Achilles wept. Not privately, not quietly, but openly and with abandon, sprawled on the beach, crying for Patroclus in the presence of his men and his goddess mother. The greatest warrior in Greek literature was also, by modern standards, a champion crier. He wept for his friend, he wept for his fate, he wept for the fragile and violent world he occupied. And nobody in the Iliad suggested this diminished him.
The prohibition on male tears is not ancient. It is modern, and it is specifically Western, and it has a history that can be traced — which means it is not a natural law but a cultural construction, which means it is not inevitable.
The History: When Men Stopped Crying
Medieval European literature is full of weeping men. The knights of Arthurian romance cry freely and often; weeping is a sign of their depth of feeling, their capacity for honor, their humanity. Medieval hagiographies describe male saints weeping as a spiritual gift — the donum lacrimarum (gift of tears) was a recognized form of religious experience.
Something shifted in the 17th and 18th centuries, and historians of emotion have a fairly good account of what it was. The rise of mercantile capitalism and the bourgeois public sphere created a new standard of masculine self-presentation: the self-controlled, rational man of business, whose emotions were internal resources rather than public displays. Norbert Elias’s The Civilizing Process documents this shift as part of a broader pattern of emotional regulation that the European upper and middle classes adopted to distinguish themselves from what they characterized as the emotionally unruly lower orders.
The Victorian era completed this transformation with an intensity that reads as compulsive. The Victorian ideal of masculine self-command — the stiff upper lip, the stoic officer, the man who does not flinch — was not a natural expression of masculinity but a class performance and an imperial ideology. The man who cried was the man who lacked the training for Empire. This was then exported globally, including to colonies where it was absorbed into local masculinity cultures as evidence of modern sophistication.
What we have inherited is not timeless masculine nature but the emotional performance standards of Victorian imperialism. This is worth sitting with.
The Biology: What Tears Are For
Crying is not an arbitrary emotional display. It is a physiological process with specific biological functions, and understanding them helps explain why suppressing it is costly.
The basic neuroscience: crying is initiated by the limbic system — specifically, the hypothalamus — in response to emotional or physical stimuli. The autonomic nervous system triggers the lacrimal glands to produce tears. Emotional tears (as distinct from irritant or reflex tears) contain a different chemical composition: higher concentrations of leucine enkephalin (an endorphin), higher adrenocorticotropin levels (related to stress), and higher manganese (which is elevated in states of chronic stress and emotional distress).
The endocrinologist William Frey, in his 1985 book Crying: The Mystery of Tears, proposed that crying is essentially an excretory process — that emotional tears remove stress-related biochemicals from the body. The evidence for this “biochemical” theory of crying has been debated, but subsequent research by Jodi De Luca-Pytell at Hofstra University and Jonathan Rottenberg at the University of South Florida has provided more nuanced support: crying does reliably produce parasympathetic activation (the rest-and-digest system, the physiological opposite of fight-or-flight), and reported mood improvement after crying is associated with this parasympathetic shift.
The practical implication: crying is a built-in stress-regulation mechanism. Men who have lost access to it — through suppression so habitual it has become involuntary — have lost a physiological resource that their bodies were designed to provide. The stress has to go somewhere. It goes into chronic cortisol elevation, into inflammatory responses, into the cardiovascular effects of sustained sympathetic nervous system activation.
What Happens When Men Suppress Tears
The neuroscience of emotional suppression — not just of crying but of emotional expression generally — has been significantly advanced by James Gross’s work at Stanford on what he calls “expressive suppression.” Gross’s research distinguishes between cognitive reappraisal (changing how you think about an emotional situation, which tends to be psychologically beneficial) and expressive suppression (preventing the outward expression of emotion while it continues internally, which is generally harmful).
When men suppress tears, they are engaging in expressive suppression: the physiological arousal that would have been expressed through crying continues, unregulated, while the external signal is blocked. Studies using facial electromyography show that men attempting to suppress emotional responses maintain elevated facial muscle tension (the muscles still receive the signal to cry; they are held contracted rather than released) and elevated sympathetic nervous system activity. The emotion is not resolved; it is compressed.
The long-term effects of chronic expressive suppression are well-documented. In a 2013 study in Psychological Science, Sanjay Srivastava and colleagues found that habitual emotional suppression was associated with lower social support, higher rates of depression, and significantly worse physical health outcomes. The cardiovascular effects are particularly stark: expressive suppression is associated with elevated blood pressure responses to emotional stimuli, and chronically elevated blood pressure is one of the primary mediators of the male-female mortality gap.
The Male Mortality Gap: Is Crying Part of It?
Men die approximately 5-7 years younger than women in most developed countries. The causes are multiple — men take more physical risks, are more likely to use alcohol and tobacco, less likely to seek medical care — but emotional regulation may be an underappreciated contributor.
The cardiologist Redford Williams at Duke University spent his career studying the relationship between emotional expression and cardiovascular health. His research, summarized in Anger Kills (1993), found that chronic emotional suppression — keeping emotions in rather than expressing them — was a significant and independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease. The mechanism is cortisol: chronic emotional suppression keeps the stress response partially activated, chronically elevating cortisol, which accelerates atherosclerosis and inflammation.
The gender gap in cardiovascular disease — men die of heart disease at significantly higher rates than pre-menopausal women — is partly explained by hormonal differences. But the portion that remains after controlling for hormones may partially reflect the emotional regulation difference. Women, who cry more often and more freely, may be regulating their cardiovascular stress response more efficiently than men, not despite the crying but because of it.
Cultural Variation: What Cross-Cultural Comparison Teaches
The taboo on male tears is not universal, which is the most important datum for understanding it. Dutch men cry at higher rates than American men — the Netherlands has consistently produced survey data showing higher rates of male emotional expression, including crying, with no apparent negative effect on Dutch men’s sense of masculine identity. Russian men cry at higher rates than British men. Japanese men cry in cultural contexts (certain films, certain national moments) that would produce uncomfortable silence in American men.
The variation is not random. It tracks specific cultural values: cultures with higher individualism and stronger masculine gender norms show lower rates of male emotional expression. Cultures with stronger communal values and less rigid gender norms show higher rates. This suggests that the specific expression of the taboo — how tightly it constrains, in which situations, with what penalties — is a cultural dial, not a fixed human constant.
Within American culture, the context in which male crying is most accepted is also instructive: sporting events. A man weeping when his team loses the championship or wins the gold medal is not considered to have lost his masculine standing. The sporting context provides a legitimate reason — an external cause sufficiently important — to bypass the prohibition. This reveals that the prohibition is not about tears per se but about what the tears signal. Tears that signal deep investment in something important are permissible; tears that signal pain, need, or vulnerability are not. The culture has granted an exception for sports because it recognizes the emotional investment as legitimate, while failing to make the same recognition for grief, fear, loneliness, or love.
What the Research on Emotional Intelligence Shows
The broader research on male emotional intelligence — the ability to identify, understand, and manage emotions — consistently shows that men who score higher on EI (emotional intelligence) measures show better outcomes on almost every dimension: relationship satisfaction, professional success, physical health, and subjective wellbeing. The research does not show that emotional sensitivity makes men less effective; it shows the opposite.
John Gottman’s forty years of research on marital success found that “emotional attunement” — the husband’s ability to recognize and respond to his wife’s emotional states — was the single strongest predictor of long-term marital success. Not sexual compatibility. Not financial compatibility. Not shared values. The husband’s emotional responsiveness. The men who were most unable to access their own emotional lives — who had suppressed most thoroughly — were also the least able to attune to their partners, which made their marriages structurally fragile.
The case for male crying is, at bottom, not a case for vulnerability as a philosophical value. It is a case for efficiency: crying is efficient emotional regulation, and men who have access to it manage stress better, maintain cardiovascular health better, form better relationships, and live longer. The Victorian prohibition has been costing men their years and their connections for over a century. The biology does not support the prohibition. The history reveals it as an invented tradition. The research shows its costs. The case for reversing it, for any given man, is entirely pragmatic.
Related Reading: