<div class="text-justify">

I had an interesting discussion with a psychologist today about mental health, the breakdown of communities and the grown trend of "toxic masculinity". And I think that there is a pretty good reason as to why these things are connected and general wellbeing is degrading. There are many factors involved, but here I will propose what I think is a major one.

> So let's see what you think of my theory.

---

![image.png](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/tarazkp/23tw3hCjaH5LNVPmsWLTCdeVM65QQ7h6we24GmM5xxVtg1AMxBVPNFWQrZoHGQ8WKAsFW.png)

---

There has been a trend over the last decade or so of men moving to the extremes of misogyny, as represented by social influencers like Andrew Tate. But, as I see it, the Andrew Tate's of the world and the growing interest in that type of thinking, is a response to changes in culture. Many see this as a reaction of men being minimised by society, as women have become more independent and self-sufficient, making men feel less relevant, and no longer in the position of power, but I don't think this is the reason for many, or at least, I think it is another symptom.

Because simultaneously over the last few decades, men have been encouraged and often coerced into getting more in touch with their emotional side, their "feminine" side, and open up, be vulnerable, express their needs and wants and be honest with the way they feel in the moment. This is great, right? The problem is, in order for someone to be able to do that healthily, they need a supportive shoulder on the other side, and while men have been *trained* to be more emotional, women have not been trained on being the emotional support for men. 

Let me illustrate through an obscure example here. Finland survived against Russia through the winter war repelling Russian forces with professional and volunteer soldiers, and having about a 10:1 kill ratio. And since then, it is compulsory for men to go to military service and get at least basic training on the art of war. However, this doesn't really tell the whole story, because the reason the soldiers were able to fight so well, was because they were warm (the Russians were dressed for summer fighting) and they had supply of food and ammunition. The Finnish soldiers were warm because *Finnish women could knit,* and they were the ones working in the ammunition factories and doing a lot of the support tasks. My point is, that while the men are forced to do military service, very few Finnish women can do the *support tasks* that are *also required* to be successful.

> I know, it seems irrelevant.

But, men have been trained through many mechanisms over the last decades to be more open, to be more vulnerable, but they don't have the support to healthily process that emotional vulnerability. Sure, they could go to a psychologist, but the fact is that the most effective support network, is through social relationships, like in romantic partnerships and friendships, but the network isn't well established. Since forever, women have *generally* been the emotional ones, and the men the analytical ones - and this means that while the women were more accustomed to being vulnerable, the man was there as a support to listen (and often trying to suggest fixes, welcome or not) to the situation. 

>They were a shoulder to lean upon. 

But, in the modern relationships of today, few men have that shoulder when they need it. And in fact, for most men, when they have been open and vulnerable like they have been taught and encouraged to be by their partners, their partner has lost attraction for them, because the dependable man that women want to rely on, has become a vulnerable man with many issues. And because women have not been trained to deal with that kind of situation, let alone compartmentalise it so they are still able to maintain loving attraction (like most men do), the man gets left unsupported in an emotionally vulnerable position - and rejected.

> Men have been tricked?

As far as our hundreds of thousands of years of evolution are concerned, emotional vulnerability for men is pretty radical and it has happened incredibly fast. But, there wasn't a simultaneous push for women to "harden up" under these relationship circumstances, and instead they too are emotional and vulnerable, creating a lot of emotional energy, but no framework to support it. The "natural" reaction to this situation, is for the pendulum swing to the opposite extreme, where the Andrew Tate ideals reside. 

What should have happened is a simultaneous growing of emotional maturity on both sides, where men could learn to be more vulnerable, and women learn to be more supportive of emotional needs. Instead, men were encouraged to be emotionally more like women, and women were encouraged to be physically more like men, leaving an asymmetry. Yes, women can do more jobs that were once male dominated, but they haven't necessarily got much better at being able to support partners with emotional needs, essentially neglecting the needs of the people they love. 

And this is the problem with a lot of the social engineering, as while it can speed up the desired goal, like improved equality between the sexes or more women in the workplace, it also has unintended effects that could actually enhance some issues, or create new problems altogether. Yes, the "traditional roles" between men and women have changed, but the changes are at the cultural level, not at the genetic level. There are still differences between men and women, and how they *in general* process the world, as well as their expectations around romantic relationships. 

Women might want men to be more emotionally engaged, but they also want a man who can be relied on emotionally also. This is a precarious position, because society isn't setup to support both sides, in the same way that some of the runway into different careers still isn't fully set up for women to enter into male dominated roles. This doesn't mean that it can't change in time, but blaming men for not evolving fast enough, or not being able to succeed in an area where they are largely unsupported, is counterproductive - which is why many seem to be swinging the pendulum back - which is not going to work, as it will be met with strong resistance. 

What I am trying to highlight is that one of the causes for something like toxic masculinity, is a systemic problem with culture and the social structures we have built, as we expect them to deliver something they have not been designed for. And one of the reasons that so many men and especially young men might be turning toward misogynistic groups, could be because they are pushing back against a cultural ideal that they can't possibly meet, because there is not only little healthy support to reach it, the goal posts keep changing, and are always well out of reach. 

This is not a blame game about which of the sexes is right or wrong, because as I see it, it is in everyone's best interest to help everyone be better, and improve whatever tools will help them succeed personally and socially to add value to the community. It is very likely that it would help if men were more in touch with their emotions, but not in an uncontrolled way, because that leads to emotional outbursts, which can be incredibly damaging. Similarly, it would also likely help if women could control their emotions and become more supportive to encourage positive changes in others.

> It takes reflection and understanding at the individual level, to change at the cultural level well.

The biggest problem though is that we are human. And while we can change a lot about our thoughts and environment, the changes that happen at the evolutionary level are very slow indeed. In the last few decades, so much has changed radically from a cultural and technological perspective that has shifted our behaviours radically, but there is an expectation that we should have also evolved at the same speed. It is not possible. It is the same mistake that we are making with kids by putting a screen in front of their eyes as babies, and expecting them to grow up as intelligent, well-adjusted and valuable members of society, who are able to build healthy, loving, shared relationships and responsibilities with others. 

Just to finish this off, I want to make it clear that this is a reflection and theory that I have based on my own experiences in life. However, I also will leave something to think about to highlight my point about the environments we have built for social change. 

>In Finland, the summer is a few months long and the winter drops well below zero. 
What would you need to set up in order to produce fresh coconuts in Finland? 

My point is, if the climate and equipment aren't supportive of the desired growth, that growth might be impossible to achieve, no matter how many seeds you plant. With the right investments in the right equipment, it is likely possible - *but is the result worth the energy expenditure?*


Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]


---

**Be part of the Hive discussion.**

- Comment on the topics of the article, and add your perspectives and experiences.
- Read and discuss with others who comment and build your personal network
- Engage well with me and others and put in effort

**And you may be rewarded.**

---


</div>