Men were just as depressed before, the only difference is now we admit to it.
And there’s this whole thing with correlation and causation.
In the midst of a million different other potential causes, they are identifying “masculine fragility” as the big contributor to depression? Not missing data points, not social media, not the momentum of societal change in the last 30y, not socioeconomic factors, potential comorbidities as contributors, increasingly inflammatory politics, globalization as a whole, …
It’s so dumb to single this out. Sure some people need more confidence, but being “more masculine” sounds like the worst plan ever to gain healthy confidence. If you have problems with your confidence there’s usually other factors at play and the most efficient way to improve is to seek a therapist and sort your life or your brain out.
Same goes for dating by the way. A million factors that are potentially contributing to that one, and that’s a two player game, so even more factors to consider.
This comment, hell this whole thread, is enormously insightful and productive. It feels like a genuine discussion of men’s issues that isn’t on the offensive as it often feels when masculinity is the topic. Thank you and all commenters like you who took the time to make a good point.
I honestly don’t see them. If anything I feel men are being forced to be more fragile, just to be more accepted and this has only backfired
Yeah, huge surprise you don’t see any of the toxic traits if you think men are being “forced to be more fragile” and that’s why you aren’t dating as much.
I agree with the effects you’re seeing but not the cause.
Women’s liberation changed how women are presented in society. It fundamentally changed what it means to be a woman.
Men never went through that. At the moment, we sorta can’t. If I were to create a “men’s liberation" group, it would quickly be taken over by Incels. Hard-core feminists would also stir up a fuss that this group was exclusionary to them. So we are kind of stuck.
Manhood needs to be redefined, because many of the classic male role definitions no longer apply. men can be sensitive where historically they’ve been expected to be stoic. Men can raise children when classically they have been breadwinners while the women raise children.
I think these are all great changes, but we haven’t been able to redefine manhood in the same way that the feminists were able to redefine womanhood.
I don’t have a good answer, we are somewhat handcuffed by the expectation to fulfil classic roles, along with new expectations to be more modern feminist-aware, sensitive men. The two are not compatible enough to make for a nice midpoint.
I don’t know if we have to make a societal decision to change the definition of manhood. I think just by accepting that men can be sensitive, and don’t have to be bread winners, more men will fill those roles (and not feel like they have to hide it). And as time goes on, the more men live like that, the more the definition of manhood will change in its own.
We need to free ourselves from the shackles of roles-past.
That’s what feminism did.
So what if I’m not the breadwinner?
So what if I cry at sappy moments in movies?
So what if I need validation for my feelings?
Society is still okay with pushing this onto men, and it needs a moment of unity to say “this does not define me as a man”
There are some good men’s lib groups, but they take diligence so that they don’t fall to the incels. The one on reddit was actually pretty decent (prob still is but I haven’t checked in awhile), and there are a couple on lemmy but they’re not really active
