How did this western societal idea of how a man should act, and what emotions are appropriate to show come about? How far back in western history does this idea of limiting men’s ability to emote honestly go? And how did these ideas change over time?
It’s interesting to me because I feel like these traditional and limited roles that western society puts on men (and women) are just that traditions. That it’s just something “that we do because past generations did them.” So my curiosity is why did past generations have these societal rules in place? was there a legitimate reason for it, did having men be almost robotic even in the privacy of his home and around his family have some necessary and important reason? If so is that still necessary today?
Edit: had this posted on c/asklemmy but it was suggested this was a better place for this question.
Man, you need a full on historian for this, but I’ll try.
Iirc, the whole stoicism thing started in Ancient Greece, but there’s probably earlier instances of it. It waned and waxed throughout the centuries, growing stronger sometimes and growing weaker others. The current way of it is basically from the protestant way of thinking combined with various wars, like WW1. I seriously hope you go reading stuff outside of Lemmy, I haven’t studied this stuff in over a decade.
Now, for a non-western perspective, the east has a similar concept in Bhuddism, and it’s just as old as western stoicism.
Iirc, there was also some Indian tribe (Cherokee?) that also made a big deal of it. I can’t speak much on it.
For the record, stoicism is not about being a robot, it’s about being emotional stable. There’s a massive difference.
You’re conflating Patriarchal gender roles with Stoicism. They are not the same thing and Stoicism is not what OP is asking about.
OP literally asked “what emotions are appropriate to show come about? How far back in western history does this idea of limiting men’s ability to emote honestly go”
That sounds a lot like stoicism to me.