This post comes with some confused and displaced thoughts. It's a battery of questions that primarily are asked to self before getting any mass verdict. Or perhaps, there is little scope for that.
The context would be the fine line between expression and suppression where men are concerned.
Not sure, where to start. The key was my own mirth which I now repent as folly.
Once, there was a particular blond with the blue eyes I had liked. But when he spoke, I wished I could cover all my 5 senses.
The tryst of mistrust was with his theoretical knowledge of India. That raised an ire-chord. Blue flames of hatred flared up like sapphire.
Being a researcher, I was appalled at his xenophobia. But then again- this is yet another matter - another bone of contention.
Point of the matter is - are we scared of men and their expressions? Why do we look down if men express - in theatrical exaggerated manner?
Do we have to judge them with biased and colored lenses and label them?
Is it that our judgement goes on an extreme point of an insidious form of habitual auto-pilot?
The cognitive load that we apparently carry, in terms of information on structures, and the way we process as conditioned, seems to be a double-edged sword pinned to our merciless selection of everyday attention & influences.
When we intellectualize expressions, and question it's roots, do we deconstruct the beauty of emotions?
Ok, let me analyze how minds were working at the time-
- the cognitive phase of intellectualizing his mannerisms which we termed as madness
- the associate stage where the focus is sharper on his mistakes
- finally the autonomous stage, where we arrive at our own haphazard 'OK-Plateau' where we pilfer the information as we filter and move it back to the recesses of our minds - all the while labelling and tagging him as a 'weak man.'
As my best friend exclaims - 'Dude, like seriously?'
I do admit that I fell in this 3 step process. But I had to take multiple steps back and stop to question. I had to make use of my Socio background - debunk and evaluate the essence of the so-called 'positive deviation.'
Somewhere, it didn't settle in right, when we laughed at his nuances. We should have considered them as his intrinsics and accepted.
Are we that rigid and straitjacketed? Who, are we then in our bedrooms?
How much do men need to walk the linear path of inexpressive equanimity to seek a balance. Why can't they be freed of their own shackles too?
To respire, aspire and inspire. And not to impress while being oppressed.
So when he exclaims, with eyes round and hands doing the talking - do we have to see him as an outlier to the manly codes of public conduct ?
Or is it just India?
Where are we then, on the continuum of evolution - acceptance of emotions and expressions?