Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/26177
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/26177
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Men do cry, but they are always ashamed of themselves for doing so. They weep, therefore, only when the struggle not to weep is unwinnable. If a male character is coming across as unrealistic when weeping, therefore, it may well be either because it is not convincing that that character could not hold back the tears, or it does not seem that he is trying to do this.

I'm speculating here, but I would suggest that there are probably good evolutionary reasons for this. Tears obscure vision. A warrior or a hunter with tears in their eyes cannot see their enemy or their prey properly, which is likely to have serious consequences. Men have all the same emotions as women, but it is the man's duty to guard, and he who guards must keep his eyes clear. The very short time in which society has passed the duty to guard from every adult male to the police has not obliterated this very basic social and, I suspect, biological imperative of the male. A weeping man is a useless man, a man who cannot fulfill his duty, and one who thus earns the contempt of other men.

Yes, men still weep, but only in the context of all that it means to them socially and biologically to keep their eyes clear. Write it that way and I think most readers will accept it. Neglect this aspect of it and I think it will always seem wrong, even to those who cannot articulate why.

Original score: 2