A couple of weeks ago my partner mentioned a discussion they had in one of his social work classes regarding disenfranchised grief. I had never even heard of it before, but it captured my imagination, so I've been reading/thinking about it ever since.
Disenfranchised grief is grief over a loss that is not conventionally acknowledged or socially acceptable in your culture. Couples who experience infertility, terminate pregnancy due to some genetic disorder that the fetus had, or have a miscarriage often experience disenfranchised grief. Other examples include grief over the incarceration of a loved one, the death of a pet, the breakup of an unacknowledged relationship (i.e. gay couples who haven't come out yet or have been rejected by their families) or the death of a partner in an unacknowledged relationship, the "loss" of one's parent due to Alzheimer's, the death of an ex-spouse or lover, the recurring grief of a birth mother who gave up a child for adoption, and the grief of an adopted child for the relationship they might have had with their birth parent(s). In many of these cases the people who surround the grieving individual may not understand the depth of the grief involved, or may think it's something the individual should be able to get over already. In other cases, such as in the case of unacknowledged relationships, the individual may not be able to share their grief at all.
So as I've been thinking about this it occurs to me that men may often experience disenfranchised grief more often than women, because it's more socially acceptable for women to express their grief, and because men are often expected not to have the same depth of feeling. I've known several men who really wanted children, and were deeply emotionally invested in having a family. When they (and their partner) encountered infertility or miscarriage, their grief was barely even acknowledged, while their partner received a lot of support. When men do express their grief over infertility or a miscarriage, or don't "get over it" quickly enough, they're viewed with a mixture of confusion and disapproval. So I think this is one example of the damage a patriarchal culture inflicts on men. What do you think of this? Are there other examples of disenfranchised grief I haven't thought of? Are there cases where a woman's grief is more disenfranchised than a man's?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Patriarchy hurts men too. Exhibit A: Disenfranchised grief.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10829
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
I think this is right on, totally accurate. I can't really think of any circumstances where women's grief would be more disenfranchised... because I think that grieving is, for women, very accepted for women in our culture... much less so than for men, certainly.
I agree: I think you are on to something. "Being sad" is one of the possible states of "woman."
I think though that this disenfranchisement of greif has less to do with 'patriarchy' then with the gender binary. I see how you could totally argue it either way and I'd love to hear your further thoughts, but here is my logic:
Part of the idea of 'patriarchy' is that it [and by extention: all/most men] gets to do whatever it want to. Boys sexually harassing girls in school is semi-acceptable because "boys are being boys," right? Margaret Meade said that "Men may cook, or weave or dress dolls or hunt hummingbirds, but if such activities are appropriate behavior for men, then the whole society, men and women alike, votes them as important. When the same occupations are performed by women, they are regarded as less important."
While I agree that The Powers the Be are mostly male, I have a hard time believing that a system that is so clearly unhealthy for males psychologically is built with their benefit in mind.
Grief is a human emotion, but "men" aren't "supposed" to access it. I think the issue here is with what it "means" to be "male".
(... MM also said: Every time we liberate a woman, we liberate a man. :)
But I think in many cases patriarchy does not enable men to do what they want, because they have to adhere to the script just as tightly as women - their script is just more entitling.
And I actually don't think you can separate the gender binary from patriarchy. I love the French feminists (Christine Delphy, Colette Guillaumin, Monique Wittig...) on this topic. Whereas the original theory was that there exist certain significant differences in nature, and social hierarchy is then built up on top of those, they flip it over. They claim that all kinds of differences do occur in nature, but none of them is significant until they are chosen as a justification for building up a hierarchy. So the hierarchy invests differences with meaning. This explains how concepts like race are invented during historical periods where there's a need to justify practices like slavery, and why patriarchal cultures build up so much gendered crap on top of sex in order to justify the division of labor, the treatment of women, etc.
Ok that makes a lot of sense. Guess what I'll be reading this winter :)
Start with the French Feminism Reader, edited by Kelly Oliver. It's really great!
I'm always excited when people recommend French Feminists, haha.
When I took my Intro. to Gender Studies course it was taught by one of my French professors sooo she kind of skewed towards her own research interests/past teaching experience whenever it was possible where other professors who've taught the course (they rotate every semester) seemed to rely mainly on American authors.
I'm completely fascinated by their approach to almost everything--in addition to the concept of patriarchy--because I think its more wide-ranging and its allows for other people to continue to interpret the little things in turn.
Jane, on my account, patriarchy is inherently a bad outcome for everyone, though obviously worse for women. I think of it, in game theory terms, as the classic variant of the "Prisoner's Dilemma" where the non-trusting outcomes for every player are worse than the trusting outcome -- the only reason the parties have to not cooperate is because if they trust the counterparty wrongly, they end up with the worst outcome, and so fear that that they maintain some misery out of fear of more misery.
Patriarchy sucks for men. But most men don't think that better is achievable. They've been fooled into thinking that unearned privilege is a zero-sum game; that either men or women must be oppressed and othered. They think that if they chip away at the unearned privilege of men in patriarchy, they're hurting themselves. They can't see that with no "other," no privilege, no whore/madonna complex, no rules about boy toys and girl toys and men's work and women's work, no disparate pressure to pursue a career or income, no dictates about who is allowed to love and express emotion, that they would be much happier.
Patriarchy is a violent, oppressive system. It does not follow from this that it is a better outcome for the oppressor than no oppression. That would only be true from a zero-sum perspective. If there is a better world to be had without oppression, it's freedom for the oppressed, but it is also a modest improvement for the oppressor.
I believe feminism directly benefits not only my daughter, but also my sons.
Well said!
I agree completely, and I'm often disappointed with the lack of acknowledgment of this on feminist websites. Usually it's just, "this is not a place for a discussion of men's issue; it's for a discussion of women's issues!"... which is so painfully ironic. It's seriously frustrating- feminism should be about breaking down gender binaries, not ignoring them.
Ignoring double-standards like this (ones that supposedly favor women) also ignores the negative consequences/implications these things have for women. Example: what does it say about our society that women are expected not only to be able to grieve more openly, but to be able to grieve more, i.e. to have more things to grieve about? When you think about it, that's a really scary thing.
"Example: what does it say about our society that women are expected not only to be able to grieve more openly, but to be able to grieve more, i.e. to have more things to grieve about? When you think about it, that's a really scary thing."
Very good points, thanks.
This goes back to ancient times. Lament in early Greece (and as far back as Mesopotamia, actually, but this is documented better in Greek tragedies and funeral rituals) was women's work. The theory has been put forth that the performative aspects of lament--publicly tearing one's hair, skin, and clothes, hiring professional mourners to do so, and wailing a whole helluva lot--were supposed to allow men to empathize with the pain without actually mourning. In Athenian plays such as The Trojan Women and Hecuba, mourning women were supposed to tug at the audience's heartstrings, and allow the audience to express their grief over the tragedies of war in a way that was socially acceptable, since wailing and tearing one's hair were unmasculine. At the time these plays were written, most of the audience was comprised of male veterans of a recent war, and they were dealing with the emotional repercussions of that conflict. So it was a way of legitimizing grief by removing its performance from those who were actually mourning.
I think that people who had loved ones who died from AIDS used to be a part of this group, but maybe there's less stigma attached to that now.
What about people who lose a family member through some violent action, like when there's a school shooting or some other public shooting spree and then the attacker shoots himself (or herself) as well. I always think the family must be in this awful situation where they can't openly grieve in the usual way.
This is sort of different... but, from personal experience, I think this is related. When young children lose a parent, for example, or anyone else important in their lives, they are either expected to freak out, or not understand what happened. I was six when my father died, and I understood it. He was gone. While people tip-toed around me, I think there was this general feeling that I wouldn't remember it, that it would all be like a bad dream eventually. I wasn't told how he died, involved in the funeral planning, etc. I wonder now how differently, and how much better I might have dealt with my grief had I been more included in the grieving process. Also, as an adult, I think people often assume that I don't remember him, or the loss, and are surprised when I am mournful. I have suspected sometimes that people are thinking, "But it happened almost twenty years ago..." I have also had people say to me, "Well at least it happened when you were young enough to not really remember it, and you didn't have time to form a real relationship with your dad, so it's probably easier." Yes. People say strange things...
Yeah, I totally think that children's grief is often disenfranchised because people underestimate the degree to which kids understand what's happening around them. And I think the grief from losing a parent can be cyclical in the same way that the grief from losing or giving up a child can be, because various life events keep bringing it back to you.
I agree with all of the comments.
This reminds me of a seen in the movie "Love Actually", where Emma Thompson's character tells her grieving widower brother (played by Liam Neisen) as he breaks down into tears, something to the effect of, "you should stop crying or else nobody will want to fuck you".
I know they were going for a light hearted sisterly message, but it sounds brutal to me. I don't imagine anyone would write that line to be said to a woman grieving the loss of her husband---
yet, here they even manage to disenfranchise the grief of a widower...
We were watching this documentary in Sociology today about boys. One part I found incredibly sad was when They interviewed these 8 year old boys and asked them what they thought a man was. All of them said "Tough, someone who doesn't cry." Perfect example of what you're talking about.
Male or female, the partriarchal system that governs our society pretty much tells us to lie, hide, and generally be full of shit. If we refuse, WE'RE the babies, the weak ones, the wimps.
Just wanted to say thank you for this post. While I disagree with EGhead about any lack of talk about the way that the patriarchy hurts men is a "double standard"--I think it's way more complex than that and that women-centric feminist spaces are good and valuable--it's always great to hear women who are feminists discussing the ways in which the patriarchy harms men.
I'm not sure if this is the same sort of thing as y'all are talking about...my theoretical feminism is a little rusty, but...
a. My mom and stepdad had a business that failed. Everyone was not surprised when he completely wigged about it, but she was just presumed to be concerned about him, cause women focus our energy on the interpersonal.
b. I'm not EVER allowed to express grief about the life I might have had if I wasn't born with a disability.People are totally comforted by the thought that I "don't know what I'm missing," despite the fact that I have friends and I'm a total media junkie and can look at "What I'm missing," any hour of the day or night, almost.
That's an excellent example. It certainly seems that there are far more numerous examples of disenfranchisement of men's grief, but women are expected to be more philosophical about professional failures.
In regards to point (a), this might be because men ARE their jobs. The success of a man in most cultures depends on his job and how successful he is at it.
That is one of the reasons why I think that men are the ones who committ suicide more often when a recession hits.
Women care about their jobs, too.
One of the disenfranchised bits of grief I have floating around is for my much older, brilliant sister, who was denied college and became a mom as a teenager. She simply wasn't given any options.
She'd be as good a VP or CEO as the ones I work with on a regular basis, but for her, and millions of other women, "mom" or maybe "nurse" or "teacher" was the acceptable job title. They lost out, and the rest of the world lost out, too.
And it's not like this still doesn't happen.
As far as disenfranchised grief goes, the example I came up with is a pretty extreme case, but I thought I would mention it just so I could say I was part of the party! I always feel bad when celebrities are not allowed to say that they don't like being a celebrity, being followed by paps, having to do stuff beyond just acting. I often see them saying they have nothing to complain about, they are very blessed, but I know they don't like being chased by photographers trying to get embarrassing photos of them. But because they chose to be actors they are presumed to have chosen everything that could possibly come with it, and if they complain, they are called ungrateful.
I know that is not a feminist issue, but it was what popped into my mind. Who knows why, since I don't get my picture in t he paper ever.
I actually totally agree with this. The way society treats celebrities in general is really deplorable. It's as if they don't deserve the basic human rights that everyone else does because...why? Privelege? I never look at any of those 'nipple slip' pics or 'leaked sex tape' videos or anything, because there is no way of knowing if it was staged and, if it wasn't... that's such a disgusting violation of someone's privacy. In the sense that these things seem to happen more to female celebrities than males, it definitely is a feminist issue.
Also, all the body snark? Ugh. It all makes me so sad.
Just discovered this site and here's my first post so rusty may not be quite adequate to describe my comments and/or thinking. An example that came to mind is abortion and particularly the feminist discussion of it as a woman's right to choose. I have an ongoing argument with my husband who argues that men have no voice in the debate -- no rights, no support, no choice. His whole line of thought infuriates me honestly but it also just reminded me of the above comment on celebrities. Because he is a man he says he has no say in whether a partner keeps a baby or not and quite frankly, I realize I am often prone to believe that's the way it should be. I rely on statistics about regarding disappearing sperm donors or deadbeat dads while I basically am implying that once you get men straightened out and responsible then maybe I will give you a voice or a space to grieve over this issue. Sorry to bring up the mother of all controversy on my first try...
I think the thing is, whether a guy would be an awesome dad or a deadbeat, once the woman is pregnant he DOESN'T get any say on whether she keeps it, because it's her body. If she doesn't want to be pregnant, no matter how bad he wants a baby, he doesn't get to use her body as an incubator for his child for nine months. (Some people act like pregnancy is just a snap, not almost a year of your life spent with serious physical changes and health implications and financial issues. Hey, just have it and give it to the dad! Just have it and give it up for adoption!) Regardless of a man's responsibility in raising a child, the responsibility of gestating it is entirely the woman's, and that makes the decision entirely hers too. I'm sure an abortion would be very upsetting to the partner who was hoping for a child, but that doesn't trump a woman's right to bodily integrity.
but this wasn't a statement on whether or not you believe its the woman's right to choose. this was more about acknowledging the disenfranchised grief a man might experience with having a partner who had an abortion. If you assert that it is a woman's body, then you also have to assert that a man who wants children has to basically hope the woman he's with is in line with his hopes. If a woman decides at a later time that she doesn't want to have a child, she's the one who gets to make a decision that concerns *BOTH* people, because a woman needs sperm for fertilization, and unless she's getting it at a clinic, she's getting it from her partner who is providing half the cocktail to their child. THEIR child.
yet as much as we rally for that, we have also accepted the idea that men don't really care either way about their children, and that's not always the case. I am dating a man right now who wants children...we talk about the children we want to have...so if I decide at some point to terminate a pregnancy, even if its the right choice for me, it would be selfish and stupid of me to assume he wasn't going to feel it. But what else is he supposed to do?
I was in that situation. A woman I was dating had gotten pregnant, but she didn't want to keep the children (twin girls) and we had no plans to continue our relationship. I wanted to keep the children, but she wanted an abortion to avoid the social stigma.
We had an argument over this, but obviously I had no power in this situation. Eventually, I broke down and begged her not to have the abortion. We finally reached an agreement, I gave her 10,000 dollars so she could go to college, and she didn't have the abortion.
My girls are seven years old now. They don't know that they're mother is still alive, I told them she died in a car accident because I don't want them to know their mother didn't want them. My wife loves them, and I can't imagine a life without them, but everytime an abortion argument comes up I can't help but think back to that time.
As a father I am inconsequential to the process. Unless someone decides to hit me up for child support, no one spares a second thought to me. I understand the arguments against fathers having a say in abortion, and I agree. I'm not happy at all about that, I just understand that it should be the woman's right not to have to deal with it.
It still hurts though. Just imagine that someone could force the abortion on you when you wanted to keep the child. Let's assume that it was a completely painless process, you'd never know it happened if someone didn't tell you. The father could have this procedure done anytime he wanted, if for example he didn't want to have to pay child support to you. How would you feel about that? By the logic the current system supports, he should be in his rights. He's not actually causing any harm to you, and he's avoiding personal risk that you have no right to inflict on him.
I'd say that, working with the logic of the current system, that this would be a wonderful set-up, as each parent would have equal rights over the child. Yet, I don't think many of you could handle knowing that at any point, someone could kill your child without telling you or asking permission.
Not exactly the same thing, but close enough to get an idea of how I felt seven years ago.
I'm not getting why you're feeling grief over getting your own way.
Is it that you had to spend $10,000 to get twin babies you think she should have literally labored over for free, just because you wanted them?
I feel no grief over getting my way. But for awhile there my situation seemed hopeless, and that's the source of my grief. It's a powerlessness you have to experience to fully understand.
I feel for every man that knows his children will die by the whims of their mother. Like it or not, they are people and how they are affected should matter, even if only as another consequence for the mother to bear.
I want to say again, that I support a woman's right to choose. I'm not always happy about how they use that choice, but I'll be damned if it shouldn't be their's. All that aside, those choices have consequences. Those consequences must be acknowledged. The grief of a father is one.
I think you bring up some interesting points, WillyWonka. And I do appreciate your emphasizing that while you feel what you feel, you don't believe that the laws should reflect your emotional reaction.
"If you assert that it is a woman's body, then you also have to assert that a man who wants children has to basically hope the woman he's with is in line with his hopes."
Exactly.
It's like the way people who want grandchildren have to either basically hope their daughters and sons are in line with their hopes or force their daughters and sons to have children or stop hoping for grandchildren.
It's also like the way women who had hysterectomies and want to reproduce afterwards have to either basically hope they find other women who want to gestate enbryos made with their genes or somehow force other women to do that or give up on reproduction.
"Exactly.
It's like the way people who want grandchildren have to either basically hope their daughters and sons are in line with their hopes or force their daughters and sons to have children or stop hoping for grandchildren.
It's also like the way women who had hysterectomies and want to reproduce afterwards have to either basically hope they find other women who want to gestate enbryos made with their genes or somehow force other women to do that or give up on reproduction."
Almost. And I don't want to take away from the pain a powerless man might feel about losing the family he wanted by comparing it to other peoples struggles. It doesn't really serve to bind and instead works against sympathy, which I don't think was the purpose of the original post. I don't believe it counters my feminism to admit men experience a loss in this. This isn't a perfect situation...abortion is difficult for *everyone* involved--its really not *just* a woman's issue, even if it appears that way because of the result.
People who want grandchildren already have children. Men who want to be fathers and have fallen in love with a specific woman (because offering the idea that women are interchangeable is ridiculous) usually have no other way of having his own progeny unless she agrees. I don't think anyone here is debating a woman's right to choose, but I think we as feminists do ourselves a disservice to accept negative stereotyping about men and how they feel about having families. As a previous poster stated, the man is powerless when it comes to protecting his children in utero. We have the system in place and it is necessary for several reasons. But we shouldn't belittle the very real loss a man would feel at seeing his hope for a family disposed of because its not desired by the woman. If we don't take steps to do that, we've just reversed sexism, and instead of it being the women who are forced to have children and tough for them, now its men are forced to not have children, and tough for them. Hopefully a couple would not find themselves in that situation but as evidenced by the above poster, it is a very real reality. And a very real lamentation, as voiced by several male friends I've spoken with about this, who are pro-choice but also acknowledge that their families hang in the balance of the desires of the woman they are in a relationship with.
Empathy would go along way on both sides to assist in ameliorating the grand rift that our patriarchal system has bestowed to us.
Patriarchy does suggest that a potentially aborted fetus is, in your words, one of "his children" whom he has a right to "protect."
In that sense, less patriarchy (control of women and children by men for their own personal use) might go a long way to ameliorating this loss. Then it would be a personal loss, not a loss of face or a loss of assumed control or power over another being.
Do you refer to your family as yours? Or do you refer to them as 'A family I often associate with'?
I realize that you've immunized yourself to guilt be concluding that these fetuses are less than people. I admit that I don't fully understand that logic... but in this case I don't think it matters. It's the emotional damage to the man that is the subject here. So, how they view this is what matters. And it's a common view among people that aren't choosing to have abortions, that those babies (fetuses if it makes you feel better) are part of the family. People listen to the mother's stomach, throw baby showers, parents think of names and sometimes start thinking about how to pay for college.
Do you really think it's a mother's decision whether it's a person or not? Should father's wait until she tells them they're allowed to become emotionally attached? This has nothing to do with power over another being, this is about love. I can love those fetuses as much as I love any member of my family, regardless of whether the woman gives me permission.
You want to get an idea of how men feel here? Stop assuming everything we do is an extension of some lust for power. I loved my children as much when they were merely fetuses as I do now. Would you tell a mother who'd just lost her children in a tragic car accident that she should stop complaining and go have some more children? Why is it different for a man grieving his unborn children?
"People listen to the mother's stomach, throw baby showers, parents think of names and sometimes start thinking about how to pay for college."
I know some people who are already thinking of names and tuition payments for potential children who haven't even been conceived yet. One of them is a single woman whose family hangs in the balance of the desire of a man to have a sexual relationship with her in the first place (and there's no guarantee that it will eventually happen).
"Do you really think it's a mother's decision whether it's a person or not?"
It's not a matter of deciding, it's a matter of it becoming a person when it stops being a body part of another person.
"Should father's wait until she tells them they're allowed to become emotionally attached?"
People are free to become emotionally attached to whatever they want, whenever they want. You don't need someone else's permission to feel an emotion.
"...People who want grandchildren already have children. Men who want to be fathers and have fallen in love with a specific woman (because offering the idea that women are interchangeable is ridiculous) usually have no other way of having his own progeny unless she agrees..."
People who want to have grandchildren already have someone else instead of grandchildren. They usually have no other way of having their own progeny in the next generation after their daughters and sons unless their daughters and sons agree to (and/or are forced to) reproduce. Men who want to be fathers already have some other status instead of fathers.
"But we shouldn't belittle the very real loss a man would feel at seeing his hope for a family disposed of because its not desired by the woman...
"...If we don't take steps to do that, we've just reversed sexism, and instead of it being the women who are forced to have children and tough for them, now its men are forced to not have children, and tough for them..."
This happens to men not only when the women they have in mind abort after conceiving with them but also when the women they have in mind successfully use contraceptives during sex with them or refuse to have sex with them in the first place. I'm reminded of this case: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7754756.stm After all, it's likely that Majid Movahedi had hoped that Ameneh Bahrami would give birth to his children. How much respect does this loss of his deserve?
"...Disenfranchised grief is grief over a loss that is not conventionally acknowledged or socially acceptable in your culture. Couples who experience infertility, terminate pregnancy due to some genetic disorder that the fetus had, or have a miscarriage often experience disenfranchised grief. Other examples include grief over the incarceration of a loved one, the death of a pet, the breakup of an unacknowledged relationship (i.e. gay couples who haven't come out yet or have been rejected by their families) or the death of a partner in an unacknowledged relationship, the 'loss' of one's parent due to Alzheimer's, the death of an ex-spouse or lover, the recurring grief of a birth mother who gave up a child for adoption, and the grief of an adopted child for the relationship they might have had with their birth parent(s)...
"...Are there other examples of disenfranchised grief I haven't thought of?..."
There's grief over having been raped. That's disenfranchised when a rape victim gets told "you pussy, real men don't get raped" or "that wasn't date rape, you asked for it with your skirt" or "don't be a brat, he's your husband" or whatever instead of sympathy.
"If you assert that it is a woman's body, then you also have to assert that a man who wants children has to basically hope the woman he's with is in line with his hopes."
Erm...and women haven't fallen in line with men's hopes and desires for centuries?
Fathers who want children, parents who want grandchildren are all fine. And I am sure that some father's must feel grief, too.
But please tell me how any of these scenarios are more important than a woman's right to absolute control and privacy over her own body? How exactly? They are not.
I agree that abortion is a case in which almost everyone involved experienced disenfranchised grief; not just the woman who ended the pregnancy and the sexual partner whose sperm led to the pregnancy, but also other people who know about the termination.
I didn't tell my family about my abortion, but I did tell some close friends, and a couple of them felt very sad about the fact that the abortion had happened, and yet could not discuss it with anyone (at my request, partly).
In terms of the relationship between the male partner and the decision to have an abortion, I can only speak from my own experience, in which I assumed correctly that he and I would both agree that it was the right thing to do, and then confirmed hat with him before the termination took place. We made the phone calls together and went to appointments together, and it was very difficult for him as well - perhaps more so in some ways, because he felt as though he has less of a right to discuss it with others and tell people what had happened.
I think there needs to be more support for everyone involved, including future partners of the people who have been influenced by abortion.
Also, isn't part of the grief over having an unwanted conception in the first place? That seems disenfranchised too.
Yes, perhaps, although I personally never had much guilt and shame about that. I imagine other women and men may though, good point :)
This is true.
I believe men actually lose awareness of their own emotions because they don't express them and feel their own feelings are not valid.
Men are generally not allowed to express the range of emotions that women are. This can actually give them a disadvantage in business as they must be cool and aloof in all things. In addition to not being able to express sadness, a man can't really send you a thank you email with five exclamation points and a smiley face.
"a man can't really send you a thank you email with five exclamation points and a smiley face"
Being unable to put five exclamation points and a smiley face in an email, whether you're a man or a woman, is less of an disadvantage than a demonstration of infantilism. What this really reveals, I'm sorry to say, is just bad writing skills and incapability to represent feelings without smilies or repeated exclamation points.
"a man can't really send you a thank you email with five exclamation points and a smiley face"
Being unable to put five exclamation points and a smiley face in an email, whether you're a man or a woman, is less of an disadvantage than a demonstration of infantilism. What this really reveals, I'm sorry to say, is just bad writing skills and incapability to represent feelings without smilies or repeated exclamation points.
"a man can't really send you a thank you email with five exclamation points and a smiley face"
Being unable to put five exclamation points and a smiley face in an email, whether you're a man or a woman, is less of an disadvantage than a demonstration of infantilism. What this really reveals, I'm sorry to say, is just bad writing skills and incapability to represent feelings without smilies or repeated exclamation points.
"a man can't really send you a thank you email with five exclamation points and a smiley face"
Being unable to put five exclamation points and a smiley face in an email, whether you're a man or a woman, is less of an disadvantage than a demonstration of infantilism. What this really reveals, I'm sorry to say, is just bad writing skills and incapability to represent feelings without smilies or repeated exclamation points.
"a man can't really send you a thank you email with five exclamation points and a smiley face"
Being unable to put five exclamation points and a smiley face in an email, whether you're a man or a woman, is less of an disadvantage than a demonstration of infantilism. What this reveals, I'm sorry to say, is really just bad writing skills and incapability to represent feelings without the aid of smilies or repeated exclamation points.
Wow, how does that follow? Your "logic" is inscrutable. If you want to be a really effective troll you should tighten up your game.
"a man can't really send you a thank you email with five exclamation points and a smiley face"
Being unable to put five exclamation points and a smiley face in an email, whether you're a man or a woman, is less of an disadvantage than a demonstration of infantilism. What this really reveals, I'm sorry to say, is just bad writing skills and incapability to represent feelings without smilies or repeated exclamation points.