My experience has taught me the opposite. My grandfather and father were never taught to express feelings. Both were products of their time and circumstances. And there is nothing wrong with that. Both were successful in life despite the odds being stacked against them.
I do not have children. I would not have a clue how to raise a girl, but if I had a boy, I would be teaching him stoical techniques to dealing with problems, not today's 'share your feelings' approach.
(I am not in anyway telling you how to raise your children, just sharing my opinion as a man.)
I just don't see any evidence that the West's in vogue approach to teaching boys and young men to be "in touch with their feelings" is helping them in anyway. They are not happier. They are not more successful (in life). They are depressed.
The stoics taught that most of what we think are problems, are not in fact problems. And the things that are problems are generally not in our capacity to change and therefore probably not worth worrying about.
Society tells us that every little thing is worth being upset about. We are conditioned to even be outraged on other people's behalf over what really amounts to nothing (think every single twitter shitstorm ever). We are told to pick at scabs until they are bleeding, then pick some more. The theory being that if we pick deep enough we will end up in a state of emotional healing/enlightenment and we will feeling better for it. I don't buy it.
You are conflating two different things. Stoical calm isn't just silence, it's silence when the situation calls for such, when making your voice known cannot improve things. Engagement in communication is encouraged if it is believed to lead to good outcomes(although how "good" is defined is left more ambiguous). Stoic silence works best when it's used to be a good listener.
In comparison, masculine silence of the "strong silent" form, which occurs frequently in my family, and even myself, acts to reinforce existing privileges - it leads to excessive maintenance of a self-assured, unflappable image, not betraying weakness or answering to anyone, even when you need to ask questions, share responsibility for a problem, or should collaborate and submit to a group policy on behavior. It's ultimately built on the kind of anxiety over one's role described in the article, and it's a major penalty to healthy communication within the family, because it creates a stagnant bubble of "shall-not-be-challenged" behavior and outlook.
I'm actively working to disentangle the two within my own life. I've had the listening part down pretty well for a while. I had to learn when my responses were turning into image-asserting judgments, explanations that were unasked for, and other communication-blockers. I still have some trouble asking for things. I still have plenty to learn about when to become more engaged and active.
There's a HUGE difference between "don't sweat the small stuff" and "keep your feelings to yourself".
All of those things you mention are of the former, not the latter category.
One can be stoic and unconcerned with the problems the world throws at you but still connect to people on an emotional level. This is something older generations of my extended family absolutely failed at, due mostly to old-fashioned englishness, and now the younger generations feel few emotional bonds between ourselves and have basically dispersed.
It's OK to be a tough man who can take it on the chin, and also to admit you love your friends and family.
I'm not up on the finer points of stoicism as its defined in a dictionary or as a philosophical movement but ... I guess that's what I'm trying to get across, yup!
They are often at odds, when the pressure to discuss your feelings is external.
Many times in my life people around me have pressured me to express how I feel about some recent event. I often resist this for a number of reasons. I might consider my feelings towards the matter to be deeply personal and private. I may realize that my feelings toward the matter will, if vocalized, cause distress to others. I may not have strong feelings at all, and expressing that may cause distress to others. Sometimes I just have nothing at all to say, and my insistence that I have no thoughts on the matter is taken as me being resistant to share what I think.
Summer camps when I was a teenager, the deaths of distant relatives, and the suicides of classmates that I did not know well are common places to the later examples.
I just need to ruminate on things sometimes, anyone who tries to get me to "open up" is just going to prolong the process by not allowing me to examine and/or get to a spot emotionally where I'm able to accept whatever it is I'm dealing with.
I do not have children. I would not have a clue how to raise a girl, but if I had a boy, I would be teaching him stoical techniques to dealing with problems, not today's 'share your feelings' approach.
(I am not in anyway telling you how to raise your children, just sharing my opinion as a man.)
I just don't see any evidence that the West's in vogue approach to teaching boys and young men to be "in touch with their feelings" is helping them in anyway. They are not happier. They are not more successful (in life). They are depressed.
The stoics taught that most of what we think are problems, are not in fact problems. And the things that are problems are generally not in our capacity to change and therefore probably not worth worrying about.
Society tells us that every little thing is worth being upset about. We are conditioned to even be outraged on other people's behalf over what really amounts to nothing (think every single twitter shitstorm ever). We are told to pick at scabs until they are bleeding, then pick some more. The theory being that if we pick deep enough we will end up in a state of emotional healing/enlightenment and we will feeling better for it. I don't buy it.