It’s not a misuse - it’s exactly the intended meaning and it is perfectly common in mainstream usage.

Allowing yourself to be vulnerable means you are indeed open to attack. But it is also a large part of emotional connection. The alternative is being a fortress - with all the relationship problems that entails.

The very fact that you see vulnerability as “bad” is a perfect example of what that language is intended to highlight.

▲

mewpmewp2 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Is vulnerable about letting people know how you feel or your weaknesses?

What about letting people know how you feel and your weaknesses while not caring if someone judges you for it? Is that being vulnerable or not?

	▲	erikerikson an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I would say yes. Your weaknesses, if truly shared are weaknesses which can be used against you to hurt you and thereby you are vulnerable to them. Further, even if you don't care about the judgment of others then you can still be harmed by decisions of and social coordination between people who judge you. We agree, assuming self knowledge, that the judgments of others tell you about them rather than about you.

▲

lazide 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If you are under attack, vulnerability is bad.

Historic ‘stoic male’ personas existed for a reason. Because in many situations, it works. Despite the complaining.

And being less ‘emotionally connected’ is valuable when people use that connection to exploit or hurt you. A very common experience for many men.

That people (especially women) then complain you won’t open up to them is a riot in those situations because it’s like someone complaining you keep putting on your bullet proof vest - while they keep shooting at you.

Historic male mental health issues also resulted. But notably, folks depending on the stoic persona for their own wellbeing would typically throw you under the bus for those issues too.

“How dare you get mad! You’re a dangerous threat!” says the person constantly harassing the person, or the boss putting you in worse and worse work conditions while pretending they are doing you a favor, etc.

They do that, of course, because mad people actually fight back. But if you need the job or are dependent on the relationship…

As many men have experienced, the only way to ‘win’ is shut off caring about what people say on that front - among other emotions.

▲

watwut 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Historic ‘stoic male’ personas existed for a reason.

What are you talking about here. "Historic male persona" differs between periods and places, but anger, friendships and happiness are basically always parts of it.

Odysseus "weeps" and "cries". The whole romantic era was about overly emotional, passionate and sensitive guys.

	▲	marginalia_nu an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Homer predates the stoics by several centuries, so that makes sense. Though I do think Homer does make a solid case of traditional male ideals being fairly emotional, and this is something that persists to modern day. Achilles in particular spends half the Iliad sulking in his tent, and the other half making shish kebabs out of the Trojan army on a tireless revenge-rampage where he's so goddamn angry he picks a fight with a river. These types of characters are still written today, John Wick is something of a superficial parallel. Though it could be argued that Achilles lengthy sulking is diva behavior, few would argue Captain Kirk is effeminate because he's more emotionally driven than Spock, who in many ways turns the stoic ideals up to 11. Likely because despite occasionally chewing the scenery with emotional moments, he is still ultimately in control. (It's also worth noting that neither Achilles or Odysseus were likely intended as ideals, but rather tragic extremes, and Homer's works largely deal with the consequences of their personalities; the pride and rage of Achilles like we just discussed, the pathological distrust and constant scheming of Odysseus protracting his journey and being the true source of many of his countless obstacles)
	▲	lazide an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Notice how I never said what you are disagreeing with, and if you read what I said, your question is answered?

▲

andersonpico 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> (especially women)

It's always about that isn't it? Not getting the reaction you want, vilifying your interlocutor, then run crying with fingers in your ears screaming "lalala I didn't want it anyway" and declaring yourself a stoic is really indicative of the type of people who in the present day call themselves stoics.

This whole thread is just a long-winded version of redpill discourse, people who can see past minor adolescent romantic mishaps.

How pathetic is it to still model your whole life after women while pretending to be an isle of self-reliance? Men really are lost.

▲

triceratops 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I didn't see any vilification of women. Women value sharing and emotional vulnerability. It's how they bond with other women, who make up the bulk of their friends. Men's experiences with other men, the bulk of their friends, often make them wary of being emotionally vulnerable. Hence, naturally, a disconnect when a man and a woman are establishing a relationship.

▲

zozbot234 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Women value sharing and emotional vulnerability, but typically not from the males in their lives. There is a significant disconnect between average women and genuine male emotions, and males are expected to show emotional resilience and self-control first and foremost precisely to bridge that gap and then allow the 'sharing' to occur unimpeded, though still in a somewhat controlled way.

	▲	amanaplanacanal 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's possible you are hanging around with the wrong women.