Well, OP is trying to explain that, as a man, it's okay to cry, and here you are saying that real men don't cry, and if he were more of a man he would be able to go through life stoically ignoring his feelings. It's basically the exact attitude that the article decries.

I disagree, I found OP's statement to be very egotistical. He was painting himself as superior to younger men because "they haven't experienced much, that's why they don't cry!". Should younger men whose hormones don't allow them to cry feel bad about themselves? Are they subhuman for what they are? Have they not had enough "real life experiences"? This is obviously false. In fact, the majority of young men who experienced far worse than OP would still find themselves less likely to cry, and the reason is simply: biology.

edit:

>and think it's a sign of sanity

Right, only OP is sane. Men who don't cry are lunatics.

If you are going to ask for an explanation, and then deny what people is trying to tell you and twist their words, you might as well take the down votes with a measure of dignity.

Could be or it could be more existential than that. The inscription on Robert Kennedy's memorial across from his grave in D.C. comes to mind: "Aeschylus...wrote, Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God" This is from a speech he gave on the night of MLK's assasination.

Just because you mention testosterone doesn't make your explanation scientific. Given that the article in question brings up that men not crying is a relatively recent thing, and seems to be largely cultural, assuming that it must be caused by testosterone (rather than just socialisation) seems unwarranted (and, given that it disagrees with observation, unscientific).

We detached this from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10218815 and marked it off-topic for trolling.