight into Daniel's losses which helped him develop very differently emotionally.
I see these as characterizations based on history and experience, not as gendering the characters.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 02:14 pm (UTC)That's very true. The writers have done a pretty good job of providing the characters with enough backstory so that their actions make sense, and of course I don't think of the characters strictly in terms of their sex. On the other hand, I do think that gender is an incredibly important and powerful tool and that it does affect us in subtle and influential ways.
In other words, of course it's their experiences that make them who they are, not anything inate that comes from being born with penises and a Y chromosome. But the fact that they were born male means that they were socialized as masculine, and it is that experience that contributes to their personalities, that will affect everything they see, that will be the filter through which they see, well, everything that ever happens to them. Their entire socialization, a very important part of which (especially in this culture) is their socialization as male.
For instance, see the very different ways in which Jack and Sara reacted to Charlie's death. Jack closed off emotionally; Sara wanted to talk about it.
I'm not an essentialist, nor do I neccessarily think that gender *should* be important, merely that it *is*, and that there is a strong trend in fanfiction for female writers to underestimate the importance of masculine socialization in writing their male characters. Which is why I feel that "feminization" is an accurate and appropriate term.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 02:43 pm (UTC)I view Daniel in the same way. I think that the character could have been female with very minor changes. That doesn't mean that I think he's whiny or weak, just that it's a neutral role. That's one of the reasons people can identify with him.
I think one of the objections that I have with the genderization of characters is that they do tend to fall into stereotypical traps. For me, Sam is a prime example of that over the past couple of seasons. We've never seen the show focus on one of the guys' love lives unless it was part of a bigger plot. Unfortunately, with Sam, it is the plot. There are instances where there is no other reason for showing her storylines than to develop her feelings and emotions. I think that's sad, because it automatically places her in a separate category than the other three. I didn't have to do that in the first three seasons. She was just another member of the team. Not the 'girl' on the team.
I understand what you're saying about gender being an influence on the character and on us as humans, but I just see it as a very minor part of who they/we are.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 05:32 pm (UTC)Up until the events of the movie, maybe. But the events on Abydos would have unfolded very, very differently if Daniel had been female, given the way society is structured on Abydos, where gender has very particular meanings, far more traditional and less fluid than our own conceptions of gender. I don't think a female!Daniel could have risen to a place of prestige, would have been rewarded with a wife, been allowed the freedom to go exploring to find the big ol' Abydos cartouche.
And without the Sha're arc, Daniel simply isn't Daniel. It defines him. And I think in a large sense it is a gendered arc. Yes, it's specific to Daniel and the way Daniel views and understands the world. But it also works within the context of Abydonian concepts of marriage and honor, and Daniel's protectiveness towards his wife. And if that isn't a traditionally gendered marriage, I don't know what is.
I'm not saying that a woman couldn't or wouldn't have the same reactions or responses. But they would be different and have different meanings because they would still exist in a world where gender is real, would still be in reference to gender, whether defying or reinforcing traditional notions of gender relationships.
We've never seen the show focus on one of the guys' love lives unless it was part of a bigger plot.
"Bigger" in what sense? It seems to me that 100 Days, for instance, is about Jack, Jack's feelings, Jack's emotions, Jack's love life, etc. Sure, there's a plot in the sense of "we must find Jack; we must
Re:
Date: 2004-02-19 05:21 am (UTC)The thing that gets to me is what I see as a negative connotation, and yeah a sort of totally stereotyped conception in the term 'feminizing' a male character.
Sam wouldn't be whiny or wimpy, I totally agree with you. So if she was portrayed that way, it would be OOC, but the term 'feminise' wouldn't be accurate here obviously- so why should it be when it's a male character? To me, and in that case, it's not so much a problem of gender than complete OOC.
I don't deny the differences between men and women btw, I'm just talking about how I dislike the stereotyped connotation of the term itself *g*
Re:
Date: 2004-02-19 09:55 am (UTC)Eh, 'fraid I have to disagree there. I think Daniel, like the other members of SG-1, devotes a lot of energy to masking his emotions.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-19 10:12 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-19 10:17 am (UTC)*shrug*
*agrees to disagree*
no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 10:00 am (UTC)I think that is one of the reasons that I am enjoying 'Left Hand of Darkness' so much because the main character is a human male who is having all his preconceptions about gender turned on their head because he is in the middle of a hermaphroditic society and so those rules do not apply :D!
Re:
Date: 2004-02-19 05:23 am (UTC)And I agree also about 'Left of Darkness'. That's one of the reasons why this story is so compelling *g*
no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 11:23 am (UTC)I mean portraying Chris or Toby crying and all... I think I'd call it "womanizing" and I have to admit that I allow my female characters (Which ones, do you ask? lol) a lot more of visible emotions than male characters.
Anyway, I'd like you to read an Oz fic... You'd kill the author. Toby's portrayed as "chris' wife"... And Chris calls him Honey, and ... aaaaaghhhh! I hate that. Oh yes and they got dogs that they call their "kids" and chris says, "where's mom?" to the dog, talking about Toby.
THIS is womanizing.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 11:56 am (UTC)I'm not saying anything of the kind. I'm saying, all men don't do anything. Each man is his own man, with his own reactions, feminine, masculine or otherwise. Men are not women, and vs versa. I'm not equating them. I'm saying that each person must be taken on their own merits. Men don't react as women is just too broad a generalization to be true. Some men don't. Some men do. Some women react as men, some don't. We are all different. Men are capable, by gender, genes or society of very different things than women. Women the same. Manly woman, womanly man. In fiction and cinema, we use the stereo types, but we are not the stereotypes. A good example is MS who plays Daniel. He's nothing like Daniel, but he plays him really well. Daniel has many aspects of character that are socially considered feminine. Mike, not so much.
It's very tempting to say, 'all', 'every', 'everyone', 'noone'. But these ideas are too simple, too black and white. No one I know is that way. We are all shades of grey as are the characters portrayed in fiction. Just because we have Daniel cry, doesn't mean we're feminizing him, because in canon, he does cry. I admit, I don't read stories where he cries during sex, or for overwhelming love. That's unbelieveble to me. But, I do believe he would cry if he lost Jack. Or appeared to lose him. If Jack were lost to him emotionally. He may not break down in public, but he'd certainly do it in private.
j
Re:
Date: 2004-02-19 05:26 am (UTC)I can't help disliking the term. Maybe because every stereotyped idea can't be that good, anyway. What is annoying is that you don't see people ranting about men showing their emotions in fics- they start to rant when said characters start to go over the top- the thing is, every character going over the top in matter of emotions would be out of characters, no matter the gender. So that's why to me, the whole point is moot. It sorta negates itself in my eyes *g*
no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 08:28 pm (UTC)i was very skeptic about the men crying openly thingie UNTIL my dad nearly died and his friends who are 40 something were crying very openly and very publicly.
basically, after that, i realised that it did not matter whether you're male or female, it depends on how intense the situation is.
and anyway, it depends on the person themselves anyway. i don't nec. see daniel crying e.g. as womanizing him. it all depends on how it's written, on why he's crying, on how much he's crying [or whatever, not nec. crying, i'm just using an example].
Re:
Date: 2004-02-18 06:32 am (UTC)see, that makes sense.
I lost my mother a couple of years back and I've seen my family cry -- male and female alike -- and yes, it's really a matter of *how* intense the situation is -- not your gender.
And I have to agree -- I've read fic where one of the male characters cried/shed tears etc, where it didn't bug me -- because the writer was so damned good at building up to that moment, to let us know WHY he was crying.
Really, it's a metter of the writer's ability to get the WHY across, the situation and build-up.
So... if it bugs the reader, it's not because of womanization... it's because it's either
a. not as well-written as it could be - doesn't get the message out
b. OOC -- which tends to be the one thing that bugs me *g*
Something just struck me, though. Why do people feel uneasy when a man cries? Be it fiction or reality? Habit? Society dictates (at least HAS dictated since humans became aware) that men protect/take care of family/mate - maybe it scares some deep, dark part of us that is genetically imprinted with the feeling that seeing a 'protector' break down and cry is scary?
Re:
Date: 2004-02-18 06:49 am (UTC)I'm like you, I never understood why anyone feels uneasy when a man cries- and not only do they get uneasy but they can actually get aggressive in their reaction, not in a physical way, but a man cries and he's immediately labeled as a fag, as a sissy, as girly- he's un-manly and some other BS like this.
I don't know if it comes from an instinctive reaction, or if it's just purely a result of how the society dictate how people are supposed to act, what I know is that is annoyes the hell ouf of me, and it's one of the reasons why I'm happy to be a woman. At least, I can express my feelings without feeling getting pressured by other people's expections of how I should behave.
Men cry. Yes, they do. Sure, they're not as emotional as us, but a good part of that is because they were conditioned this way. The tacit rules society dictates make them unable to express their emotions this way. I always thought this 'men don't cry, only women do' was utter crap. Men and women alike laugh when they're happy, right? What could actually stop them both from expressing the opposite feeling, ie cry when they're sad or feeling miserable? Society for a huge part, I guess.
My dad is actually a very sensitive guy. He's not crying all the time, I'm not saying that, but when he feels something deep inside, he doesn't hide it. Did I ever see him as less manly? Hell no. The thought would actually makes me laugh. Did anyone around ever thought the same thing? Hell no. My dad is still the man he is- I don't see where the problem is *shrug*
Back to fanfic, now (but like you said, it relates to RL as well), I don't mind male characters crying is the situations dictates it. Depending on the situation, I wouldn't see why they wouldn't cry, or even feel needy. It would bug me if Jack acted like a jerk (like he knows how to) and Daniel started to cry. Thing is, it would bugger me if, say, Sam or Janet were to do the same thing. For me, OOC is really the keyword, yes- nothing else.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-18 09:47 pm (UTC)b. OOC -- which tends to be the one thing that bugs me *g*
EXACTLY.
sorry about your mother =(
Why do people feel uneasy when a man cries? Be it fiction or reality? Habit? Society dictates (at least HAS dictated since humans became aware) that men protect/take care of family/mate - maybe it scares some deep, dark part of us that is genetically imprinted with the feeling that seeing a 'protector' break down and cry is scary?
i guess it has everything to do with machismo and yes, i guess, the way society dictates how a man should act.
personally, I HATE crying. i try not to and until VERY recently, i refused to cry for so many things, like stargate episodes etc. it was a sign of weakness for me but i screwed that and now i don't mind doing it in certain circumstances.
and yet i'm a woman. so i don't really know how this relates to gender.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-19 06:46 am (UTC)Thanks.
And yes -- I've had my own hangups about crying as well -- I still hate crying, especially in public. I have no idea why *g*