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 Alexander wept, for there were no more worlds to conquer.’

Or Julius Caesar weeping when the loathsome Egyptian court eunuchs presented him with Pompey's severed head, grinning like fools and expecting to be rewarded. Of course, then he lost his temper because Pompey was a consular of Rome and to meet that fate at the hands of petty degenerates was shameful. By the time Caesar left Egypt, every single official responsible in any way was dead, as was the Ptolemy at whose behest the deed was performed.
 
Women are socially conditioned that it's acceptable to cry at the drop of the hat.
There’s a generational divide here as well. I was brought up at a time where showing such emotional publicly was frowned upon. Women still had more leeway than men but this emotional incontinence we see now wasn’t a thing.
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
To see a man you love cry is extremely distressing, when they’re usually strong. It’s certainly not something I would see as weak but it is distressing - becasue you love them and want them to be OK, and also becasue watching someone who is usually very controlled have such a response means the situation is bad. I wonder if some women respond by assuming weakness, because they have no real idea of true intimacy?
Agree with those saying that such displays of emotions are very intimate. They are. And it’s completely OK to cry in front of someone close - if you’re with someone for decades there are going to be shocks and bereavements etc, and you gently support each other through it.
But men crying is the emotional ‘hook’ the author is using to drive engagement with the article. The real drive is to stop men being emotionally controlled. They’ve already got younger women being total messes, now they need the men to be as well. The idea of any kind of impulse control these days is met with accusations of various bigotries. There’s nothing wrong with a man showing reasonable and appropriate emotion and there’s also nothing wrong with anyone being able to control themselves 99% of the time or in public
 
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
I mean people forget that even Jesus wept in Gethsemane and right before raising Lazarus. The difference between being bitchmade or being a robot and being a man is literally what he did next in both cases: In the case of Lazaus, he raised him from the dead after processing the loss of one of his followers and Martha and Mary's sorrow and he got crucified in the latter case. People over complicate things a bit too much. A man should be able to cry about things that are worth crying about (loss of a loved one, having to make an extremely difficult choice for the greater good, etc.), but at the same time, he can't focus on his sorrow and be extremely selfish. He has to do what's right. Same goes for women too, they just want to be coddles and be treated as children their entire lives. Frankly, I don't shame people for crying but I shame them for inaction. I think women are being exceptionally cruel to a man for crying in the first place but if he can't take care of her then that makes perfect sense why he should be shamed. I also think this is just a biological difference that women and men fail to communicate to one another well at all.
 
I haven't cried since I was 12. My parents taught me it's easier to solve your problems, then you wouldn't feel the need to cry in the first place. When shit's hitting the fan, you need someone to be dependable and get things done. If you want an emotional and impulsive wreck of a man, go date a tranny.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JJLiautaud
I also think this is just a biological difference that women and men fail to communicate to one another well at all.
There’s a lot blocking good communication these days. Good partnership and communication requires us to see the others point of view, sometimes to squish what we want in favour of what we need. This article is pushing the idea that wants should be indulged immediately. That leads to clashes in communication. But to put my cynical hat on, the emotional Vs physical is deeply wired into us and in context is not all negative.
Women can’t use physical power to control men so they use emotional power. Back when peoples roles were more defined this was less of a problem because a woman wasn’t expected to totally control a man like this, but to use it as a persuasive soft power. You see even back to Roman times that the men who were deemed controlled BY the women were derided, women like Agrippina, fulvia, messalina etc. but there have always been political alliances and a princess trained well would gently and subtly nudge her new man into at least a few more favourable outlooks while allowing them to maintain the appearance of strength and control. The wife has always exerted behind the scenes power but to show it openly has always been to emasculate the man.
Now it’s just using emotional outbursts to get what you want and everything is a mess. People do t communicate well. I hear women moaning their husbands don’t do housework and I always say ‘have you just tried talking to him and telling him what needs done and discussing who does it and when?’ And it’s like I’m dispensing the secrets of the universe. Just talk to each other ffs.
 
. People do t communicate well. I hear women moaning their husbands don’t do housework and I always say ‘have you just tried talking to him and telling him what needs done and discussing who does it and when?’ And it’s like I’m dispensing the secrets of the universe. Just talk to each other ffs.
I am genuinely confused why these people even get married in the first place. If you can't communicate what you mean, why are you so surprised people don't do what you want? I don't know why but people just come across as neurotic and so self-obsessed to the point of not actually making themselves clear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lowlife Adventures
but is it actually a 100% flip of a switch that damns the relationship
Yes. Countless men have learned this lesson again and again throughout the ages.

There are no exceptions. It's almost cosmically hilarious how there are no exceptions to this. Every now and then you'll get one poor sap that feels like doing some peer review. "Surely my wife is different? Surely it's okay to show some vulnerability to her?" No she isn't and no it's not. Plenty of men have learned this lesson the hard way, and plenty more will learn it over and over and over again in the future.

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.
Sure, you're allowed to cry about trauma and suffering. Just not publicly, and not in front of anyone who (consciously or subconsciously) ties their respect of you to you being their unshakable pillar of support in a chaotic world. It absolutely changes their perception of you for the worse the moment you show them that vulnerability.

As @Otterly put it well:
because watching someone who is usually very controlled have such a response means the situation is bad.
"The situation is bad" is not the message you want to give the people who look up to you and depend on you holding your shit together to make them feel secure. They will resent your show of weakness. Even if it seems tragic and despicably callous that they would, it's just what happens. It's just the way the world works.
 
I am genuinely confused why these people even get married in the first place
I know one woman who id said something to like : ‘mate just talk to him. Tell him that you need the dishes done before bedtime and work out who does it which nights, and be flexible, just work it out and do it.’
She made him a star chart and a chore list and wondered why he ‘wasn’t engaged with it.’
There’s another thing to be said about gender roles. Perhaps things work better when everyone knows what’s expected of them?
 
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?
impossible to tell in advance.
are you willing to gamble away the future of your marriage in order to find out?
 
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?
I'd add in the company of lifelong, male friends. Not in public, but in private, with people you trust. ANd it's not just crying. There are whole swathes of emotion that men can't - shouldn't - express in public, but that they need to express somewhere.

Men used to be able to do this with one another. Male and female lives had huge separations, where men and women would both take part in activities that were a mystery to the other sex. Women still get to do this, spend time together with only women, but for men it's no longer socially acceptable. We've had that level of platonic, male intimacy taken away from us, by women who saw male bonding as a threat, or who couldn't stand the thought of men doing things without them.

Society has spent the last century or more reclassifying male-exclusive socialisation as homosexual and homoerotic, which has left men with nearly no means to socialise without women present, and has left them with essentially no socially acceptable emotional outlets. In this circumstance, the social requirement for men to remain stoic in public is - to steal a term - toxic to the male psyche.

The regular demands for men to "show emotion" come from women who have recognised an element of the problem, but who don't recognise their own role in its creation and who want to resolve it in a feminine way. An important element of western masculinity has been torn down, which leaves men unbalanced and vulnerable. The proposed solution isn't to restore this element, though; instead, they want to fix the imbalance by tearing down even more of what it means to be male. I've encountered enough men,who have undergone this remaking to understand that it is utterly destructive to the male spirit. They become imitation women, craving validation and emotional support, without any of the desirable traits that you'd hope would come along with that. I'm not even talking about trannies or gays; just young men, who are so utterly broken that they collapse into complete hysterics if you don't constantly affirm their self esteem.
 
Lots of broken people out there with zero emotional balance.
Its either a full on greek tragedy with crying,screaming and breaking shit up or autistic silence to the bitter end.

I blame both sides of the culture wars for this,people are becoming increasingly neurotic.
 
Lots of broken people out there with zero emotional balance.
Its either a full on greek tragedy with crying,screaming and breaking shit up or autistic silence to the bitter end.

I blame both sides of the culture wars for this,people are becoming increasingly neurotic.
I can think of times in my life when I should've acted less emotional but not the other way around.

The answer does not lie in the center, Tim Pool.
 
"Everything has to be run by women and for women, and that includes reshaping masculinity in a way that stupid, narcissistic women demand."

No.
Men don't cry because women don't fuck men that cry. And feminism has not changed that.
Also, testosterone has that effect on a person and their relationship to emotions. FTMs very often talk about how after getting their T prescriptions they feel a flattening of their emotions.
 
I can think of times in my life when I should've acted less emotional but not the other way around.

The answer does not lie in the center, Tim Pool.
I dont mean that you should be a coin flip of emotions.
But that these two extremes are retarded.
There is a personal balance to be had between screeching nightmare and necron to be.
It is a personal balance and it is not for me to decide what it is.

But if you are living under the constant paranoia that emotions may make others see you as weak perhaps the people you are dealing with are not all there in the head.
And this is coming from someone who doesnt cry at funerals.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Seventh Star
Sure, you're allowed to cry about trauma and suffering. Just not publicly, and not in front of anyone who (consciously or subconsciously) ties their respect of you to you being their unshakable pillar of support in a chaotic world. It absolutely changes their perception of you for the worse the moment you show them that vulnerability.
This is why you don’t talk about some stuff or get upset in front of your kids. Parents should be that rocklike stability. The first time you see a parent crying rocks you. If it’s as an adult then hopefully there’s the emotional maturity to realise that your parents are humans and then progress to a more adult to adult relationship rather than parent to child. I suspect that in some people this just leads to them seeing weakness and rejecting it. Perhaps the same with partners. A deep seated ‘oh dear I’m not looked after, better ditch this’? Instead of the more measured response.
I'd add in the company of lifelong, male friends. Not in public, but in private, with people you trust. ANd it's not just crying. There are whole swathes of emotion that men can't - shouldn't - express in public, but that they need to express somewhere.
Yeah, I really agree with this. Men and women need those spaces and times. Your best buddies can often take the emotions and discussions that would disturb a spouse.
 
I'd add in the company of lifelong, male friends. Not in public, but in private, with people you trust. ANd it's not just crying. There are whole swathes of emotion that men can't - shouldn't - express in public, but that they need to express somewhere.
That could explain it. Lately, I don't cry much, and usually only would do so if I'm feeling totally alone and safe, like just before sleep or after waking up naturally.
Open sobbing about death or whatever is reserved for when nobody can hear me. Just feels safer that way.

Not a lot of close, male-only bonding around, except lately doing rock climbing. There were parts where I was cussing up a storm trying to get a carabiner to unclip, and my friends just waited at the top, said it was good to let that day-to-day steam off. It wouldn't be the same with a woman there. Sounds like there may be something similar with freely sharing emotions in general.

I've gotta say, it is frustrating to think back on most of the advice I've been given over the years and realize it was a lie of convenience at best or a shit test at worst. Still, moving forward with more accurate vision.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: teriyakiburns
I dont mean that you should be a coin flip of emotions.
But that these two extremes are retarded.
There is a personal balance to be had between screeching nightmare and necron to be.
It is a personal balance and it is not for me to decide what it is.

But if you are living under the constant paranoia that emotions may make others see you as weak perhaps the people you are dealing with are not all there in the head.
And this is coming from someone who doesnt cry at funerals.
The people who say men should be crybaby faggots and "in touch with their emotions" and maybe chop their dicks off are the ones that have declared that stoicism, a stiff upper lip, etc. is "extreme". It's not. It's not paranoia. It's not autistic. It's not neurotic. The problem with modern men is that they are feminine and weak. Men being too masculine is not a real concern.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CYKA RUSH B
Back