Society sees the success of outlier men and concludes that men overall have the better of the lives.
The truth is that the majority of males in nature and in society, on average, has a worse lives because the dynamic of being a male causes a feast for a few and a famine for most.
Genetics gambles more with males than females because males can produce, rarely, a very large genetic return that females can't. This is easily explained by the rate limit of children for females but not for males.
This shows up in intelligence, strength, genetic disorders, etc. Male genetics are just more varied.
The average of mens lives, by rule, will therefore be worse for most and great for a few.
I know this is a sensitive subject but it would be nice to have a real conversation about it.
There's a lot of evidence that males are, on average, the more miserable of the sexes but their misery is ugly and ignored. They die sooner by suicide and drug overdose. They have less friends, and are more depressed. There's a lot of reasons for this but I believe genetics is at the core.
Society could help here by recognizing this and trying to push against it - promoting a more social man, for example. But the predisposition is here to stay.
Individually, I'd say being more compassionate and outgoing to those creepy/ugly/weird males is something we all should think to do. Society seems to give us a pass at being not nice to these guys. I certainly don't think it's right though I admit guilt at times here.
I don't believe men's genetics are more "varied" than women's. In fact I think that's the result of men being promoted more than women and in more disciplines whereas women are expected to be lovers, child-bearers, and live casual lives.
I do believe that it's much worse to be a below-average man than it is to be a below-average women, simply because people are usually more supportive of women. If you're a woman who isn't particularly smart, attractive, or talented, you still have the support of other women (who are usually more friendly) and men (who want to be your boyfriend/husband and take care of you). If you're a below-average man, nobody supports you - women just aren't interested (and you would be expected to take care of them anyways), and other men aren't interested because men are usually less friendly.
I don't think any of the above is very controversial either. In fact most people realize there's an issue with many many miserable men. The main controversy is how to fix this issue. Some lonely / ugly / socially-awkward men are really aggressive and dangerous towards women, and it's hard to tell which ones.
I absolutely agree with you that it would really help if men are less cold around other strange men and try to talk / learn about them. In fact there's not much reason not to be friendly towards other men, or to be scared of them. Unlike with women, a strange man can't necessarily overpower you, and he's unlikely to be creepy towards you, his interest is more likely to be genuine. The main issue IMO is that lots of men just don't care much about talking with strangers, and can't really tell when someone needs human interaction.
> In fact there's not much reason not to be friendly towards other men
I get what you mean here, but when I was a kid, I was friends with everybody. It never occurred to me to not be, until I found out that, especially as an adolescent, you're judged by the company you keep (by both boys and girls). If you're friends with a bunch of "losers", you're a loser too. That's a stigma you can't escape, either. I learned in my teens to be way more aloof than I'm naturally inclined to be as a survival tactic.
There's less teenage drama as you get older but in reality it doesn't completely go away: there are still people (especially women) who will avoid you if your associate circle is too unimpressive.
I've been a member of a "mens round table" [1]. The organizer was a friend of mine and wanted to include me because (from his point of view) I was doing alright in life [2].
While not the target audience the group comprised mostly young 20-30 yo men, who were searching for their place in life. Bluntly generalizing their problems revolved around insecurity and not finding a partner. Actually most of them dropped out after eventually finding somebody.
Surprisingly (to me), another major issue that was discussed was problems with parents. This expressed in different ways, but was mostly "why don't you have a job/wife/family/house/etc yet?".
[1] "We are not a support group!"
[2] Surprise ... I am not :-)
Your own link shows that meta-analyses consistently fail to reveal the various hypotheses presented under the "variability hypothesis" umbrella[1].
I say "umbrella" because the various researchers who advocate for the hypothesis tend to play fast and loose with which traits, exactly, are under consideration. Research shows that technical traits don't vary between natal genders? Move on to the next!
That is one piece of research that does dispute the claim among many that confirm it.
About that particular piece of research, the wiki article states (I don't know where to confirm it) "However, in the analysis the datasets from universities were discarded as they were considered possibly biased and insufficient. Instead only data from schools was used for the analysis."
This unfortunately is quite a political topic and, as such, research here can be politically motivated (for and against) so it is tough to break through the noise.
That is for high school students, at that point the ceiling is too low to notice any talents. Getting good grades in high school has more to do with consistency than anything else. They talked about university students, but excluded them from the study for a variety of reasons, so it is just for high school students and subjects.
The clearest statistics which (may) demonstrate this point are that 8% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women, and only 6.8% of incarcerated people are women. There are far more men in prison than leading successful companies.
It occurs to me that "men are socialized to be aggressive (and are rewarded for aggression, unlike women), and aggressive social traits translate well to both criminal and business enterprises" has equal explanatory power but is significantly more parsimonious than the variability hypothesis.
> Male genetics are just more varied. The average of mens lives, by rule, will therefore be worse for most and great for a few.
I don't understand how this follows.
If we accept for the sake of argument that men are more varied,
then shouldn't that result in more men doing exceptionally badly
or exceptionally well,
but men and women doing the same on average?
If the idea is that life is a winner-take-all game and
everyone but the most intelligent/conscientious/charismatic loses,
then that would mean that even more women than men would lose out,
because they're supposedly more likely to be average than exceptional.
It could be that men are playing a winner-take-all game and women aren't,
but I don't understand how that corresponds with our present reality.
It's true that men are capable of impregnating a lot of women at once,
and that might have affected the evolutionary development of male psychology -- but in Western societies today most relationships are monogamous.
So when we're talking about the happiness of present-day males,
I don't understand how it would be the outcome of a winner-take-all game.
Society cannot see anything, it's just an abstraction. Let's not confuse government propaganda with reality. The only people who might are 20 yo virgins with a major in STEM. Who should do themselves a favor and internalize all
heartiste had to say before https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29236676 catches up with them.
> There's a lot of reasons for this but I believe genetics is at the core.
We could blame estrogen and other sex hormones for making women prioritizing social behavior over other things, but my bet would be on culture. When genetics and environment meet, it is generally differences in environment that create large changes in behavior.
Looking back at the cultural outcome of world war 1 and world war 2, boys were molded to exist in their family until the age of 18. Then they were drafted into the service of the state, and if several years later they survived, form their own family and social life. Girls in contrast could keep their connection with their family, and thus was also expected to do that. This is the historical base for which our current culture is formed from, and while most military drafts are gone the culture has remained to some degree. Boys are still expected to "leave the nest" at early age, and girls are still expected to keep the social connections.
If culture expects women to be social and men to earn money and be independent, it doesn't seem strange that on average women will also be more social and men be more focused on earning money and be independent.
The variability hypothesis hasn't found much support, and some results show the opposite, that females may have more variability. Overall, it seems that variability is basically equal between males and females.
It seems that variability does vary amongst some phenotypes (height, for instance), but there is an equal amount of variability that shows females having it higher in other phenotypes.
I have a friend who is preparing himself for divorce and he is terrified of what may happen.
As I tried to counsel him a bit to help him down from the worry ladder, I thought to myself how scary it is that even despite our current point in history, divorce has rarely if ever worked well for men, and most of what I say to console him is likely meaningless comfort.
With all the problems in the world, worry is what kills the most of us. I manage it by only focusing on what I can control and by staying out of the spotlight of scrutiny and shame as a man myself. It's probably also the reason why I've chosen to not get married unfortunately as well to this day.
This is another reason we need to be fighting for economic reform. Divorce will never be pleasant, but ensuring economic self-sufficiency for everyone, at least finances will be out of the picture in these separations. Another way for us to create a society that supports men.
Funnily enough, this post relate a bit to my family's experience, despite not living in the US. The older male judges (and even advocates) debouting my father times and times again, the only attorneys willing to take the case being young attorneys from a lot less conservative area, and the only judge ruling in favor being a younger, female judge.
I've understood early that feminism was not about women but about gender perception.
> there was a space and place you could talk about your feelings. In the last, you know, 10 years or so [post-transition] I can’t find those spaces necessarily for men, and I don’t know if men necessarily make those spaces for each other.
I know that I am not interested in those kinds of spaces. I do not know if this is genetic/nature or cultural/nurture. Either way, I have zero interest in creating or participating in such spaces. I don't know of any man in my family, friend, coworker, or acquaintance circles who would be interested either.
But, I keep seeing these messages that there is something wrong with me for not wanting to create or participate in these types of things.
It's definitely not only his perception. Most men don't want to talk about their issues publicly with strangers, who might not even be health care professionals.
And I like to just point out that implying that it's just him is both humiliating and toxic.
I don't think the post is trying to assert that _every_ man requires such a place or time. You might have excellent coping mechanisms, or indeed are able to manage you emotions through other means.
However not having someone to help you through a tough patch, and allow you to express emotions other than dirty laughs and anger is quite debilitating in my experience
I don't think that the suggestion is that we gather formally in a circle and discuss our feelings. Or indeed act like stereo typical teenage girls where we gossip about other people behind their backs in a high pitched voice.
Just having one person to say: "This is hard, I don't feel like I can do this" and not have to brace for "AHAHAAAA WANKER" in reply, might be be of help to a lot of men.
I (a cis-gendered man) find it interesting how when sensitivity comes up, or the desire for spaces to talk about vulnerability comes up, certain people (often men) treat the suggestion as if it's a personal affront to them.
It's similar to how some people react to homosexuality as if it reflects on them. "What, there are people who are attracted to the same gender?! WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT ME!?!"
There are men who do like such spaces for men, but I've also seen how they can be challenging to maintain. There are a lot of feelings that come up for men, and a lot of toxic thought patterns and habits, as well as patterns that can come up around shaming others who may not feel the same way as the group.
I find also that directly talking can be useful and powerful, but so can community building alongside talking, such as participating in a shared activity- building, gaming, etc.
There's a need for both, and most of all, for men to feel valued just for being alive, not for any deed they perform or value they bring to others, just their intrinsic value.
The big issue is that the only spaces like this are either small, private friend groups (e.g. my waterfowl hunting buddies who occasionally get their martial gripes off their chest while out in the duck blind) or public groups/businesses/organizations that inevitably are forced to integrate and become co-ed by outside pressure (defeating the whole point). I disagree with the article's claim that the thing stopping male-only support groups from existing is internal toxicity. I think that external criticism, sometimes unwarranted or malicious criticism from those who have an ideological bone to pick with men's issues or men in general, is a larger barrier.
This seems like an instance of the fallacy where people sort of operate from the premise that men are basically defective women and that following feminine behavior patterns will be helpful for them. It’s sort of tied up with the notion of “toxic masculinity”.
When you hear 'toxic masculinity', do you hear 'the subset of components of traditional masculinity which perpetuate toxicity' or do you hear 'masculinity, which at it's core is toxic'?
Like you, I have never desired a space/time to just "let it all out" emotionally.
That being said, there are times I want to really dig deep on a specific thing that is troubling me and I usually just rely on a small cadre of confidants when that happens. And, stereotypically enough, those confidants are all men and we end up "working the problem" rather quickly after the initial exchange of describing how I feel. This, I'm told, is the exact opposite of how you're supposed to listen to someone's problems.
However I know that my personal preference is not universal and doing the 'listen and refrain from offering suggestions' approach is much more comforting for most people.
This is probably a part of it. It took me far too long to learn that my wife had no interest in solving her problems and truly just wanted to talk about them while I listened. I still don't understand why she, or anyone else, would consider that helpful, but for some reason she does. Like you, if there is an issue I just want to troubleshoot it and move on. There is no practical use in just talking about it without action.
> I don't know of any man in my family, friend, coworker, or acquaintance circles who would be interested either.
That's because they don't talk about it with you, because you're not interested. It's kind of like if you know any black or gay people or women, they've probably never told you of prejudice they've experienced. It's not an easy subject to broach. But, 100% chance, they have experienced it.
I don't think those kind of spaces would be particularly helpful or useful to me either, but when they do pop up in places (like Reddit), they get banned pretty quickly, so they're not available for the sort of people who do.
There's a spectrum to these things. I imagine that there's a small number of folks who want to sign up for a Slack or Discord with a name like: "Hey fellow men, come talk mental health issues." but I'm in some communities around tech/entrepreneurship where we've formed real friendships and can talk about things like grieving for loved ones, dealing with pandemic induced stress, ADHD, burnout, parenting, elder care etc.
It's not the focus, but having that "space" to vent and to talk honestly with other folks going through the same sorts of things is a benefit to all of us.
I think a lot of this is just friendship. Societally, men are reporting having fewer and fewer people in their lives to talk over important issues with [1] which definitely seems like a problem.
You don't need these spaces until you do. Crisis comes up fast, and such a community can be crucial. For some men I think it's just a small group of close knit friends, but for many it just doesn't exist.
I have a group of close knit good friends, but when it came to helping me with mental health in a crisis, they were all absolutely clueless.
Not harmful, but clueless nonetheless. To their credit, they tried to be either supportive or to avoid the subject, so it was at least a relief in that sense.
I chose to seek a professional therapist instead (which helped significantly after a few months)
> But, I keep seeing these messages that there is something wrong with me for not wanting to create or participate in these types of things.
I didn't see a single sentence in the article-- explicit or implicit-- that made me think the author would find something wrong with someone who doesn't feel the need to utilize such a space.
In fact I'm having a hard time figuring out what could have prompted you to write that sentence.
Digression-- for some reason it reminds me of a friend of mine who said when they moved into an apartment the landlord who was insistent about never putting noodles down the drain of the sink. My friend agreed he would never do that. Then one day when there was a leak in the kitchen sink he called the landlord, who immediately yelled back, "You didn't put any noodles down there, did you?" He assured the landlord that indeed, he had not put any noodles down the drain to cause the leak.
Anyway, I never found out what exactly happened with noodles and drains to cause his landlord to start any and all conversations with that directive. (It was an apartment complex near a university, so the equation most likely involves ramen plus a group of drunk college students.)
This article? No, but I see the same sentiment being expressed in lots of other articles that do say that there is something wrong with you if you don't want to sit around and just talk.
I think people who advocate for these ideas think they'd be useful for some men some of the time.
Much like having a footpump in the garage - you might not need it this day, or even this year. Some people will get through life without ever needing a pump. But if you need to inflate a tyre? You'll be glad to have it. And almost anyone can get a flat tyre.
No, there's nothing wrong with you. The world does not get to tell you that you have to talk about your feelings. If you don't want to, that's fine.
What's wrong is that, if you are male and you do want/need to talk about your feelings, there's no place where you can do it. That's not a problem for you, but for some males, it is.
I'm not sure about what the author (or you) mean by "a space and place". I'm glad to be able to talk to my friends or family about my feelings, but I neither want nor need something like a local LGBT association. I like to keep my feelings for myself and people close to me.
The obvious implication in this discussion, although it's unstated, is that not everyone has people close to them that they feel they can confide in. Maybe their spouse is a basket case and wouldn't be able to handle knowing work was going bad. Maybe their girlfriend has cancer and they know the complaining needs to flow in one direction. Maybe their friends are all slippery ladder climbers and would desert them at the first sign of weakness. You never know.
you dont want a place for men to discuss things? maybe you dont need it but others may. Even manly dudes still want to be able to talk through their ideas. Thats why we had people like socrates, aristotle and plato. Dudes got together to discuss their thoughts because it helped them think more clearly.
While I agree with most of the suggestions in the article: support racial justice, have better support systems for men, denounce and resist the tough masculinity expectations, etc.
I also can't help myself but point out that it is very bad to extrapolate from a sample of outliers.
There might be some lessons to learn from the experience of a few transgender men, but I'm not sure they speak towards the experience of cis gendered men or women, they most likely speak more towards the experience of transgender men.
> I also can't help myself but point out that it is very bad to extrapolate from a sample of outliers.
Try framing it like this: foreign correspondents. They are from your culture and are able to describe the nub of what its like to be in country x and watch them do something foreign to you.
because they have experienced both things first hand they are able to describe vividly and concisely the differences and attempt to find a cause.
It feels as though men are awarded so little respect and credibility on the subject of gender issues that the only way the enlightened reader could palatably sympathize with a man is through the lens of the transgendered. It's not as if men haven't been saying these same things for years.
> I also can't help myself but point out that it is very bad to extrapolate from a sample of outliers.
I don't think that's exactly what's happening here.
As an analogy, look at twin studies: they're undeniably based on "a sample of outliers" in a sense, yet they're also key tools in many sciences because the outlier-ness of the participants isn't [directly related to] what's being measured. Rather, it's an external factor that allows the experimenter to control for other factors that might otherwise be difficult or impossible to account for.
The accounts mentioned in this article are far from an objective result. Yet, who better to understand the differences between how men and women are treated in society than somebody who's existed as both? Assuming they "passed" before and after their transitions (a fair assumption IMO), they offer a unique and highly relevant perspective.
With all the modern political strife around these issues, which includes a lot of misinformation and misrepresentation, I think it's easy to draw certain lines between "trans" and "cis" people that may not have much basis in reality. I'm not trans, but it's my understanding that for many trans people "trans" isn't an identity in principle or practice. Rather, they are—for all useful intents and purposes—representative "members" of the genders they identify with.
> "What continues to strike me is the significant reduction in friendliness and kindness now extended to me in public spaces. It now feels as though I am on my own: No one, outside of family and close friends, is paying any attention to my well-being."
That hits close. That's how I have felt my entire life, and when I expressed anything else as a child I got "be a man". Now that I'm a an adult about to early retire, I'm thankful for that capacity to bear down and focus, but given my gout I wonder at what cost.
I’ve noticed a difference in strangers’ friendliness when I’m clean-shaven vs bearded. To the point where if I notice more negative interactions with strangers, I’ll shave, and it immediately gets better.
It's funny, I've noticed something similar but it varies on the looks of the beard, and isn't a binary beard/no-beard situation. If I have it too short, people seem intimidated, if I have it longer and less trimmed, people seem a bit more fearful rather than intimidated. If I have it sort of medium length, but in a nice shape, people are probably the friendliest. If I have a really long, like wizard beard, then a different set of humanity is more friendly.
I am a large burly man with a beard. I noticed right away that my interactions with people completely changed when I got glasses maybe 5 years ago. Way more random conversations with people in public. Way more friendly looks. It's very interesting.
Imagine someone mutilating your junk at birth and nobody taking offense or seriously believing that’s wrong, downplaying and mocking your concerns of autonomy.
…Welcome to earth little man, it’s only going to get worse from here.
That's a problem localized to a select few countries, luckily. Sadly, in some countries women still face similar (but often much worse) mutilations as well.
It's sad that these barbaric practices are still tolerated, but it's not exclusively a male problem.
It's true that certain things are tougher on men than women. Obviously the reverse is true to a larger extent.
However, I think "traditional masculinity" is mostly positive. Men are taught to deal with their problems on a personal level, suck it up, not blame external factors, and so on. Being tough is a good thing. No man is an island, but everyone (man and woman) should strive to be a promontory. Blaming society or culture or your parents or the world or God is usually not useful, even if it's true.
For these reasons, I find it a little disturbing when people start talking about "support systems for men" or when men are pushed to "be vulnerable and talk about our feelings". We have to thread a needle here: we should help people who cannot make it on their own but we also need to acculturate people to take responsibility for their lives, for their choices, for mistakes and failures. It's very hard to help people who struggle without making them weaker. One way it may be possible is for parents (and society) to be hard on kids while they're young but gradually ease up on them as they age. Being tough on a 5 year old is likely to help him. Being tough on a 30 year old who has mostly finished developing may just be cruel.
All this messaging, if it's to be of any use, has to come with some sort of challenge attached to it. For oversocialized professionals, "be vulnerable and talk about our feelings," is no challenge at all; they've been doing it all their lives. For these sorts, the discourse around mental health/modern masculinity arms them with an array of manipulative techniques and stymies genuine personal/social development. There is absolutely a need to cultivate sangfroid.
But I'm not sure how many men the above paragraph actually applies to. When you live online, it's easy to forget how, uh, primal the world can be for so many guys. I know people with good reasons to be happy, but due to some emasculating hangup (domineering father, absent father, bad dating history, height, etc), they view life through such a paranoid lens, seeing every interaction as some sort of competition. To them, letting one's guard down, stepping away from these masculine expectations, and being open about their fears still presents a legitimate challenge with legitimate reward.
This discourse seems tired because the demographic that needs it the least engages with it the most.
You make a good point. I'm more familiar with "oversocialized professionals" but the world is big and full of people, some of whom take masculinity too far. Hell, I read a Norman Mailer novel last week...
The problem is that traditional masculinity isn't traditional. I suspect that most people think of it as stoical silence. But I don't think thats universal.
Reading brideshead revisited(1945), the whole thing is stuffed with what one might would call "overly emotional men" but that same generation is marked as the "greatest" in the UK.
I really don't think its helpful to anyone to basically say: "here kid, you're on your own, if you can't solve it, we just keep quiet" Sure, discipline is key, but thats not the same as emotional repression. Its perfectly possible to be honest about your emotional state to someone, be stoic, self reliant and disciplined.
I think the big problem is that people think that masculinity is about repression of everything apart from getting sex and money. Any deviation is treated as weakness.
On the flip side, a woman with ambition, drive and leadership is treated like an anathema. Just as a man who cries in public.
The coin flips both ways and I can't find an argument for it being useful to wider society
This is a very interesting viewpoint! If by tough you mean teaching him to be self sufficient, to overcome his problems, to do the best he can totally agree. To use a concrete example teach him to tie his shoes, but don't do it for him. I think what is not good and what I have sometimes seen is parents yelling at a 5 year old for having his shoes untied or making some small error.
Completely agree about threading the needle. When I was young, men never talked about feelings. I grew up competent and successful, but also drank heavily to deal with anxiety. I didn't even know what anxiety was, that stuff just wasn't talked about when I was young. I agree though we can go too far and coddle people. This stuff is hard!
Being tough and self reliant is great. Those qualities are not abrogated in the slightest by being able to talk with others about your internal experience. You can help yourself by doing so and also help those around you in the process.
The goal is not to be immune to stress and trauma. That’s not really a thing. The goal is to be able to deal effectively with adversity and overcome it. Part of being able to do that is acknowledging that you’re not a robot and employing appropriate strategies. Discussing these things with people that share common ground with you is an effective release mechanism. Releasing pressure during downtime enables mental toughness and self reliance in critical moments.
> Being tough and self reliant is great. Those qualities are not abrogated in the slightest by being able to talk with others about your internal experience. You can help yourself by doing so and also help those around you in the process.
My experience is that, yes, toughness is abrogated by "talking with others about your internal experience". Internal experience is subjective. No one but artists can really share it and when we try, we mostly just whine.
> The goal is not to be immune to stress and trauma. That’s not really a thing. The goal is to be able to deal effectively with adversity and overcome it. Part of being able to do that is acknowledging that you’re not a robot and employing appropriate strategies. Discussing these things with people that share common ground with you is an effective release mechanism. Releasing pressure during downtime enables mental toughness and self reliance in critical moments.
No one is immune to anything. Being tough is a huge advantage and the way you make people tough is by being hard on them. "Being hard on" is not abuse. There's room for compassion and love. But, today, as far as my experience goes, we're too far on the coddling side of things.
I have not read this, but I really like the philosopher David Benatar. A book he wrote The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys may be interesting.
Readit News
The truth is that the majority of males in nature and in society, on average, has a worse lives because the dynamic of being a male causes a feast for a few and a famine for most.
Genetics gambles more with males than females because males can produce, rarely, a very large genetic return that females can't. This is easily explained by the rate limit of children for females but not for males.
This shows up in intelligence, strength, genetic disorders, etc. Male genetics are just more varied.
The average of mens lives, by rule, will therefore be worse for most and great for a few.
I know this is a sensitive subject but it would be nice to have a real conversation about it.
There's a lot of evidence that males are, on average, the more miserable of the sexes but their misery is ugly and ignored. They die sooner by suicide and drug overdose. They have less friends, and are more depressed. There's a lot of reasons for this but I believe genetics is at the core.
Society could help here by recognizing this and trying to push against it - promoting a more social man, for example. But the predisposition is here to stay.
Individually, I'd say being more compassionate and outgoing to those creepy/ugly/weird males is something we all should think to do. Society seems to give us a pass at being not nice to these guys. I certainly don't think it's right though I admit guilt at times here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis
I do believe that it's much worse to be a below-average man than it is to be a below-average women, simply because people are usually more supportive of women. If you're a woman who isn't particularly smart, attractive, or talented, you still have the support of other women (who are usually more friendly) and men (who want to be your boyfriend/husband and take care of you). If you're a below-average man, nobody supports you - women just aren't interested (and you would be expected to take care of them anyways), and other men aren't interested because men are usually less friendly.
I don't think any of the above is very controversial either. In fact most people realize there's an issue with many many miserable men. The main controversy is how to fix this issue. Some lonely / ugly / socially-awkward men are really aggressive and dangerous towards women, and it's hard to tell which ones.
I absolutely agree with you that it would really help if men are less cold around other strange men and try to talk / learn about them. In fact there's not much reason not to be friendly towards other men, or to be scared of them. Unlike with women, a strange man can't necessarily overpower you, and he's unlikely to be creepy towards you, his interest is more likely to be genuine. The main issue IMO is that lots of men just don't care much about talking with strangers, and can't really tell when someone needs human interaction.
I get what you mean here, but when I was a kid, I was friends with everybody. It never occurred to me to not be, until I found out that, especially as an adolescent, you're judged by the company you keep (by both boys and girls). If you're friends with a bunch of "losers", you're a loser too. That's a stigma you can't escape, either. I learned in my teens to be way more aloof than I'm naturally inclined to be as a survival tactic.
There's less teenage drama as you get older but in reality it doesn't completely go away: there are still people (especially women) who will avoid you if your associate circle is too unimpressive.
While not the target audience the group comprised mostly young 20-30 yo men, who were searching for their place in life. Bluntly generalizing their problems revolved around insecurity and not finding a partner. Actually most of them dropped out after eventually finding somebody.
Surprisingly (to me), another major issue that was discussed was problems with parents. This expressed in different ways, but was mostly "why don't you have a job/wife/family/house/etc yet?".
[1] "We are not a support group!" [2] Surprise ... I am not :-)
That's cool, that's cool. You believe what you want.
Question to anyone reading this: What (if there is any) does the research say?
I say "umbrella" because the various researchers who advocate for the hypothesis tend to play fast and loose with which traits, exactly, are under consideration. Research shows that technical traits don't vary between natal genders? Move on to the next!
[1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6156605/
About that particular piece of research, the wiki article states (I don't know where to confirm it) "However, in the analysis the datasets from universities were discarded as they were considered possibly biased and insufficient. Instead only data from schools was used for the analysis."
This unfortunately is quite a political topic and, as such, research here can be politically motivated (for and against) so it is tough to break through the noise.
I don't understand how this follows. If we accept for the sake of argument that men are more varied, then shouldn't that result in more men doing exceptionally badly or exceptionally well, but men and women doing the same on average? If the idea is that life is a winner-take-all game and everyone but the most intelligent/conscientious/charismatic loses, then that would mean that even more women than men would lose out, because they're supposedly more likely to be average than exceptional. It could be that men are playing a winner-take-all game and women aren't, but I don't understand how that corresponds with our present reality. It's true that men are capable of impregnating a lot of women at once, and that might have affected the evolutionary development of male psychology -- but in Western societies today most relationships are monogamous. So when we're talking about the happiness of present-day males, I don't understand how it would be the outcome of a winner-take-all game.
Society cannot see anything, it's just an abstraction. Let's not confuse government propaganda with reality. The only people who might are 20 yo virgins with a major in STEM. Who should do themselves a favor and internalize all heartiste had to say before https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29236676 catches up with them.
We could blame estrogen and other sex hormones for making women prioritizing social behavior over other things, but my bet would be on culture. When genetics and environment meet, it is generally differences in environment that create large changes in behavior.
Looking back at the cultural outcome of world war 1 and world war 2, boys were molded to exist in their family until the age of 18. Then they were drafted into the service of the state, and if several years later they survived, form their own family and social life. Girls in contrast could keep their connection with their family, and thus was also expected to do that. This is the historical base for which our current culture is formed from, and while most military drafts are gone the culture has remained to some degree. Boys are still expected to "leave the nest" at early age, and girls are still expected to keep the social connections.
If culture expects women to be social and men to earn money and be independent, it doesn't seem strange that on average women will also be more social and men be more focused on earning money and be independent.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050323124659.h...https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/anything-boys-can...
It seems that variability does vary amongst some phenotypes (height, for instance), but there is an equal amount of variability that shows females having it higher in other phenotypes.
As I tried to counsel him a bit to help him down from the worry ladder, I thought to myself how scary it is that even despite our current point in history, divorce has rarely if ever worked well for men, and most of what I say to console him is likely meaningless comfort.
With all the problems in the world, worry is what kills the most of us. I manage it by only focusing on what I can control and by staying out of the spotlight of scrutiny and shame as a man myself. It's probably also the reason why I've chosen to not get married unfortunately as well to this day.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/67xa50/why_does_cu...
I've understood early that feminism was not about women but about gender perception.
Dead Comment
I know that I am not interested in those kinds of spaces. I do not know if this is genetic/nature or cultural/nurture. Either way, I have zero interest in creating or participating in such spaces. I don't know of any man in my family, friend, coworker, or acquaintance circles who would be interested either.
But, I keep seeing these messages that there is something wrong with me for not wanting to create or participate in these types of things.
Men (I am a men) have sought out places to discuss feelings, feelings of apathy or tiredness, feelings of the expectations of society.
These places are called pubs, social clubs and I believe it's the basis of some "lodges" (as parodied in the stonecutters episode of the Simpsons).
These places would likely not exist if it wasn’t for this need.
Deleted Comment
And I like to just point out that implying that it's just him is both humiliating and toxic.
However not having someone to help you through a tough patch, and allow you to express emotions other than dirty laughs and anger is quite debilitating in my experience
I don't think that the suggestion is that we gather formally in a circle and discuss our feelings. Or indeed act like stereo typical teenage girls where we gossip about other people behind their backs in a high pitched voice.
Just having one person to say: "This is hard, I don't feel like I can do this" and not have to brace for "AHAHAAAA WANKER" in reply, might be be of help to a lot of men.
It's similar to how some people react to homosexuality as if it reflects on them. "What, there are people who are attracted to the same gender?! WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT ME!?!"
There are men who do like such spaces for men, but I've also seen how they can be challenging to maintain. There are a lot of feelings that come up for men, and a lot of toxic thought patterns and habits, as well as patterns that can come up around shaming others who may not feel the same way as the group.
I find also that directly talking can be useful and powerful, but so can community building alongside talking, such as participating in a shared activity- building, gaming, etc.
There's a need for both, and most of all, for men to feel valued just for being alive, not for any deed they perform or value they bring to others, just their intrinsic value.
That being said, there are times I want to really dig deep on a specific thing that is troubling me and I usually just rely on a small cadre of confidants when that happens. And, stereotypically enough, those confidants are all men and we end up "working the problem" rather quickly after the initial exchange of describing how I feel. This, I'm told, is the exact opposite of how you're supposed to listen to someone's problems.
However I know that my personal preference is not universal and doing the 'listen and refrain from offering suggestions' approach is much more comforting for most people.
That's because they don't talk about it with you, because you're not interested. It's kind of like if you know any black or gay people or women, they've probably never told you of prejudice they've experienced. It's not an easy subject to broach. But, 100% chance, they have experienced it.
Deleted Comment
It's not the focus, but having that "space" to vent and to talk honestly with other folks going through the same sorts of things is a benefit to all of us.
I think a lot of this is just friendship. Societally, men are reporting having fewer and fewer people in their lives to talk over important issues with [1] which definitely seems like a problem.
1 - https://www.jstor.org/stable/30038995
Not harmful, but clueless nonetheless. To their credit, they tried to be either supportive or to avoid the subject, so it was at least a relief in that sense.
I chose to seek a professional therapist instead (which helped significantly after a few months)
I didn't see a single sentence in the article-- explicit or implicit-- that made me think the author would find something wrong with someone who doesn't feel the need to utilize such a space.
In fact I'm having a hard time figuring out what could have prompted you to write that sentence.
Digression-- for some reason it reminds me of a friend of mine who said when they moved into an apartment the landlord who was insistent about never putting noodles down the drain of the sink. My friend agreed he would never do that. Then one day when there was a leak in the kitchen sink he called the landlord, who immediately yelled back, "You didn't put any noodles down there, did you?" He assured the landlord that indeed, he had not put any noodles down the drain to cause the leak.
Anyway, I never found out what exactly happened with noodles and drains to cause his landlord to start any and all conversations with that directive. (It was an apartment complex near a university, so the equation most likely involves ramen plus a group of drunk college students.)
Much like having a footpump in the garage - you might not need it this day, or even this year. Some people will get through life without ever needing a pump. But if you need to inflate a tyre? You'll be glad to have it. And almost anyone can get a flat tyre.
What's wrong is that, if you are male and you do want/need to talk about your feelings, there's no place where you can do it. That's not a problem for you, but for some males, it is.
do you wanna talk about it?
Dead Comment
I also can't help myself but point out that it is very bad to extrapolate from a sample of outliers.
There might be some lessons to learn from the experience of a few transgender men, but I'm not sure they speak towards the experience of cis gendered men or women, they most likely speak more towards the experience of transgender men.
Try framing it like this: foreign correspondents. They are from your culture and are able to describe the nub of what its like to be in country x and watch them do something foreign to you.
because they have experienced both things first hand they are able to describe vividly and concisely the differences and attempt to find a cause.
Dead Comment
I don't think that's exactly what's happening here.
As an analogy, look at twin studies: they're undeniably based on "a sample of outliers" in a sense, yet they're also key tools in many sciences because the outlier-ness of the participants isn't [directly related to] what's being measured. Rather, it's an external factor that allows the experimenter to control for other factors that might otherwise be difficult or impossible to account for.
The accounts mentioned in this article are far from an objective result. Yet, who better to understand the differences between how men and women are treated in society than somebody who's existed as both? Assuming they "passed" before and after their transitions (a fair assumption IMO), they offer a unique and highly relevant perspective.
With all the modern political strife around these issues, which includes a lot of misinformation and misrepresentation, I think it's easy to draw certain lines between "trans" and "cis" people that may not have much basis in reality. I'm not trans, but it's my understanding that for many trans people "trans" isn't an identity in principle or practice. Rather, they are—for all useful intents and purposes—representative "members" of the genders they identify with.
That hits close. That's how I have felt my entire life, and when I expressed anything else as a child I got "be a man". Now that I'm a an adult about to early retire, I'm thankful for that capacity to bear down and focus, but given my gout I wonder at what cost.
…Welcome to earth little man, it’s only going to get worse from here.
It's sad that these barbaric practices are still tolerated, but it's not exclusively a male problem.
Dead Comment
However, I think "traditional masculinity" is mostly positive. Men are taught to deal with their problems on a personal level, suck it up, not blame external factors, and so on. Being tough is a good thing. No man is an island, but everyone (man and woman) should strive to be a promontory. Blaming society or culture or your parents or the world or God is usually not useful, even if it's true.
For these reasons, I find it a little disturbing when people start talking about "support systems for men" or when men are pushed to "be vulnerable and talk about our feelings". We have to thread a needle here: we should help people who cannot make it on their own but we also need to acculturate people to take responsibility for their lives, for their choices, for mistakes and failures. It's very hard to help people who struggle without making them weaker. One way it may be possible is for parents (and society) to be hard on kids while they're young but gradually ease up on them as they age. Being tough on a 5 year old is likely to help him. Being tough on a 30 year old who has mostly finished developing may just be cruel.
But I'm not sure how many men the above paragraph actually applies to. When you live online, it's easy to forget how, uh, primal the world can be for so many guys. I know people with good reasons to be happy, but due to some emasculating hangup (domineering father, absent father, bad dating history, height, etc), they view life through such a paranoid lens, seeing every interaction as some sort of competition. To them, letting one's guard down, stepping away from these masculine expectations, and being open about their fears still presents a legitimate challenge with legitimate reward.
This discourse seems tired because the demographic that needs it the least engages with it the most.
The problem is that traditional masculinity isn't traditional. I suspect that most people think of it as stoical silence. But I don't think thats universal.
Reading brideshead revisited(1945), the whole thing is stuffed with what one might would call "overly emotional men" but that same generation is marked as the "greatest" in the UK.
I really don't think its helpful to anyone to basically say: "here kid, you're on your own, if you can't solve it, we just keep quiet" Sure, discipline is key, but thats not the same as emotional repression. Its perfectly possible to be honest about your emotional state to someone, be stoic, self reliant and disciplined.
I think the big problem is that people think that masculinity is about repression of everything apart from getting sex and money. Any deviation is treated as weakness.
On the flip side, a woman with ambition, drive and leadership is treated like an anathema. Just as a man who cries in public.
The coin flips both ways and I can't find an argument for it being useful to wider society
Is a novel, not a documentary.
Completely agree about threading the needle. When I was young, men never talked about feelings. I grew up competent and successful, but also drank heavily to deal with anxiety. I didn't even know what anxiety was, that stuff just wasn't talked about when I was young. I agree though we can go too far and coddle people. This stuff is hard!
The goal is not to be immune to stress and trauma. That’s not really a thing. The goal is to be able to deal effectively with adversity and overcome it. Part of being able to do that is acknowledging that you’re not a robot and employing appropriate strategies. Discussing these things with people that share common ground with you is an effective release mechanism. Releasing pressure during downtime enables mental toughness and self reliance in critical moments.
My experience is that, yes, toughness is abrogated by "talking with others about your internal experience". Internal experience is subjective. No one but artists can really share it and when we try, we mostly just whine.
> The goal is not to be immune to stress and trauma. That’s not really a thing. The goal is to be able to deal effectively with adversity and overcome it. Part of being able to do that is acknowledging that you’re not a robot and employing appropriate strategies. Discussing these things with people that share common ground with you is an effective release mechanism. Releasing pressure during downtime enables mental toughness and self reliance in critical moments.
No one is immune to anything. Being tough is a huge advantage and the way you make people tough is by being hard on them. "Being hard on" is not abuse. There's room for compassion and love. But, today, as far as my experience goes, we're too far on the coddling side of things.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007VJU7C4/ref=dbs_a_def_r...
I like his book "Better Never to Have Been"