Posted in Poetry

Boys Don’t Cry – a Poem

When I was a little kid
When I scraped my knees and cried
My grandma used to take me
In her arms.
She used to say
“Boys don’t cry”
“You’re strong, aren’t you?” She told me
Stories of brave soldiers
Who died for their country
And stories from history
Of kings who loved war
She looked proud,
“See, that’s a real man.” The night she died,
I was afraid to cry
In a hall full of women
All teary-eyed, until
I saw grandpa quietly sobbing
Alone in his room
So that nobody would know
How miserable he felt
And nobody would know
That he was able to cry
To feel pain
But he was still strong to me
Stronger, even.
I saw him speak to the guests
Without a crack in his voice
Without the glint of a tear
Maybe if grandma told him
It’s okay to weep
It’s okay to be human
To let the pain out
That you keep in there
If grandma told him
Boys cry too
And being a man
Is to be a human first,
He’d have felt a little less sad
A little more strong
And as a whole, a human.

Follow @apoetree on instagram for more poetry and write-ups.


I am a simple human. I see anything that is readable, I read. I feel sad, I write.

20 thoughts on “Boys Don’t Cry – a Poem

  1. There are cracks in smiles, and sometimes… no cracks are even seen in a frown, until a man is seen sobbing in a corner in his room.

    Men keep things well-hidden. They see the monsters in the closet, as not someone else, but themselves.

    Though, I think we tell ourselves not to cry, more often than anyone else. We tell ourselves to be hardened, to be strong, to not show fear, more often than another person has the chance to tell us that.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. This marks how deeply embedded is patriarchy, with so many years of civilisations. With all types of advancement ,the supposed role of men and women run in the so called common sense. This ought to end. Great message we are all human first.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Whatever “ends” by this, will be like the biblical “The Fall of Man” within Genesis. Many Feminists wants to expose a man and a woman’s guilt, for that is the only thing this movement does. It’s a machination that exploits a person’s guilt. How does it do this? Well… it does it, by telling off a man for what he’s done, and encouraging a woman for what she can possibly do.

      Men and women feel guilt in opposite scenarios. This, I have figured out.

      Men feel guilt for action, while women feel guilt for inaction. Men are shamed for their cowardice and negligence, while women are shamed for their bravery. Guilt and shame work as opposites. This is factual.

      Nothing will end of this, unless it results in men becoming slaves, once more. A slave is not a man, and not even worthy of death. A male slave, at that stage, is only a living icon of suffering. He would epitomize himself, at that stage, to be a replica of the past we so desire to forget.

      It is a truth that men only weep when alone, because to “mourn later” are the words that are said, when a man must lead a people forward will take priority.

      I only said, above your comment, that men tell themselves more often “not to cry” because that response, by men to hardship, is an instinct. It is not based on a teaching. It has not been educated to them.

      Any man who is told to not cry is merely REMINDED to not cry. This is because he already knows, within himself, to not shed tears.

      Tears, for a man, are both a curse for him and a blessing for those he is meant to lead and provide for.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The “whatever” taht ends by this is patriarchy. And this poem, that I wrote, is very simple. It says how a boy is taught from childhood to suppress his tears, and that is what will cause “The Fall of Man” just for crying nobody will become a slave. If you read the newspaper you’ll know who are the slave nowadays. However I respect your pov and you can believe what you find is worth it.


      2. With due respect, your take on guilt is interesting and yes the feminism in its beginning stages was about what has been done wrong with women, as I don’t need to mention or prove they have been exploited in every possible culture and generation. But later modern feminism accomdates all, we want justice for both men and women. It recognises that humans above all shall have the freedom to chose their social roles, a woman could be tough and not cry and man can certainly be delicate and cry. It opens possibilities for all to express in the highest form they wish.
        Also how we behave daily and how are we made to behave daily shapes our instincts in coming time.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. A choice has no direct relation to justice, because having a choice relates more to personal gain. Personal gain relates to the opposite of justice, being of vengeance.

        Above all things deemed as right to do in this world, it is when a person has absolutely no choice, is when they are correct in what they do. We can imagine it like a person who has a sick relative, and in their love for them, they say to themselves, “This is my responsibility. They are who I love, and because of that, I feel like I have no choice but to take care of them.”

        Therefore, one cannot associate justice with choice, without interpreting justice. In the interpretation of justice, we automatically side with vengeance. It is because the “interpretation” is defined to be a personal sight upon something. Now as that personal sight, it is divided from the whole. When something like justice, objectively referring to order and knowledge, is interpreted, it automatically becomes like vengeance, being of disorder and ignorance. In that, we have literally interpreted, meaning that we’ve taken a piece from the whole as our own meaning, from something that actually defines wholeness, being of justice.

        This means, that Feminism sides with vengeance, in the siding with choice. They cannot side with both choice and justice. Either a woman has no choice, and she sides with justice. Or, she believes she has a choice, and she sides with vengeance. There is no other path.

        And… about “shaping our instincts in coming time”… that cannot happen, in the change of people, because evolution does not work in that sense.

        Objectively speaking, human beings evolve by their surroundings remaining the same. Though, their surroundings must remain the same for thousands of years. Our minds have not evolved for a good 10,000 years, now, since our environments change so rapidly. Therefore, by some idiot saying we must “tear down social constructs”, he or she is really meaning that we must tear down each other, and never form unity.

        Love belongs to knowledge. Love belongs to structure. Love belong to construction. Vengeance belongs to ignorance. Vengeance belongs to disorder. Vengeance belongs to deconstruction.

        We are not ever influenced by a society. In fact, it is the opposite. We influence society. As in, we influence what our own human hands have created. To say what you believe must change, will again, result in the disorder and disarrangement of ourselves, as we have no control over anything. That is because to believe we can rip apart what we’ve created, means to disbelieve that it was humans who created those things. In the “tearing down of social constructs”, we tear ourselves apart.


      4. Wow, it is really actually refreshing because I never thought in this way. That we cannot deconstruct, and when we have no choice there is justice. Sir as much as I would like to explore this critique of feminism and like movements, I cannot help but remark it paints a really passive picture of human beings. Like beings who will do what they got to do when situation arises.
        Firstly justice in the very simplest form means giving everyone their due share. If women demand their share of opportunities, respect from that social pie, and you feel the pie is getting less for the other group, so it’s vengeance, no it’s not. It is their due share. Movements are often started by the group who has suffered so it is obvious that they will name their problem and ask for their share.
        As being justice when their is no choice, ah, that’s highly flawed. We decide we have a choice or not. Stating a classic example, 3 men in a boat, lost in ocean ,no food, then decide to sacrifice one of them. That can not be defended by justice, that was a choice to eat a person or not. Saying there is no choice is itself flawed because we decide that at the end.
        About that are instincts are natural and changing them will rip us apart doesn’t prove in the slightest that they are not flawed. It is also our nature to be better and change things in our notions of right and just. This makes human beings the highest evolved beings that have consciousness.


      5. You’re falling into every trap that I am laying out for you.

        Do you see what you are saying? Mentioning the example of 3 men in a boat, one gets eaten, and that was a choice, was exactly what I pointed out. It is always a choice to deconstruct, to destroy something or someone, as it is never a choice to protect those who we love.

        Choice deconstructs. Not having a choice involves protection, love, support, knowledge, and creation.

        Now… if you still continue to disbelieve in what I am saying, I will begin to believe that you think love is a choice. That, with who we begin to love, we “selected” them like slaves off an auction. I will begin to believe that you believe love and knowledge relates to reasoning and dissection.

        When humans love, they are lifting something. A choice will be the opposite of that.

        Here’s an example:

        A marriage. One is disappointed in their marriage. The other is content, though notices their spouse is discontent. How does the discontented spouse behave? Of course, they want a choice. They want freedom. So… they begin to list flaws in the relationship. They begin to side with reason and choice, in the matter that makes them want to escape such “confinement”. Would you ever believe, in the effort of a person having to take care of a sick and dying relative, that they have a choice in the matter? Sure, they could. Though, they’d inevitably side themselves with cowardice. For to love, would mean to be brave.

        If you want to compare this example to Feminism, then you must remember when women said they wanted “more than marriage and love”. They said that, and you cannot deny that. Women wanted out of the house, and into the career world. Thus, more choice, means more downfall, means more deconstruction.

        Here’s even a second example…

        The pro-choice, versus pro-life debate. How obvious can this be? Choice, on the debate’s side of abortion. Life, on the debate’s side of structure. It should be obvious to you, what with “pro-choice” being an argument for Feminism, that they desire deconstruction, downfall… whereas, for life’s sake, there is construction and knowledge.


      6. I see no point in continuing this. Because even our definitions or basic notions differ. We all have our opinions and we are allowed to have them. So yes I am going to stick with what I believe. Have a nice week.


      7. How on Earth do you think a person gains knowledge? Of course, it is through dismembering something, and seeing each individual part on the table.

        Science operates in this matter. Through objectively being irresponsible, science understands this of a human, and deems it worthy to aid people in their stupidities, or perhaps erase the idiot human from existence, altogether. It is that human irresponsibility creates the deconstruction. I’ve heard many a conservative make the argument against a woman who is for abortion, that she is simply irresponsible.

        How does it not make sense that the act of being irresponsible, equals the act of being ignorant, and that the act of being ignorant does not side with life, itself? For to abort an infant, means to automatically side with the ignorance and irresponsibility that makes up the desire to deconstruct something, once whole.

        And… that is actually how abortion works. The infant is literally dismembered, piece by piece, being as fragile as they are, like a building being torn down.

        If you want another example, I’ll give it to you…

        If a woman wants “justice for her body”, then it is, again, another relation to deconstruction. For it is the body that can only ever be deconstructed, as the love for the mind will be eternal. Memories live on, belonging in the mind, while the body will simply decay.

        Wanting “justice for the body” merely means, again, to have a choice. Though, what does the body feel? It feels pleasure. It is affected by human desire and human craving, relating to punishment, relating to the human act of choice and deconstruction. For the human form, when feeling that pleasure, only ever felt it because of punishment upon another human. Therefore, the woman who wants “justice for her own body” is actually, again, craving vengeance against those who did wrong to her. For she will punish, create the downfall to another, for cravings. And… you cannot deny that a woman feels these cravings so madly whenever she is in a certain stage of her menstrual cycle. I am merely attempting to comprehend a woman, here, as many men are stupid/cowardly in neglecting for the attempt.

        I believe a woman is used by the world, to make a world appear differently.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s