The emotional response difference engine, this is the question ye wish to know? Aye, then.
(*Putting away facetious face, and putting on serious face.*)
Far be it from me to answer for other men, I shall put it this way:
Emotions are a part of the human make up. Good, bad, indifferent, irrational. Whatever. I don't "tear up" for a very good reason - I don't see a purpose to it. I can empathize with somebody else's situation, and can clearly be supportive/helpful and/or sympathetic, however, I don't see a need to get all squishy about it. Crying serves no purpose. It might make some people feel better, but it serves no purpose. This, by no means of the stretch means that crying is the only way that one either grieves or becomes saddened by something. Just because something is sad, doesn't mean one needs to cry.
Personally, I'm the "strong, silent" one. If people around me are all teary eyed about something, I'm not the one who is going to likewise become such. I will look at these people and say, "OK, they need to get that out of their system; I'm not one to judge."
I will, however, become emotional about honor, courage, sacrifice, other stuff - these hit me hard when I think about the personal integrity that comes from a person who is willing to give it all, in order to achieve, even if the whole part of that is purely reflex and a natural extension of that person's psychological profile. I don't "tear up", but I am moved. Watch the movie "Hero" with Jet Li to see what I mean (particularly his final scene in the movie.)
I understand that society tends to associate crying with females (and wrongly so, as males can/do cry when their emotions are just as overwhelmed). However, I still see no purpose served by crying.
(*Putting back on facetious face and removing serious face.*)
Why be sad?
Why so serious?
Why not accept that the Universe is a vicious turtle and move past that to the cookie?
Does this help? Or does it merely ask for more cookies?