Do "real men" cry?

I think Challies is mixing categories in this piece. On one hand, he touches on the excess of frivolity and silliness that is socially acceptable in our culture among “grown men.” Or to put it in biblical terms, the lack of sober mindedness. But this is a separate problem from the question of whether “real men” cry publicly.

In our day, as the role of “man” vs. the role of “woman” is increasingly confused, we devalue strength in men and increasingly value “sensitivity” and expressiveness. That’s not the answer to the lack of sober mindedness.

There are situations where crying publicly is the right thing to do. On the whole, though, I have to believe that a good man cries less than he feels like crying. Because sober mindedness is a kind of self-restraint not only from excessive humor but also from excessive self-pity or sympathy-fishing. So, cry openly? It all depends on why.

• Titus 2.2 Older men are to be level headed, worthy of respect, sensible, and sound in faith, love, and endurance.
• Titus 2.6 In the same way, encourage the young men to be self-controlled (see also 2:12)

Also, I think there are probably not really more references in Scripture to public sorrow than there are to public joy.

This just makes me sad. Really sad.

Aaron, the article struck me the same way. Dissonance in the argument.

Jesus gave men the example for weeping. Weep for the effects of sin, death. Weep for compassion for souls. Weep in worship of Jesus himself. (Jesus praised the woman who annointed him w/tears.)

Beyond those things, crying is as you mentioned, a lack of sober thinking and maturity.

Caveat…it is acceptable to cry during Hoosiers when Jimmy stands up for Coach at the town meeting. :-)

This article reminded me of the innumerable times I watched a pastor or evangelist work up the faux tears of a quavering voice and a swipe or two of the handkerchief to be forgotten milliseconds later with a full-throated yell. I know there were some who would legitimately get choked up as one could see the actual tears, but others were just good actors. Tears for “effect” are disingenuous and dishonest manipulative tools that were abused greatly and unfortunately left me cynical and even hardened as a result. I actually used to sit in a board (bored) meeting with one very well-known national leader known for his periodic
“weeping” and before the meeting was started, a friend and I would write down a number of minutes that might pass from the opening prayer to the first appearance of the “show cry” to see who could come closest to guessing the time. (I know, I know — but I was much younger then.) His second habit of “spontaneously bursting into song” would follow shortly thereafter and it would invariable lead to a group of pensive guys awkwardly singing along. It was just so predictable. All that said, perhaps even more important than public lamentation is private weeping.

I think Challies’ main pt. was that it’s wrong how our culture accepts male laughter but doesn’t accept male tears. But I’m not sure how to analyze where we are as a culture on that. I know it used to be much less acceptable for a man in Western society to be seen crying (not just an American thing: personally I love the old British tradition of chin up an carry on, stiff upper lip, etc.).

What I wonder is if in that era, it was equally unacceptable on the whole, for a “grown man” to be silly, frivolous, random. It’s not a coincidence that “fool” used to mean something like “clown.”

But on another level I question the premise that laughter and tears are parallel and should be equally acceptable/unacceptable in men. In so many ways, the two are not parallel. We are specifically told in Scripture that tears are a temporary thing. Laughter… no such statute of limitations.

Rev. 21. 4

He will wipe away every tear from their eyes. Death will no longer exist; grief, crying, and pain will exist no longer, because the previous things have passed away. (HCSB)

This post makes me cry