> Historic ‘stoic male’ personas existed for a reason.

What are you talking about here. "Historic male persona" differs between periods and places, but anger, friendships and happiness are basically always parts of it.

Odysseus "weeps" and "cries". The whole romantic era was about overly emotional, passionate and sensitive guys.

Homer predates the stoics by several centuries, so that makes sense. Though I do think Homer does make a solid case of traditional male ideals being fairly emotional, and this is something that persists to modern day.

Achilles in particular spends half the Iliad sulking in his tent, and the other half making shish kebabs out of the Trojan army on a tireless revenge-rampage where he's so goddamn angry he picks a fight with a river.

These types of characters are still written today, John Wick is something of a superficial parallel.

Though it could be argued that Achilles lengthy sulking is diva behavior, few would argue Captain Kirk is effeminate because he's more emotionally driven than Spock, who in many ways turns the stoic ideals up to 11. Likely because despite occasionally chewing the scenery with emotional moments, he is still ultimately in control.

(It's also worth noting that neither Achilles or Odysseus were likely intended as ideals, but rather tragic extremes, and Homer's works largely deal with the consequences of their personalities; the pride and rage of Achilles like we just discussed, the pathological distrust and constant scheming of Odysseus protracting his journey and being the true source of many of his countless obstacles)

Notice how I never said what you are disagreeing with, and if you read what I said, your question is answered?