And how does that make you feel?

It seems like every few months or so, someone will crack open the metaphoric can of worms that is men and their emotions. Since I have the requisite penis and emotions to the best of my knowledge, I feel qualified to unrepentantly voice my opinion.

Why the fuck do we need to fuck with this aspect of the gender role?

Yes, I am quite familiar with the frustration it can engender within women. I have heard the arguments that it's emotionally crippling, that it damages men to be macho. It is a known argument rife with examples of men behaving like meat-puppets.

The problem is that most of the arguments are be pursued by women. Men and women have physiological differences beyond the gross anatomical. The brains have slightly dissimilar structure, the areas of neurological activity vary, and internal chemistry tends to divide along gender lines. Therefore, I think it's specious to assume that both genders naturally handle the range of emotion in an identical manner. I do not believe the most efficient emotional outlets are universal of humanity.

In a large part, I believe that what is considered to a classically male demeanor was formed around such differences. For instance, the iron-clad "boys don't cry" expectation. Little kids cry, regardless of gender. But it seems that as the boys mature, the utility of crying begins to wane. It fails to purge as completely as it does for a girl.

There are times I have cried. There are circumstances when tears will start their migration down my cheeks to oblivion like liquid lemmings. Regardless of how wrung out I feel afterward, how unrestrained I let the emotions tear through me, I have never felt released by it. There is always something lingering that demands to be exorcised in other avenues. Crying has never given me a feeling of calm or inner peace. Tears have never granted me anything other than a release valve when the scope of what I am feeling exceeds my ability to express it. Weeping is a tool for me in much the same capacity that a tourniquet serves in a first aid kit. It buys me time to do what I need to do. Provided with a choice, I will choose a different emotional outlet than crying.

I have never once met a man who was able to cry easily and openly, with the exception of some gay boys, that was able to function as an adult. In my experience, they have exceptional problems holding down employment, rarely can maintain a relationship past the "honeymoon" infatuation stage, and generally lack the capacity to be personally responsible. For whatever reason, they display little to no tolerance of personal discomfort. When confronted by a situation that is not to their liking, they will either seek to have another resolve the issue for them or will leave. If they must endure something, they shut-down in emotional overload. In a work setting, it means they cannot handle pressure of any sort. In a relationship, platonic or romantic, it tends to translate to loyalty as long as everything runs smooth.

That is only one example of many, none of which formed in a social vacuum.

Since it is obvious that certain conventions surrounding how and what emotions a man is able to display in public came about from something, most cross cultural lines, and they have persisted, why would it seem rational to dismiss them as contrived? Would it perhaps be a better use of one's time to explore how they might be correct before expounding on how they are incorrect?

Just because something is inconvenient or can be taken too far, it isn't automatically invalidate it. Truth rarely conforms to what people think it should be.