How Upper Lips Got Stiff - Or; Stoicism is overrated and why male tears are the future

Article

How Upper Lips Got Stiff​

The truism that “boys don’t cry” is a Western social convention. Colonialism and imperialism made sure it spread East.​

In September 2022, Roger Federer ended his professional career playing doubles alongside Rafael Nadal, a fierce competitor during his long career. Soon after, clips of the tennis greats sitting side by side and weeping unabashedly swirled around the internet sparking adulatory tweets about how the act normalized men weeping in public. The remarks obliquely referred to the stereotype that for men, crying diminishes masculinity. The phrase “boys don’t cry” has appeared in songs, movie titles, and advertisements to signal the expectation that men are to sail through whatever challenges without expressing their vulnerability. Discussions about this stereotype emerge now and again in mainstream media, but the long and fraught history that generated it often goes unnoticed.


While the origin of the stigma against men’s tears is unclear, historian Bernard Capp notes that as early as the 16th century a treatise on human physiology declared weeping to be natural among women but an anomaly among men. The Treatise of Melancholie perceived sadness as a disease and tears as its by-product. Women were likely to contract the ailment owing to “a moist, rare, and tender body, especially of brayne and heart” while a dry and hard composition made men more resistant to it.

In 1857, T. C. Sanders used the phrase “muscular Christianity” in a book review of a work by Charles Kingsley. The same phrase grew immensely popular in Victorian England and was used to champion the development of a chivalrous and patriotic character among Englishmen. In his ballad, “Three Fishers,” about anglers venturing into the treacherous sea, Kingsley observed that “men must work and women must weep.” He was asserting that weeping was a gendered act; men were the breadwinners while women anxiously waited and later mourned when their husbands’ corpses washed up on the shore. The ballad gained such popularity that, in 1883, Walter Langley, an English artist, used the line as a title for a painting. Over the years, “muscular Christianity” came to dominate the ideologies influencing the men who represented Britain’s imperial ambitions.

These rigid notions of masculinity crystallized with English imperialism. The young men sent to serve as administrators in the colonies were meticulously trained to cultivate a “stiff upper lip,” often through public school education. Elite institutions such as Eton, Harrow, and Radley monitored students and crafted regimentation marked by corporal punishments and intensive sports such as rugby and gymnastics. Literature about public schools is replete with instances of rampant bullying and fagging, a boarding school practice where younger students acted as personal servants of older students. In Thomas Hughes’s Tom Brown’s School Days, published in 1857, the protagonist is ridiculed for crying after he learns that a letter he sent his mother would not reach her. A passing student sees Tom and derides him,”calling him “Young-mammy-sick.” Alfred Crofts notes that public school lexicon “rudely warped” words that conveyed strong emotions. “To be hurt was to be stung and if to the point of tears, stung up; crying was blubbing, a word of abysmal contempt”.


Stoicism in the face of loss had become such an indispensable part of the English personality that the phrase ‘stiff upper lip” came to be associated with it. The practice of withholding the display of emotions during moments of crisis heightened during the two world wars. Historian Thomas Dixon notes that the following song from the Hollywood movie Damsel in Distress (1937) sealed the association of Englishmen with the “stiff upper lip:”


“Stiff upper lip, stout fella
When you’re in a stew
Sober or blotto, this is your motto
Keep muddling through.”

The true origin of the “stiff upper lip,” however, lies in the United States. In 1815, it appeared in the Massachusetts Spy; additionally, when George bids goodbye to Uncle Tom in Harriet Beecher Stowe’s 1852 novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin, he asks to maintain a “stiff upper lip.” The phrase also appears in the Dictionary of Americanisms (1848). The attitudes of politicians in the United States demonstrate that emotional restraint was considered a virtue in the American imagination as well. During the Spanish-Cuban War (1895-1898), American accounts in support of Cuba disparaged Spanish soldiers by portraying them as childlike. Regarding Spanish troops, an author in the magazine Arena wrote, “I have seen a whole company crying like children because one of their number had received a letter from home, and the rest were homesick.”


Deriding male adversaries as childlike was likewise common red in the writings of British imperialists. In “White Man’s Burden” from 1899, Rudyard Kipling encouraged Americans to be “done with their childish days” and instead bear the burden of bringing Western notions of civilization to the Philippines whose citizens he depicts as “half-devil and half-child.” Although Teddy Roosevelt—not yet in office—considered this “rather poor poetry,” he agreed with the overall imperialist sentiment. Meanwhile President William McKinley described the Filipinos as “these wards of the Nation,” while Brigadier General Thomas Rosser said that they were as “incapable of self government as college freshmen.”
In 1872, Charles Darwin employed the same trope while drawing the connection between race and men’s emotional restraint in The Expressions of the Emotions in Man and Animals. Darwin placed Englishmen at the pinnacle of civilization while other nationalities occupied various lower rungs in the hierarchy, writing:


“…savages weep copiously from very slight causes, of which fact Sir J. Lubbock has collected instances. A New Zealand chief ‘cried like a child because the sailors spoilt his favourite cloak by powdering it with flour.’ I saw in Tierra del Fuego a native who had lately lost a brother, and who alternately cried with hysterical violence, and laughed heartily at anything which amused him. With the civilized nations of Europe, there is also much difference in the frequency of weeping. Englishmen rarely cry, except under the pressure of the acutest grief; whereas in some parts of the Continent the men shed tears much more readily and freely.”

Shortly after the publication of Darwin’s book, Thomas Higginson, a Unitarian clergyman, sent him a letter stating, “I often noticed it among my Black soldiers who wept easily from anger, shame or disappointment.” Higginson goes on to mention an incident where a Black soldier returned from military combat and wept upon finding that his friend had eaten his sugarcane.

As masculinity and weeping became part of a discourse legitimizing English imperialism, nationalists in colonial India actively pondered the attributes of Indian masculinity. Thus, the stigma against men’s tears travelled to places that have culturally and historically accommodated male vulnerability. There are numerous examples of spiritual weeping in colonial India. According to historian Margrit Pernau, Shia Muslim men engaged in intense lamentation, recited elegies, and wailed during the yearly Muharram gatherings to mourn the martyrs of the Battle of Karbala. Participants prepared themselves for this experience not only by recalling the Karbala events but also by drawing on personal experiences of grief and memories of earlier processions. Pernau references Syed Akbar Hyder’s Reliving Karbala, in which the author remembers Muharram gatherings from his youth, writing “wee children could never cry and wail as our elders did. At times when we tried our very best to cry, our theatrical sobs gave way to gales of laughter, much to our elders’ dismay. That sorrow comes with age is self-evident to young Shias!”


The 19th-century Hindu saint from Bengal, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, too, was prone to tears of devotion. His disciples stated that Ramakrishna would pass into a trance that induced intense weeping at one moment and laughter the next. According to the Kathamrita, the record of Ramakrishna’s teachings, the saint once said that rather than weeping for wives, children, and money, men should cry earnestly to perceive God.


While Ramakrishna encouraged being lachrymose, the 19th century also witnessed resistance to men’s emotional vulnerability as ideas of nationalism began to flourish in India. Ramakrishna’s most famous disciple, Swami Vivekananda, emphasized manliness rooted in sports and spirituality that looked similar to Victorian notions of masculinity. At a meeting in Madras in 1897, Vivekananda urged Indian men to cultivate a strong will and self-belief for the sake of the nation. Vivekananda stated that Englishmen drew strength from their national identity while Indian men had been taught that they are weak and “can do nothing.”


“We have wept long enough,” Vivekananda said. “No more weeping, but stand on your feet and be men. It is man-making religion that we want. It is man-making theories that we want. It is man-making education all around that we want.” It is also significant that Vivekananda, a Bengali monk, spoke about a lack of self-confidence at a speech delivered in south India. This could be an allusion to the “martial races theory,” by which the colonial government considered certain ethnic communities from North-Western India such as the Gurkhas, Sikhs, and Jats as better warriors due to the generally broad and tall physique of their members. They were labelled as “martial races,” while, in contrast, Bengalis and most south Indian communities were perceived as lazy owing to their diets and origin in warmer climates. Claims of effeteness lay at the heart of British ridicule of “non-martial races.”


Public spaces in colonial India became the metaphoric stage where masculinity was performed for the eyes of other communities. After the death of the Bengali novelist, Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, in 1894, the writer Nabinchandra Sen was invited to preside over a condolence meeting organized in his memory. Despite his admiration for the novelist, Sen expressed his disapproval of the purpose of the meeting, saying, “As a Hindu, I do not understand how one can call a public meeting to express one’s grief. A meeting to express grief, think of it!” and furthermore demands, “how many buckets have you arranged for the public’s tears?”


While derisive of the institutionalized expression of sorrow, Sen had no qualms about shedding tears at home. In his autobiography, Sen ruminates about an exhausting period his life when he tried to strike a balance between his job and his writing. While composing the final segment of his poem, “Rangamati,” Sen was moved to tears and quickly realized that this brought passion to his artistic creation. After this revelation, he would deliberately work himself up to a fit of tears. However, sudden work-related engagements left him with no spare time to write. On returning to his unfinished poem after two weeks, Sen was aghast upon realizing that he had grown so distant from his creation that he could no longer weep. He forced himself to complete the poem but declared that emotional fervor was vital for composing good poetry.


With the rise of nationalism, revolutionary organizations such as the Anushilan Samiti and Jugantar, founded in 1902 and 1906 respectively, sprung up in Bengal under the garb of gyms (akharas) as early signs of anti-colonial resistance. The activist Sarala Devi Chaudhurani started the Pratapaditya Utsav in 1903 which provided a platform for young men to demonstrate their skills in boxing, fencing, and wrestling. Similar organizations flourished in other parts of the country as well and together they shaped the desirable traits of Indian masculinity. As spirituality, discipline, and physical fitness became a part of the nationalist endeavor, the distance between weeping and masculinity grew. Even today, Hindu right-wing organizations emphasize the cultivation of physical fitness through exercise and training programs akin to boy scouts. The stereotype, in Hindi, mard ko dard nahi hota (men don’t feel pain) is popular enough to appear as the title of a 2018 Bollywood movie, suggesting that while the British Imperialist project is long dead, its lessons—for good and ill—live on.



 
And this shit right here is why Islam is going to bend over the cucked West. That culture understands perfectly that a strong man who is unflinching in his resolve towards his God and ideals will be the one who gets the power and then the bitches. Also, the crying-bitch boy makes vaginas dry up faster than Death valley. I must also mention that women are attracted to dangerous men. Just look at how some men who are considered losers by them suddenly would be sending love letters right after they pop a bitch.

And guess which demographic is the one that the west is more than happy to bend over for?

They do have a saying after all. "Between a weak and a strong horse, the child will always choose the strong horse." And as we have already established that women are children in adult bodies, it applies.

EDIT: The quote is actually "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse." - Osama Bin Laden

Just so happens I remember an old Canadian political cartoon with a hippie old man dancing and a muscular Islamist handing a sword to a child with above quote.
 

How Upper Lips Got Stiff​

The truism that “boys don’t cry” is a Western social convention. Colonialism and imperialism made sure it spread East.​


Someone's talking about masculinity at all? Let's see who--

1678679223400.png


> WOMAN DETECTED

[OPINION REJECTED]


(Not falling for that one, miss.)
 
It's called emotional discipline.

Women are socially conditioned that it's acceptable to cry at the drop of the hat.

Hence, that is why we see the push to stop tone policing.

Men cry due to family members dying, their brothers in arms, their dog, or some other major thing.
 
Men don't cry in public because they're supposed to be useful, and reliable in a crisis. If your buddy gets mauled by the boar you're hunting, or shot on the front line, you can't just sit down and have a moan. You have to compartmentalize, act like normal, or else people die. And yes, it is a useful social convention in safe and polite settings too, because once you relax it you don't get it back in the instant of emergency.

In some circumstances it's fine for a man to tear up publicly, if you also show you're restraining it and you're able to carry on. If you break down sobbing you're a weakling, not because of the tears, but because you are not in control of yourself. Men should deal with extreme emotions privately, with their wife/girlfriend, who gets to see that vulnerability because of her close connection and loyalty.

The modern obsession with getting men to cry is the same as every other hedonistic push: a demand that no one be required to exert self-control, ever. It's the "follow your heart" emotionalism that underlies every destructive loosening of social conventions we've had since the 1960s. And you should distrust the people pushing it the same way you distrust their intentions every other time they tell you social taboos are arbitrary, patriarchal, colonialist, outdated, or harmful.
 
The modern obsession with getting men to cry is the same as every other hedonistic push: a demand that no one be required to exert self-control, ever. It's the "follow your heart" emotionalism that underlies every destructive loosening of social conventions we've had since the 1960s.
The worst part is that it's the example of western women asking for things they do not want and have no use for.

Well that, and that they always tell on themselves because they keep saying "it's okay for men to cry" but never "I'll be a shoulder for you to cry on when you need it and not even my instincts will call you an ultra faggot". They think "okayness" in this situation is completely unmoored from the reactions and needs of others, including themselves (not that they're aware of their own inclinations when they say this).
 
We're two pages in. Sometime between page 3 and page 4 we should see feminists crash through the window to shit on the floor and tell all the males in this thread that they're being a man wrong and listen to them, a woman, on how to be a man.
 
Well that, and that they always tell on themselves because they keep saying "it's okay for men to cry" but never "I'll be a shoulder for you to cry on when you need it and not even my instincts will call you an ultra faggot". They think "okayness" in this situation is completely unmoored from the reactions and needs of others, including themselves (not that they're aware of their own inclinations when they say this).

No woman other than the guy's wife has the right to demand he opens up to her. And no other woman has the right to offer that (non-ironic, actual) safe space for him to process his feelings. It gives the woman power over the man in his vulnerability, and he can't trust someone who isn't bonded to him; but that woman is the one least likely to abuse the power he gives her.

It's not as simple as "women don't like guys who cry", the woman who does get to see the guy cry also sees his strength, his ability to compartmentalize, and his ability to carry her through tough times without falling apart. A wife who sees her husband cry privately doesn't (shouldn't) disrespect him because of it, unless he fails to handle his shit in other ways.

A woman who demands men cry in public wants power over men, period. She wants to see that vulnerability she isn't entitled to see, isn't trustworthy to handle, and isn't incentivized to handle correctly. A woman who demands male tears is automatically suspect in her intentions, no matter how much emotionalism or psychobabble she uses to justify her desires.

In short, power-hungry bitches can go to hell.
 
No woman other than the guy's wife has the right to demand he opens up to her. And no other woman has the right to offer that (non-ironic, actual) safe space for him to process his feelings. It gives the woman power over the man in his vulnerability, and he can't trust someone who isn't bonded to him; but that woman is the one least likely to abuse the power he gives her.

It's not as simple as "women don't like guys who cry", the woman who does get to see the guy cry also sees his strength, his ability to compartmentalize, and his ability to carry her through tough times without falling apart. A wife who sees her husband cry privately doesn't (shouldn't) disrespect him because of it, unless he fails to handle his shit in other ways.

A woman who demands men cry in public wants power over men, period. She wants to see that vulnerability she isn't entitled to see, isn't trustworthy to handle, and isn't incentivized to handle correctly. A woman who demands male tears is automatically suspect in her intentions, no matter how much emotionalism or psychobabble she uses to justify her desires.

In short, power-hungry bitches can go to hell.
I reckon you're generally right... but I highly doubt that most women can successfully reconcile a man's inadvertent show of weakness with any of their past or future demonstrations of strength.

Wife or not.

(Also, I'm reminded of the story of Samson.)
 
Men can cry, I'd say there's nothing wrong with weeping for, say, a deceased relative or friend.

But the key is moving forward from that and not being a bitch who cries over fucking everything. Stoicism isn't about being an emotionless robot, it's about being in control of your emotions and being able to move ahead without getting mired down in them.
 
Men can cry in only two situations:

They watch the ending of Old Yeller

They're cradling the body of the man who just took a grenade for them.

That's it. Men might be allowed the chance to drop a tear at the death of a family member or during a daughter's wedding, but no more than that.
 
This is dumb. Some people here are arguing absolute cause and effect, while others are arguing nuance.

It's obviously traumatic to be betrayed when one is vulnerable, but is it actually a 100% flip of a switch that damns the relationship or are there situations (in private, with a wife, for a good reason, etc.) where it's respected or at least tolerated without doing permanent damage?
 
It's okay to cry. There's nothing wrong with being in touch with your emotions. There is something wrong with being a weepy cunt who gets all snotty and emotional over something inconsequential like a movie trailer or a sad tv show, in that case you're either an emotional wreck of a person or severely depressed.
 
Without reading OP,
I agree with the basic idea but disagree with where I suspect they're going with this.
So back in the day, and perhaps in some circles now, it is common to discourage men crying AT ALL. People who claim they were taught not to cry at funerals. Personally I think this is retarded, I like crying to music, I consider artwork stirring up crying to be a deep experience, and anyone who would tell you a man shouldn't cry over actual death and suffering in the world is a tool and needs to kill themselves.

On the other hand, I assume (again, not going to read) what they want is to turn men into women, which means crying as a response to frustration, and crying over nonsense. This is bad and I consider it bad in women too. Women may do it because it's their nature, but that's a defect of their nature like how committing most of the crime is a defect of men.

It's okay to cry. There's nothing wrong with being in touch with your emotions. There is something wrong with being a weepy cunt who gets all snotty and emotional over something inconsequential like a movie trailer or a sad tv show, in that case you're either an emotional wreck of a person or severely depressed.
Would you apply that to the sad scenes of a movie? Something like tearing up at the end of Saving Private Ryan? I think I know what you have in mind, dudes like the Star Wars cuck, but the post reads rather absurd.

I just don't want my man to be a big blubbering crybaby over every little thing, or even often, and especially not around me. The only exceptions I'm willing to tolerate are when a close family member dies, and when holding his newborn after the doctors leave the room if he feels like it. There shouldn't be too many scenarios where something overwhelming happens to where he'll have to cry it out in private, that needs to be between him and God.
Friend death? Dog death? You sound like a heartless bitch.

It's not that men don't cry, it's that men don't cry in front of other people, and certainly you don't do it in public or make a spectacle out of yourself.
Yeah, I think people mainly mean public crying and particularly outside of certain social contexts.
 
Last edited:
It's obviously traumatic to be betrayed when one is vulnerable, but is it actually a 100% flip of a switch that damns the relationship or are there situations (in private, with a wife, for a good reason, etc.) where it's respected or at least tolerated without doing permanent damage?

If you can't be vulnerable with your partner (man or woman), and they betray the trust you give them in opening up, your relationship probably should be doomed.

In private, with a wife, for a good reason, is exactly the criteria where men should be able to cry. If she can't handle it, well, what's the point of all those complex emotional and communication skills women keep claiming they have?

There's a few exceptions; I wouldn't look down on a man for crying at his parent's funeral, for example. But I would think lesser of him if he broke down so badly in the previous days that one of his sisters had to make all the arrangements.
 
She seems to blame the predilection for stoicism amongst North Indians on Colonialism and the 'Martial Races' theory, which doesn't make sense; the ideas of stoicism, while not codified, were a cultural expectation even before the British arrived.

The author has a pathological need to blame everything on Imperialism, nothing that she views as negative, could ever originate naturally from India, no, it must always be a British invention.
I would say something about (((women))) in general but I think this is more about an Indian woman whose been exposed to Western Academia for too long and has obviously gone insane.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: MrB
And Alexander wept, for there were no more worlds to conquer.’
You do see men crying in a lot of literature. But it’s always controlled and seen through a lens of it being a needed response. It shows how bad things are. What men don’t do in literature is break down sobbing uncontrollably and lose the emotional control.
“Stiff upper lip, stout fella
When you’re in a stew
Sober or blotto, this is your motto
Keep muddling through.”

This is what the stiff upper lip is. It is not an absence of emotion, it’s the ability to keep going even if you’re in a terrible situation. To keep muddling through. To keep calm and carry on. Maybe to have a slight quiet freak out and then get on with it.
It’s being attacked becasue it’s the opposite of what degenerate culture wants from you. Degenerate culture wants to have you in thrall to your basest emotions and desires. To have a public tantrum. To behave terribly. To give up quickly, to have no grit or tenacity or stickability. Nobody like that is building an empire or taking down tyrants, they just coom and consume,
In the opposite corner we have the stiff upper lip. Mild emotional repression isnt a bad thing if you manage it well. You aren’t being controlled by lust or anger or greed. You’re more future focused, able to plan and delay gratification to work towards an end. People like this built empires amd they took down tyrants
Ladies and gentlemen I put it to you that the stiff upper lip is a good thing, and I shall be keeping mine
 
Oh, and never forget...

Men having emotions that the wives, girlfriends, or daughters see, REQUIRES those women to 'perform emotional labor' for those men.

Feminists and misandrists never stop harping about how women in the relationship have to PERFORM EMOTIONAL LABOR because of the man.

So, these same bitches telling me that I have to bring out my emotions and wave them around while weeping and rending my clothing can fuck right off, because every one of them would start bitching about 'emotional labor' if you did.
 
Back