Brett Favre retires... and cries about it. It's one thing to get teary-eyed, over an issue, but it's quite another to essentially lose control. Yes, I realize, that his full life story is very dramatic, but does that warrant the public demonstration he gave?
Are men crying too much in public, as of late? What determines an appropriate level of crying? Is there an appropriate level of crying? While I think that one should not be surprised at, for example, a father grievously sobbing at the death of his child, what are we to make of Brett Favre publicly blubbering at his retirement announcement?
This morning, Laura Ingraham wondered if such outbursts are indicative of men in touch with their feelings or, rather, culturally feminized men? Are there women who appreciate the emotions as expressed by Favre? Or, are there women who consider such an expression, in that particular context, inappropriate for a man?
Well...I wouldn’t say that Favre lost control, nor that he was blubbering. Nor do I find it easy to watch him cry. But his retirement from professional football is a momentous occasion in his life, and it was an obligatory press conference, and no, I don’t think it’s inappropriate for him to cry during his retirement PC. It seemed like he was working pretty hard to keep himself together, and I do appreciate a person who’s honest enough to cry at an emotional time, whether they’re male or female.
I’m not sure what a “culturally feminized” man is...is there such a thing as a culturally masculinized man, and, if so, would that be any more desirable than a culturally-feminized one? It is possible to culturally impose femininity and masculinity? Having asked that (rhetorically), I think that it’s possible to culturally propagate false ideals of both femininity and masculinity, and this isn’t a good thing.
Allow me to ask, should it even be necessary to discuss whether Brett Favre is displaying a culturally-imposed femininity?* Must his crying even be an issue at all? It’s one thing to discuss whether or not a person, male or female, expressed emotion in an inappropriate manner, but need the topic be genderized? I realize that women generally cry more readily than men, but do you think it is more appropriate for a woman to express emotion publicly, and should there be different standards of crying in public for men and women? If so, why? (Should it even matter what a woman’s opinion of Favre’s emotion is, as opposed to a man’s?)
*I have to confess that this idea strikes me as humorous...he’s a (retiring) star professional football player – that's about as masculine as it gets!
btw...my husband, whom I’ve only ever seen cry once in 25 years, and then barely, had no problem at all with Favre’s PDE. His comments: “Favre’s one of the last of the ‘old-fashioned’ football players; players used to care more about the game than they do now. He’s given his whole life to football. When I first heard his clip on the radio announcing his retirement, he sounded sterile. I don’t think it had hit him yet.”
Posted by: Bonnie | March 09, 2008 at 04:15 PM
Hi Bonnie,
Well, perhaps I was over the top in describing him as blubbering, although a few times he had a very difficult, if not impossible time, continuing. I think it's a subjective thing, and my opinion is that he should have had better control of himself during that press conference. Now, if he'd been discussing the hours-old drowning of his 4 year-old child, then I would have fully expected him to have a difficult, if not impossible time, controlling himself. I don't think it's a matter of honesty but simply a matter of sucking-it-up.
A culturally feminized man is one who has succumbed to, among other things, the notion of getting in touch with his inner self (something I heard my daughter's 5th grade friend once mention that a certain boy in her class needed to do), as opposed to being a gentleman. In my opinion, a culturally feminized man has deviated away from some of the distinct qualities of being a man. Are my standards culturally driven? Probably.
Given that I wrote a post on Favre's crying, yes, I think it is necessary to discuss, and specifically because of the gender involved.
Of course, I certainly could be missing the bigger picture here. To be honest, I know virtually nothing about Favre. When I saw the news items that stated he was retiring I had no idea that he had been playing for, what, 18 years? I thought he was some new, star player kid. As I've stated before, I don't follow football. Maybe it's different for him, since he loves what he does.* As for me and what I do for a living, I could walk away from it tomorrow and not bother to look back. So maybe I just don't understand all the emotions going through his system.** On the other hand, I do know that football (or any pro sport) is a short-term venture at best. 18 years is a horrendously LONG time to be suiting up (and, getting paid to play a game). His own retirement, and announcement of it, should not have come as a surprise. He KNEW it was coming, so... he should get a grip.
* Yet, simply because he can't play professional football doesn't mean he has to be away from the game entirely. If he truly loves "the game", then he can find a way to fit in (I think).
** This is not to say that I don't have emotional reactions. I get teary-eyed during certain movies (usually old ones), or when I read certain stories. When my wife had a miscarriage I was out of town. Upon my immediate return I wept in her arms. In my opinion, there is a time, a place, and a context for such expressions.
Posted by: Rusty | March 10, 2008 at 07:07 PM
Rusty, thanks for your response, and what you've acknowledged. I agree with you that our opinions of PDE are subjective, and because of that, I think it's best to leave the matter there and not take it places it has no business going. :-)
I do think you’re being too hard on Favre. Everything one reads about him paints a picture of a very tough man* (my husband, who’s followed professional football practically from the womb, concurs). I follow it enough to know that Favre has talked of retirement before, and when he first announced it, many didn’t believe that this was really “it” (and perhaps still don’t). I think that it was a really difficult decision for him to make – a conflicted one, a wracked one.
*Not that toughness is only masculine, and that women can’t be or shouldn’t be tough too.
(I also think that if he heard this talk about culturally-feminized men, he’d blink and go, “huh?”)
I saw nothing in his demeanor at the PC that suggested that he wasn’t a gentleman, or that he was being manipulative, or in any way dishonorable. I have a lot of respect for him.
It seems that your issue with Favre is with his self-control, which begs the question, should a man be more self-controlled, in public or anywhere else, than a woman? What about anger? Perhaps if we all showed more self-control in our expressions of frustration, irritation, and anger, and allowed ourselves more freedom to cry, things would be better :-) I also think that we must be sure to parse the difference between self-control (discipline) and "stuffing," or denial. The latter do not represent the former.
You probably won’t be surprised to hear that I reject the notion of a culturally-feminized man, in the way that “culture” is generally understood, but to explain why would take at least a blog post (or 2, or 3...) Not sure I’m up for that (aren’t you glad ;-) )
What I mean by saying, “should we really be discussing Favre’s crying the way we are,” is that my own sense of propriety (for whatever that’s worth) says that some things ought not be discussed. I realize this may be laughable considering some of the things I blog about and the topic we’re discussing, but I tackle common-interest topics, not personal matters. Yes, Favre cried in public, but it was during an obligatory press conference, and we needn’t get personal as regards him in our discussion of it. (This is one area where I believe that discussions of “cultural-feminization” go awry.) He was discussing, in public (appropriately), the end of his very public career, which is also a very personal moment for him – something that can’t, and shouldn’t, be helped (and which I have great respect for).
Something else my husband said was that, were he to have to give up trumpet playing, it would be a very hard thing, that would rouse deep emotion. It's not the only thing he's devoted to by far, but it's a deep-rooted part of him.
Rusty, I am sorry that you & your wife lost a baby. I know what that’s like. I miscarried too. {{{hug}}}
Posted by: Bonnie | March 11, 2008 at 07:13 PM
Bonnie,
I may not (okay, I do not) understand why Favre loves the game of football so much, but I do understand that the reality is that careers in it are short. I also think, and this is crux of my thinking, that the context of announcing your retirement from pro football, regardless of how much you "love the game", is no place for losing control of yourself. I'm not saying he isn't tough, just that I think he shouldn't have conducted himself that way in that context. It's only my opinion, and I doubt that he would have any bit of concern about my opinion.
And, let's be real, he was getting paid a wickedly large amount of money to go out and "play".
My use of the word "gentleman" was a poor choice. I didn't mean to imply that he acted dishonorable.
Yes, I do think that a man should be more self-controlled in public, than a woman. I think men and women are different, not just culturally, but physiologically as well.
Yes, I also think that we should exhibit more self-control in our display of anger.
You're correct, I'm not surprised that you reject the notion of a culturally feminized man (of course, your stance is probably culturally generated ;^) ).
I disagree with you about the "obligatory press conference" bit. Why on earth would anyone consider the personal decision of a private person's job (he was no public servant) to mandate a public meeting with the media? He had no obligation, none whatsoever, to publicly make such an announcement.
I see some similarities in your analogy of your husband's trumpet playing. But I think it ultimately fails as a comparison. I understand the context you're speaking of to mean that your husband would, for some reason, be prevented from playing. This was not the case at all with Favre. He knew this was coming all along, and no one is stopping him from continuing to play (as in pick-up leagues). After all, if he really loves playing the game for the sake of playing the game, then what does it matter that he isn't playing for a pro team? And he can certainly still be involved in the game through coaching, instruction, etc. And, this is probably a bit too subjective, but I don't see playing football as all that comparable to performing art.
Perhaps some of my cynicism has to do with the fact that there is essentially nothing in my life that would compare to the same type of deep-rootedness that you speak of with regards to Favre's football playing and your husband's trumpet playing.
Posted by: Rusty | March 12, 2008 at 06:33 PM
Rusty,
Again, thanks for your response. There’s a lot packed in here; I’ll have a go at it :-)
the context of announcing your retirement from pro football, regardless of how much you "love the game", is no place for losing control of yourself.
Why do you consider crying “losing control of yourself,” and why is the context of announcing one’s retirement from pro football no place to cry?
I don’t think it’s that Favre loves the game of football so much that it’s something he’s invested himself in for many years, and professional football was the pinnacle. Why does the “shortness” (as opposed to what?) of a pro football career need to mean it’s no big deal when you retire? It’s not about him not seeing his retirement coming, either...seeing something coming may help one prepare somewhat, but is nothing like dealing with the event when it actually occurs. And of course he has to give up professional football sooner or later; he’s doing so now because he’s getting older and realizing his limitations – he said he was mentally tired. I believe him, because I can see no reason not to. But that seems to have been part of his struggle – he could keep playing, but he realized that the quality of his playing (working) wouldn’t be what he wanted it to be, for both himself and the sake of the game, and it was really hard to give up such a great thing.
To say that pick-up games, or something like that, are equivalent to playing professional football, in terms of level...c’mon, Rusty. They may be fun, and an outlet, but... I only get to play my trumpet (professionally) at a high level a few times a year, and of the few other times per year that I play, the level of performance of the group is much lower...it’s a totally different, uh, ball game. Actually I would say there are many similarities between athletics and the performing arts. There is art and craft in both, especially at a professional or high amateur level -- a high level of study, effort (work), refinement, dedication, mastery, personal investment and involvement. There is no way to achieve a high level in any endeavor without this.
It's only my opinion, and I doubt that he would have any bit of concern about my opinion.
Who should have concern about your opinion?
And, let's be real, he was getting paid a wickedly large amount of money to go out and "play".
To go out and work, you mean. But do you really think that just because he was making a boatload of cash, he shouldn’t care about anything else, like being an excellent athlete, and all that entails?
Yes, I do think that a man should be more self-controlled in public, than a woman. I think men and women are different, not just culturally, but physiologically as well.
Are you saying that, because of physiological differences, a man must be more self-controlled in public? And why should a man be more self-controlled in public than a woman? Please explain.
You're correct, I'm not surprised that you reject the notion of a culturally feminized man (of course, your stance is probably culturally generated ;^) ).
Please explain.
I disagree with you about the "obligatory press conference" bit. Why on earth would anyone consider the personal decision of a private person's job (he was no public servant) to mandate a public meeting with the media? He had no obligation, none whatsoever, to publicly make such an announcement.
Rusty, professional sports, especially televised ones, are public events, and have been for years. Favre was a top-tier professional athlete, with many fans all over the country. I doubt that he called his own press conference; it’s part of the protocol for teams or the media to call them for major events in major professional sports. Even if no one else called a PC, certainly courtesy would require him to announce his retirement publicly.
Perhaps some of my cynicism has to do with the fact that there is essentially nothing in my life that would compare to the same type of deep-rootedness that you speak of with regards to Favre's football playing and your husband's trumpet playing.
This very well could be. Besides that, though, neither you nor I know Brett Favre; we don’t really know why he cried. I can guess, as I have, but I don’t really know. I do know what it’s like to be a professional musician, and I’ve competed athletically, in high school and in a few running races as an adult, and my son is a competitive gymnast. I think I know a little bit about what these things are like, what goes into them, and what they mean to the people who do them.
Posted by: Bonnie | March 14, 2008 at 04:50 PM
Bonnie,
As is typical with our debates, I think we're starting to repeat ourselves. Suffice it to say (though it won't really suffice it, will it?) we have a big difference of opinion on this matter.
Why do you consider crying “losing control of yourself,” and why is the context of announcing one’s retirement from pro football no place to cry?
Because, essentially, it's a trivial matter (when compared with truly heart-wrenching issues).
To say that pick-up games, or something like that, are equivalent to playing professional football, in terms of level...
I didn't say they were the equivalent. I said that, if he truly loves the game, then it shouldn't matter that he isn't playing professionally. If the level of play affects his enjoyment of the pursuit, then perhaps it isn't really a matter of him loving the game.
There is no way to achieve a high level in any endeavor without this.
I agree. But don't go crying on and on about it (with re: pro football) when the time to quit has come upon you.
Who should have concern about your opinion?
Well, it seems that you do. ;^)
To go out and work, you mean. But do you really think that just because he was making a boatload of cash, he shouldn’t care about anything else, like being an excellent athlete, and all that entails?
No, I meant what I said - play. I didn't say he shouldn't care about anything else and, being a good capitalist, he certainly should have made sure he was being an excellent athlete. But when all the crying is done, he's made a ton of money off of his love-sport-job.
And why should a man be more self-controlled in public than a woman?
I believe it is a trait that men should exhibit because they are men.
You want me to explain how it is that your stance is culturally generated (as you think my opinion is)? How is it not?
Even if no one else called a PC, certainly courtesy would require him to announce his retirement publicly.
As I stated, I completely disagree. It may have been "expected", but it was, in no way, an "obligatory" press conference.
I think I know a little bit about what these things are like, what goes into them, and what they mean to the people who do them.
I competed in track & field in high school, well enough to set a school record, win our league finals, and finish 7th in all of southern California. While I was not good enough to compete much beyond that, I did understand that, if I were, I would be looking at 10, maybe 12 years of fruitful competition (barring career-ending injuries, of course). My experience certainly doesn't compare to your professional trumpet playing, but it doesn't exclude me from understanding the mindset involved.
Bottomline, Bonnie, is that I think that men, being men, should display and control their emotions differently than women. As I've stated, this doesn't mean that I don't think men should not cry and should not lose control of themselves. But it does mean that I think that the events that do cause a man to cry (and, lose control) should be events worthy of such actions. And announcing one's retirement from football, in my book, doesn't qualify as one of those times.
Posted by: Rusty | March 15, 2008 at 09:36 PM
Because, essentially, it's a trivial matter (when compared with truly heart-wrenching issues).
But you see, you are judging the matter. Who are you to decide how trivial it is, or should be? You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I think you’re going a bit too far in judging the matter.
I didn't say they were the equivalent. I said that, if he truly loves the game, then it shouldn't matter that he isn't playing professionally. If the level of play affects his enjoyment of the pursuit, then perhaps it isn't really a matter of him loving the game.
If you understood as you say you do, Rusty, you would not make a statement like this. Or this:
No, I meant what I said - play. I didn't say he shouldn't care about anything else and, being a good capitalist, he certainly should have made sure he was being an excellent athlete. But when all the crying is done, he's made a ton of money off of his love-sport-job.
And so what if he’s made a ton of money? So what?
But don't go crying on and on about it (with re: pro football) when the time to quit has come upon you.
Is he still crying? For God’s sake, Rusty, he cried for a short part of his major retirement announcement.
Asking you who should have concern about your opinion was an honest question. I wondered who should have such concern.
As I stated, I completely disagree. It may have been "expected", but it was, in no way, an "obligatory" press conference.
And if he hadn’t given one, how would that reflect upon his character? A lot worse than his tears.
I believe it is a trait that men should exhibit because they are men.
This is a non-answer, Rusty. You’re not answering my basic questions.
You want me to explain how it is that your stance is culturally generated (as you think my opinion is)? How is it not?
I asked you first ;-)
As I've stated, this doesn't mean that I don't think men should not cry and should not lose control of themselves.
I know you said that you don’t think men shouldn’t ever cry, and I never imagined that you didn't think that in the first place. It’s the insult to Brett Favre, because of its unfairness (and your non-answering of my questions about gender and culture), that’s bothering me.
I don’t think that either men or women should lose control of themselves; I do not consider appropriate expression of any feeling to be losing control.
(though it won't really suffice it, will it?)
Why do you suppose that is? ;-)
Posted by: Bonnie | March 16, 2008 at 08:17 PM
Bonnie,
I'm not sure what you mean by stating that I'm "judging the matter." Like I stated, in the context discussed, I think that the matter of a retirement announcement is a trivial matter. What's so judgmental about that? It's my opinion and I'm entitled to it, just like anyone else is free to disagree with me.
I still stand by my statements regarding a love for the game of football as being distinct from some necessity to play the game at a certain level in order to make the love of the game sufficiently rewarding.
Regarding the boatload of cash (which holds the ton of money), please, his love for the game, his dedication to the art, his commitment to whatever, has certainly had a positive impact on his financial statements. Indeed, he wouldn't have even been sitting there at that press conference were it not for the obscene manner with which we fund professional athletes. He had the opportunity to not only do what he loved, but to get paid - well paid - to do it. So... I'm supposed to feel sorry for him now that he's retiring and that it's emotional? Nope. Ain't gonna happen.
And maybe I don't understand what it means to commit one's self to something like professional football so much so that it becomes one's life. But I do understand that if that is the case, then we're talking about something that is entirely subjective and, as such, open to various interpretations.
Yes, he cried during his retirement announcement. And that's what prompted my post (my *short* post, btw).
I don't understand your question about who should be concerned with my opinion. Regarding this matter, I can't think of anyone that *should* be concerned about my opinion.
If he hadn't given a press conference then we wouldn't be having this discussion because he wouldn't have lost control. ;^) Character? Again, we disagree. I don't see how not having a press conference would have reflected negatively on his character. He was a football player, for crying out loud. Now, take someone like Neil Armstrong - the first man to set foot upon the Moon. After returning to earth he pretty much became a recluse, with regards to the media. He stopped giving interviews and rarely appears at public events. Given his place in history, I think he should be more accessible, publicly. But I don't think it reflects poorly on his character and, besides, ultimately it's his business whether or not he interacts with the public.
But I have answered your questions regarding why men happen to have the traits of men (although I think that it's your POV that precludes my answer from being admissible). I've stated before that I believe that men and women, being different, have different traits - traits that are inherently a part of their physiological makeup. Why are men like men and women like women? It's part of who they are.
I think your stance is culturally generated because it reflects contemporary liberal notions, among other things.
How am I being "unfair" to Favre? How many other athletes break down like he did upon announcing their retirement? And, like I stated above, I've answered your questions about gender. I think that it's more a matter of you not liking the answers I'm giving and wanting some sort of empirical justification which demonstrates, beyond any shadow of doubt, that men and women must act in specific manners. But that's never going to happen. Anamolies will always be found. While men and women are too complex to pigeon-hole, they are also too distinct to melt into one.
Posted by: Rusty | March 17, 2008 at 08:26 PM