It seems to me that Salon's been posting more and more fluffy, inane and self-indulgent pieces for some time, but this is a new low. It's a trivial topic and it's treated in an unbelievably smug manner. I don't care about Ms. Berry's views on crying in the workplace, no matter how sensitively they're articulated. Maybe this makes me a callous and emotionally repressed person, but it's true. Someone would have to have a pretty dramatically original and illuminating take on crying for things to be otherwise. I have plenty of half-formed ideas, prejudices, pet topics and whatnot of my own, but I don't tend to kid myself that they're of universal interest to the reading public. I'd prefer more articles where the writer actually gets off their arse and discovers something about the world they didn't already know, rather than treating their inner life as a subject of matchless profundity. Am I alone here?

The reason all people should not cry in the workplace and other public venues is that private life is full of enough drama. Public formats are where I go for smooth and peaceful anonymity and quiet. Even the grocery store should be a quiet pleasant place, so take your crying child and your crying self out to the car until you can pull yourself together and stay out of my personal head-space.

I, callously, do not care about your tears. If it were another day of the month, they might not even have come. Only if you and I are in a close personal relationship should I see your tears. And in that case, cry away, as will I. But if I don't know you, your tears disrupt the efficiency of my day, making me distracted and less able to do work, or shopping, or banking, or any of the things I might be out in public doing.

Regarding my seeming lack of empathy for strangers, I cannot comfort you. I am busy working, or shopping, or doing any other thing that I might be out doing where I come upon you crying. And you might not like my brand of comfort if I did stop what I was doing and 'helped' you. Cry at your own risk, some people don't respond the way you might like. Public life and private life are seperate for good reasons. Let's keep it that way.

People are perfectly free to cry at work.

They're also free to exhibit other inappropriate, distracting, and unproductive behaviors, like: dressing inappropriately, showing up late, throwing temper tantrums, being passive-aggressive, communicating ineffectively, etc.

But none of these are reputation-enhancing or career-enhancing behaviors.

In most workplaces, full-out crying is seen as the typical female nuclear weapon -- just like screaming in fury is seen as the typical male nuclear weapon.

Out-of-control emotional behaviors are the ultimate powerplay, the ultimate trump. These kinds of outbursts make many people very uncomfortable and tend to kill any productive discussion.

In most jobs, people are expected to demonstrate that they can control their emotional outbursts.

I don't go to work for the privilege of witnessing my coworkers' emotional theatrics. And I don't expect them to be an unwilling witness to mine.

(PS: I'm a woman in an executive level job.)

While Ms. Berry clearly allows that men should feel free to cry, the blurb under the title only allows women that freedom...

Why?

I am supposing that it is an editorial decision... Who? Why did they limit the article in that sexist manner?

I expect better of Salon. Perhaps I'm simply naive and idealistic, but I thought that that sort of yin/yang, men are strong and women are good-looking, sexist di-morphism was part of the conservative agenda. I don't like to have to counter it in my on-line haven of liberal life.

Do you see and understand what you've done?

Please explain...

Thanks

I was in a meeting where a woman giving a presentation started to

cry about a third of the way through. The level of questions she

got was certainly not unusual and not hostile. Apparently she

was not used to giving a presentation where there was some amount

of give and take and took the questions as an attack. The woman

started crying and eventually left the meeting room and spent the

next thirty minutes hiding out in the restroom. Not only was

this embarassing to everyone at the meeting, it made the woman

look weak an immature.

The world I live in is not very "touchy feely" and supportive. I

might wish it were different, but the world is the way it is, not

as I wish it were. Showing weakness like this gets you written off.

If you want people to take you seriously, you need to keep your

emotions in check. And this includes crying.

Finally, I think that women crying, especially in a situation like

this just reinforces all of the ugly stereotypes about women in

the workplace: "women are more emotional", "women can't interact

on a rational, logical basis". So a woman who cries frequently not

only does herself harm, she harms other women.

Ms. Berry is right that crying is a cathartic and healthy release of emotion. The "boys don't cry" mentality that is drilled into us can be emotionally crippling for men. However, anyone, male or female, must consider if open tears are appropriate in a given surrounding. At home, with friends or even on the bus, let it out. In a personal or national tragedy, it's appropriate to weep anywhere. Everyone in my office wept as the World Trade Center was burning. The day an old friend died, I wept in my office.

There are valid reasons for being overcome with emotion, but if normal working conditions, i.e. your boss yelling at you about a project, send you into convulsive tears, it's going to hurt your career. If a woman (or man) tears up over a memo, the boss is unlikely to promote her to a position of more pressure. It doesn't boost a client's confidence in your operation to have their contact break down in tough meetings. Some men assume that all women are too delicate and emotional to handle high pressure, and this is a major reason for the "glass ceiling." Women who feel "liberated" enough to weep in the workplace only reenforce this stereotype.

As Ms. Berry admits in her article, tears put the other person on the defensive. Because of that, it seems like the weeper is trying to gain ground by making you pity them. Nobody likes being emotionally manipulated except for Steven Spielberg fans.

Cecelie makes a good point that men's tears are much more powerful in the media (or in life.) Perhaps, it's because they are more rare. A man who is brought to tears in spite of his social conditioning, must be deeply moved.

Women should count their blessings in the weeping arena, though. I've never known a man to get out of a speeding ticket by crying, but it's a common tactic for women.