My friend and I have a theory that a significant chunk of the problems mentioned in the article could be solved if every guy had a genuine platonic friend who is a girl. No data point other than every guy that I know who has close friend girls, never had problems with masculinity or something. And the opposite is true as well.
I might be in a very limited bubble as well, as my very close bubble of decade+ friend group is almost 50/50 guys and girls. We’ve also discussed this exact topic numerous times among ourselves.
> could be solved if every guy had a genuine platonic friend who is a girl. No data point other than every guy that I know who has close friend girls, never had problems with masculinity or something. And the opposite is true as well.
Feels more probable that it's the other way around. Those that don't have problems with their (toxic) masculinity can likely maintain platonic relationships with any gender.
I'll take the middle ground and say I think it's more of a vicious cycle.
Grow up in a dysfunctional environment and develop a bad concept of other people and of masculinity and it becomes harder and harder to break out of that as you age. Eventually someone has to do a lot of emotional work to support you while you figure out how to treat other people and yourself.
A lot of times I think if it's caught early by someone with enough emotional intelligence and a little bit of capacity to forgive you and tell you when you're being a jerk, you can break out of it while young and continue to maintain healthy relationships going forward. Alternatively you get more and more isolated as you age and no one around is willing or able to help you and you end up pretty bad off. I'd consider myself in the first group but I definitely know a lot of men who are in the second group, or at least on their way there.
Men's mental health is a big deal and I think it's only getting worse. I don't know how to fix it though
I grew up in a small, Midwestern town. Distinctly conservative. These same problems existed despite there being a more direct, simple conception of masculinity (and violence was, if anything, more normalized). Your position is a contemporary cultural lightning rod, but I’m not immediately convinced.
Do you think it’s a evolutionary competition thing where older men somewhat intentionally confuse younger males to slow them down in the biological competition for mates
Not everything in the world is there to “get you”. Men who have friend girls tend to have much easier time finding “mates” in my circles. Again no citations, just observations. And it kinda passes the smell test, as it’s so much easier to talk to opposite genders when you somewhat know what’s going on in their lives.
> pulverize young men with progressive dogma that vilifies them
Lol, having been a young man at one time, young men need MORE reality checks, not fewer. You have to learn that your actions have real consequences, that "pretty sure" isn't enough when there are real stakes, that "luck" and "fair" are meaningless, that you're not entitled to anything from anyone, and that you have to earn respect from people for them to take you seriously. If that's considered "pulverizing them with progressive dogma", then I'm all for it.
I think the progressive dogma is not "actions have consequences" -- dads have been letting their kids put pennies in light sockets for decades and pissing off the wrong person can get you punched in the mouth.
The problem is that that young men are told they are bad, not worthy, animals, sex crazed, not to be trusted, are likely to abuse children or woman, are less intelligent, are only worth their ability to provide, should not have emotions, should know (naturally) how to be good at physical activities, should be logical, and that they should not complain. Suck it up, buttercup. They are expected to behave like well behaved girls/woman. Sit quietly in class, don't make a ruckus. That is the progressive dogma I'm seeing and have experienced.
It doesn't help when people like you, CJ, laugh it off. "Suck it up, buttercup." For what it is worth, I know _zero_ men who feel they are entitled to a woman's body or whatever you have in your imagination. The closest to entitlement I see is men wanting a job and to be able to provide. You are feeding into the same dogma. There are real issues that drive depression and suicide in men.
> They are expected to behave like well behaved girls/woman. Sit quietly in class, don't make a ruckus. That is the progressive dogma I'm seeing and have experienced.
This is an astonishingly low bar, and not progressive dogma at all.
> I know _zero_ men who feel they are entitled to a woman's body
So what, the fact that you don't personally know a rapist is irrelevant. If a woman is sexually harassed or assaulted you can be 99.99% certain she was accosted by a man. If any crime at all is committed, 9 out of 10 times it's perpetrated by a man.
I had to start explaining to my kids at age 3 that they have to be super extra careful around men, and never go alone with a man anywhere. I have to explain that yeah, they can do very bad things to you, and there's almost nothing you can do back.
My girls have to live in, and navigate a world where they can be coerced by any given man, at any given time. So yeah, suck it up buttercup. Boys and men should behave like well behaved girls and women. Not sure what kind of Lord of the Flies fantasy you're trying to sign us all up for.
Who is telling young men those? Like I genuinely have never heard that outside of Twitter, extremely-online communities and your usual podcasts that are extremes on both sides.
> The problem is that that young men are told they are bad, not worthy, animals, sex crazed, not to be trusted, are likely to abuse children or woman, are less intelligent, are only worth their ability to provide, should not have emotions, should know (naturally) how to be good at physical activities, should be logical, and that they should not complain. Suck it up, buttercup. They are expected to behave like well behaved girls/woman. Sit quietly in class, don't make a ruckus. That is the progressive dogma I'm seeing and have experienced.
What progressives in particular are telling you such things?
I should’ve added growing up part. Like I grew up with friends who are girls and guys, and always had positive reassurance from my surroundings that it’s the correct way of doing things. But I agree, it’s like a skill in general — as I grew up with friend girls, I never had problems maintaining platonic relationships with either group of people.
One of your other comments in "Writing down unfiltered thoughts enhances self-knowledge":
> I started doing this like 3 years ago. Actually have like 30+ 100page sketchbooks filled so far. Keep meaning to catalogue it all, but I keep adding to it instead.
I think maybe you should actually speak with someone (actual professional therapist), you look like you're on a path to become toxic yourself. I'm not telling you this to mock you, it looks like this from your comments and you should probably get help before you still can.
I wasn't allowed women pals when I was with my wife, she saw them as competition, and I didn't have many growing up.
Since separating - I've met a few wonderful women who I'm still in touch with - one is my "bestie" for sure and we meet up to eat, I'll go round and play with her kids too.
My daughter and I are really close too - we go food shopping once a week, have done since lockdown, and it's amazing how much deeper conversations can go when your mind is concentrating on menial tasks.
I definitely feel more well rounded as a man these days, and it's not just age related, it's definitely helped me having women friends.
Ha, that’s actually great to hear! I genuinely enjoy hearing stories like that, making our tiny theory a bit more believable.
Regarding the jealousy of others’ partners — it is always a problem! According to my girl friends, we (guys in our group) come up pretty often in talks with their partners or new boyfriends. We try to overcome those problems by either introducing our significant others to the friend group as soon as possible, or exclusively date people who also have platonic friends of opposite sexes.
Obviously sometimes things go wrong, then we have to explain these people in very toddler-esque way (“Do you have any siblings of opposite sex? You wouldn’t consider that relationship romantic, would you? Yeah it’s that between us.”). Some people don’t buy it, but we’re kinda used to it at this point. But oh well, such is life.
That sounds really good - I'm almost 50 and amongst my guy pals we still have "lads nights out" and it's very rare for us to go out with partners, unless it's a dinner date thing happening - when I first mentioned I was seeing my pal, I would get some "oh, aye?" looks, but they know it's platonic now.
Sounds like it's working for you, hopefully we see more of this as things progress.
Because of her previous reactions I'll admit that I didn't communicate as effectively as I should have which didn't help - even though I wasn't doing anything wrong, it could have appeared like that - when you don't have the full information you can imagine every scenario.
I think this is just being around people with good emotional literacy. This is the core skill, and one that we don't teach. In fact society promotes toxic, reactive and non-reflective emotional handling.
We need better emotional literacy and self regulation. Women tend to be better at this than men on average due to western culture.
> My friend and I have a theory that a significant chunk of the problems mentioned in the article could be solved if every guy had a genuine platonic friend who is a girl.
I suspect that the causation might be reversed. In other words, men who women want to be friends with may have the personality attributes that allow them to express their masculinity in non-problematic and easeful ways.
I don’t buy that given I went to middle/high school in very backward-ass region, but we all managed to be friends. It’s something that needs to be cultivated from the early childhood. I agree that it is much harder to reinforce it later in life. Again, not a lot of data points, just a few looking at my other friends with no female friends. And the way my nephews are growing up and talking about girls in their pre-teen/teen years.
I guess I was thinking of adult platonic relationships, not those of children. As a parent I've seen that school is something of a special case: kids grow up together in a pre-existing school community, with some necessity to get along, and with adults (ie teachers) on hand to enforce rules. Quite different to the environment that most adults exist in.
I do agree on the necessity to cultivate friendship skills between sexes though.
I don’t think that’s enough. I think what you need is a close male friend that is really self aware to guide, a female friend to ground and most important a willingness and desire to grow and change.
I don’t think any close female friend would do lots of people both men and women are extremely not self aware
> No data point other than every guy that I know who has close friend girls, never had problems with masculinity or something
It’s possible you’re mixing cause and effect here; like, it’s not implausible that men with the sort of issues mentioned would have difficulty relating to women as people.
It’s good to appreciate that people can be really different. For me your suggestion is a catch-22. For me to have a _close_ friendship with someone I need to like them a lot. But knowing myself, if I like someone a lot I _will_ fall in love. As in, this has happened and not once.
My wife on the other hand is a direct opposite of that. From having discussed past relationships, I don’t think she even knows what falling for someone the way I tend(ed) to do even feels like. I know that she loves me dearly, but that’s the kind of slow-burning long-term kind of love.
So, thanks, but no thanks. Following your advice would wreck my life.
Not that I have any problem with masculinity though. I doubt anyone sees me as super masculine to begin with.
I think your comment is totally fine to be honest!
I used to be one of those people who believed that opposite gender close friendships are not possible, but then I came to realize that I’ve just been projecting myself onto other people. I know people who have close, long-term friendships like that, and it’s working out just fine! So, yeah, people are different!
I know that’s kind of the cliche, but - what is it, exactly, that makes it miserable for you? Is it just wanting something and not being able to have it? Why can’t you just date someone else who’s actually into you, and be just a friend to this person?
I’ve never had this cliche issue cause I’m a weirdo, and i think the best explanation I can come up for why it works for me is - i always think of relationships as friendships. My partner is my best friend because he has to be - I wouldn’t be with him otherwise, close friendship is the basis for a romantic relationship for me. And they don’t want the romantic portion, then the friendship is still there, and friendship is worthwhile on its own… I just don’t get the “it has to be all or nothing with me” mindset.
The smartest thing I read about the question "What does it mean to be a good man?" was that the question was wrong - it should simply be "What does it mean to be a good human being?" In my opinion, it's a much easier question to answer.
I think that misses the point a bit. It's an easier question, but it's also a different question. It's often easier to answer a question that glosses over the situational nuances.
Whatever your circumstances, whether you're a man, woman, something else; some of that is a given. It's not just who you are or who you chose to be, but the expectations and opportunities made available to us based on who we appear to be.
It is a relevant question to ask what is the best way of playing the hand you were dealt by circumstance.
I am yes. "Alone of the emperors, he gave proof of his learning not by mere words or knowledge of philosophical doctrines but by his blameless character and temperate way of life" -Herodian about Marcus Aurelius.
Of course he did. His “Meditations” are his personal journal - he’s giving himself advice. Sort of like telling yourself to be a good person and not just think about being one
Is that how native speakers understand this proverb? I always assumed "a good man" here is synonymous with "a good human", because that's how if goes in my language, and because it's the only way this makes sense.
I’m a native speaker and interpret “man” in this context as definitely male, and I’d be very surprised if any other native speakers disagreed with that.
I think it’s because “a good man” is quantified by the indefinite article “a”. Whereas “man” in a sentence without that qualification, e.g. “one small step for man” I would not interpret the same way. So, “a man” = a male human, “man” = maybe a male human, maybe any human.
I definitely disagree given that Marcus Aurelius was writing in an era where "man" in the written word was synonymous with "human", in any context. If you or I said "man" in this time period, certainly we would attribute it as you say.
"What does it mean to be a good human being" is more general, so a probably a little less easy to answer. With "How to be a good man" you can cater to a smaller group. Women and men have different needs.
Something being more or less generalised doesnt necessarily mean more or less easy to answer. In this instance, its much easier to give axioms to being a good person than it is to being a good man. Especially in this day and age where the very notion of being a man (or woman) is being brought into question.
> Especially in this day and age where the very notion of being a man (or woman) is being brought into question.
Some problems are specific to men or women exactly because our society has different expectations for men and women, so general advice good for one gender is not always good for the other. Example:
That question and answer both hurt my brain. What to do to be more appealing depends more on the individual person you are trying to appeal to than on what gender they are. Individuals are not fungible.
It seems to be less about the needs of each gender and more about the social expectations for each gender. I take the question as "what should a good man be doing", not "what does one need to be a good man".
Why do people pretend to do therapy to make money? If you can simply open a dude ranch and let people talk in a group during afternoon coffee break, why is that considered legitimate therapy? What's the difference between some dude with a dude ranch and a bachelor's in engineering and organizational psychology calling himself a life coach and someone with a PhD in clinical psychology who put time and energy into studying the science and getting vetted? Why is the spectrum so wide? Can I not simply start being a life coach ala Jeremy in Peep show, fuck with people's lives for 100£ an hour, then take the alcoholics anonymous cop out that the program works if you work it blaming you for any and all problems or difficulties you have along the way? If men need to go to some kind of dude ranch experience to connect with something that's fine I guess. Im not really talking about the men who seek these experiences. Moreso the ones who offer them.
The advice I ws given (by a pro) was that if you're thinking of therapy, you need to check out the therapist's credentials. In which tradition(s) were they trained? Are they in therapy themselves? (A therapist with active clients should be in therapy)
I don't think I'd consider group therapy on a dude-ranch run by a cowboy and a "life coach".
I guess the difference is in the severity of the persons mental health issues.
If you're otherwise healthy, but never learned or have been discouraged from doing "the basics" like talk about how you are feeling with your loved ones then you really just need someone to teach you how or perhaps just give you permission to do so. Maybe this is easier if you dress it up in a specific kind of setting, depends on the individual.
If you have some potentially diagnosable serious mental health issue, then of course you should see an actual trained clinical psycologist.
Sometimes you may not know which one you are, perhaps you go to the former and figure you actually needed the latter. Maybe you're happy with what you've done, or maybe not? At the end of the day you just have to try figure it out.
i guess your point is there is a spectrum of needs and a spectrum of solutions to fit those needs. I think my question is more like, why are the edges seemingly geometrically far from the center?
Because your friend may be too close to your problems to be of help, may not speak with candor to avoid harming you/your relationship, may be an active participant in your problem, may have no experience talking/thinking about your problem limiting their ability to offer useful feedback…
Without even broaching the diagnosis and treatment of mental health conditions, there are any number of reasons why paying a neutral third party to discuss your problems could be preferable than talking to a friend at a bar. Nor are they mutually exclusive.
Talking to anyone is pretty good, so you're not far wrong.
A counsellor or therapist has training - think of it as a mental toolkit - to help explore things with you. Depends on their exact approach but most of them wont give advice for example, they will just ask question or reflect what you say back to you to encourage you to figure it out yourself. Or they might look for parallels between your early life and current life, as most people follow repeated patterns in their relationships (or so the theory goes). At least 75% of their skillset is just listening and occasionally asking good questions which is an underrated skill.
There are many different flavours of therapy/psychotherapy/counselling and sometimes the adherents get quite religious about it (ask an integrative therapist what they think of CBT for example). But research generally shows that most 'talking therapies' are roughly equal in effectiveness and the main factor for success is the relationship between the client and therapist - i.e. whether they click. (putting aside for the moment the tricky questions about how to measure effectiveness of therapy - what does improvement look like? how do you have a control group?)
There's a thing called the 'Dodo Hypothesis' - that "all empirically validated psychotherapies, regardless of their specific components, produce equivalent outcomes" - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodo_bird_verdict
People heavily invested in a particular brand of therapy dont like to hear about the Dodo Hypothesis but broadly I think its an optimistic conclusion - talking to people helps, and if you find the right one, talking to a specially trained listener can help more.
> Depends on their exact approach but most of them wont give advice for example, they will just ask question
Because general advice is rarely useful in such cases, like you can see in almost all of comments giving advice in this topic. Most of them have at least one "yeah, but in my case...".
Bold of you to assume someone with significant issues has a friend, especially when friendship statistics (especially for men) are plunging through the ground.
Should've read the article. Tbh, this attitude is part of the problem.
To be as hard as the "Marlboro Man" (mentioned in the article) and require complete stoicism seems to have landed people like those described in the article in a place of pain. Not able to reflect on themselves or feel situationally aware.
I might be in a very limited bubble as well, as my very close bubble of decade+ friend group is almost 50/50 guys and girls. We’ve also discussed this exact topic numerous times among ourselves.