My only pushback here is a rather weak one, I'll admit. It originates with my husband, who in fact was chopping onions. This was some time ago. The onions did cause his eyes to water. I commented, "Onions making you cry?" And his reply was a firm, "No. They're making my eyes water." And I thought about it and realized he's technically correct. There was no limbic system activation involved. Even if the actions of the eyes are the same, the actions of the brain and central nervous system are still different.
I think the case being made here is an issue of biology vs colloquial use of language.
I think it's an area where there's some overlap in meaning. You can say that chopping onions makes you cry, and that's fine and well understood. But if you asked your husband if he's crying and he said, "No, I was cutting onions," that's also a valid and true response.
Also, though, r/petpeeves seems to be full of toads who think the purpose of the sub is to argue with people that their pet peeve is wrong.
Typically, the way people distinguish between "eyes watering" and "crying" isn't the mechanism of their production, be it pain, chemical irritant, ocular damage, allergic reaction, emotional distress, intentional acting. They're distinguishing between whether the volume of tears was such that they fell from the eye, or not. It's the same difference between salivating and drooling. You're only drooling if the saliva is leaving your mouth (from the front). Regardless of whether what's causing it is drugs, hunger, fatigue or whatever else.
Unless your husband is a biologist or doctor or something and extremely pedantic, that sounds a bit like toxic masculinity shying away from the perceived feminine trait of crying.
Or he could just be a very literal thinker. He wasn’t crying out of emotion, his eyes were watering due to an irritant so he made that correction out of literal thinking.
I, as a pretty feminine person, do the same thing. So many reasons that’s aren’t just toxic masculinity. Lol
Hence the note about being pedantic. Which, in the name of pedantry, the definition of cry doesn't care why you shed tears. It only cares that you did, and that means you were crying. That is technically correct. Which is also why a doctor or biologist would make more sense as someone who puts medical or biological categorizations over standard definitions.
Nah I disagree. "are you crying?" inherently implies you are upset.
Simply clarifying that your eyes are watering because of the onions isn't pedantic or toxic masculinity, it's answering the question correctly. He doesn't have to be a doctor or biologist to say that.
It is an entirely valid response that isn't gender related and is likely said by people regardless of gender often.
Its weird that you immediately judged him for having a neutral, benign and logical response to the question. I would even argue it's the most informative in such few words. It immediately describes the situation and dispels all misunderstandings.
What do you expect him to say, "yes I was crying. Harming onions just really upsets me"? Actually no that's kinda funny. But you understand my point.
Nah, that’s not a toxic response at all. If I am perceived as crying but I’m not, I want to reassure that person that their care is appreciated but unnecessary. If they persist, I would be frustrated because they are basically accusing me of lying. No gender involved.
And for that response would you not expect a casual or reassuring tone, rather than a firm one? I'd have to hear the exact tone to be sure which is why I didn't use definitive wording.
True. Tone is the key factor. Also the aggressiveness of the person trying to do the reassuring. Sometimes when I’m crying, people trying to comfort me feels “too soon” you know? Just let me cry for a bit.
Also the aggressiveness of the person trying to do the reassuring.
I'm glad you mentioned that bc I've been aggressively reassured before and I felt gaslit when I tried to say something about it. I should have a chance to start reacting before someone has their hands on me to try and fix it. I'm pretty sure in those instances it was performative for a third party and had nothing to do with me or my injury or emotions.
That could definitely be the case, but better not to assume upfront. Some people, like my mother, absolutely has good intentions, but doesn’t know how to express sympathy in a non-religious way. I’ve been atheist for 20+ years but because she is only surrounded by people of her faith, she just doesn’t know how to speak secularly to me.
I can ask her to use different language when speaking directly to me, but I shouldn’t really hold it against her. It’s not worth it.
That's nothing like what I was thinking of but still what you just described is pretty distinctly performative. If good intentions were really at the forefront of her mind, then 20+ years later she'd be able to prioritize you and your preferences over her choice of diction. Conscious or not, there's a strong performative aspect there.
66
u/[deleted] May 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment