I am a feminist and I am concerned about the male loneliness epidemic.
Can we PLEASE move this conversation out of either/or thinking and into both/and?
Scott Galloway recently went on the 5th most popular podcast in the world—Diary of a CEO—to discuss the male loneliness epidemic.
Scott is an entrepreneur who teaches business marketing at NYU. He is the author of The Algebra of Wealth.
On the podcast episode, Scott never outright says that the male loneliness epidemic is women’s fault, but he heavily implies it. He says fewer men than ever are in romantic relationships and men become dangerous and unstable outside of romantic relationships:
“Without the guardrails of a romantic relationship, men are just lost.”
“I had a girl friend when I was 24 who told me 'if you don't stop getting high every night, I'm going to stop having sex with you.' That was very motivating for me.”
“If a man by the age of 30 hasn’t either lived with someone or married someone, there is a 1 in 3 chance he is going to have a substance abuse problem.” - Scott Galloway
And why are so many men single according to Scott? It’s not because men don’t want relationships. Rather, its because women are far more picky romantically than men:
“The reality is that when you ask a man if you could have 80% of everything you wanted, 75% say yeah I’m on board. But when you ask a woman if they could have 80% of everything they wanted, 75% of women say no that’s not good enough.”
“A man of average attractiveness has to swipe right 1000 times to get one coffee.”
“The bottom half of men are literally shut out of the dating market.” - Scott Galloway
So men need romantic partners to thrive, but the women are all going for the same top 10% of men, leaving the bottom 90% partner-less and lonely.
Whenever something about men falling behind comes up, Scott finds a way to spin it to put the onus back on women.
When they are discussing how boys are falling behind in school for instance, Scott points to female teachers:
"Women can be excellent teachers..., but when you think about it logically, who does a teacher champion? They champion the ones who remind them of themselves when they were a kid... So there is incredible bias against males in school."
When the host talks about how important fathers are (“The absence of a father on a boy causes depressive symptoms”) and says that the amount of fatherless homes has doubled in the past 50 years, he asks “where are the fathers?”
In his response, Scott doesn’t mention fathers at all, but points to the court system, single moms and incredibly- the kids themselves to explain the absence of fathers.
“The courts make it difficult for a man to stay involved in their kids’ lives.”
“A lot of single moms just can’t keep a lid on their son. They can’t control him.”
“I have a friend who has recently gone through a divorce, two daughters, very much wants to be involved in his kids’ lives, but they are 13 and 15 year old girls and Dad wants to be involved on the weekends but quite frankly, they’ve got their own thing going on. And they don’t make dad a priority.”
It’s important to remember that this isn’t some red pill manosphere talking head, this is a self-described left-leaning man on the advisory council of The American Institute for Boys and Men, an organization hailed across the political divide as the leading resource for addressing the crisis men are facing.
This is an organization that Melinda Gates, in her mission of global gender equity recently gave $20 million dollars to.
This is an organization whose president, Richard Reeves, was one of the only men invited to speak at the Global Women’s Summit last year.
And while Scott acknowledged that boys need better male role models; again and again he pointed to women as both the cause of and the solution for the male loneliness epidemic.
Depending on what your algorithm knows of your age, sex and political affiliation, I imagine we would all get quite different results after typing “male loneliness epidemic” into a TikTok search bar.
Here are five of the top videos that came up for me as a liberal 40 year old female:
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
"There is no male loneliness epidemic, it is a loser epidemic. Men would rather be alone than evolve and change."
"Women are not the problem, they have just woken up and realized that they deserve better, that they don't actually need anything from these men.” - Ariya Bird
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
“The male loneliness epidemic is entirely self inflicted.”
“A lot of these dudes are undeveloped as people. You can't not put in any work on yourself at all... and still feel this insane entitlement to romantic interactions.”
“There is no law of the universe that says you are deserving of a girlfriend or sex.” - Topher Toro
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
“Do we have an epidemic of loneliness or do we have an epidemic of undatable men?”
“They are not financially stable, emotionally stable, mentally stable. There is no value. They are not bringing any value to the partnership which makes them feel isolated and angry and then they have to project that insecurity onto someone else, namely women.” - Nicky Reardon
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
“The real reason we have a male loneliness epidemic is because marriage was DEI for men. There are so many men who are single now when 50 or 60 years ago a woman would have settled and married because without him she did not have access to a bank account.” - Jade Beguelin
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
“I want you guys to realize that women have only had 50 years of 85% of our rights being given to us… Look how successful women are with only 50 years! 50 years!”
“Men have been raised to believe they are the smarter, stronger gender, but then you give the lesser gender 85% of capability and they are soaring. Now imagine what would happen if we had 100%.”
“The only way to counter that is to red pill it- to literally do what they are doing now.”
The consensus on this side seems to be: the male loneliness epidemic is a mess of their own making. It’s simply men’s reaction to the first generation of women whom they cannot control.
For centuries men were able to find both jobs and wives with relative ease1 since they sat atop society’s political, social and economic hierarchy. Now that they can’t find either so easily, they need society to stop what it’s doing, put its attention back on them and make life easier for them.
Women have evolved to their new environment. Now evolution is calling men to evolve, and men are saying “no thanks- how about our environment changes back instead.”
These men who refuse to change are therefore paying their Darwinian dues by not being permitted to pass on their genes.
The verdict seems to be: men are both entirely to blame for the male loneliness epidemic and solely responsible to fix it.
The discourse around the male loneliness epidemic is the perfect encapsulation of the gender war mess of this current moment in history.
No matter where it starts, every discussion turns into a competitive race to claim the ultimate prize: victimhood.
In one end of the ring, we have men, boomers and conservatives (generally speaking, with exceptions) fighting that men are the victims and women are the perpetrators. In the other we’ve got women, younger generations and progressives (generally speaking, with exceptions) fighting that women are the victims and men are the perpetrators.
Instead of working to solve the problem we spend all of our energy villainizing the other side. We are stuck in an endless loop of Karpman’s drama triangle. Round and round and round we go.
Friedrich Glasl—an Austrian anthropologist and political scientist wrote The Handbook of Conflict Management to provide organizations and individuals with support on preventing and resolving conflict.
His model for understanding conflict is called The Escalation Ladder:
This model depicts three stages of conflict with tension increasing the further right you go.
The rational level of conflict is where there is both disagreement and tension, but the two parties are able to communicate and work together to solve a problem.
At the emotional level, a conflict is more personal and intense. The goal shifts from problem solving to making certain that your side wins.
At the fighting level, the goal isn’t just to win anymore, but to ensure that the other party loses. Even if that means harming yourself in the process. The more the tension, the more the goal moves from problem solving to destroying the opponent.
I fear we have moved into this fight level with the male loneliness epidemic. At least in online discourse.
As per the descriptors under “fight level” in the model: Conflict as war? Check. Lose-lose? Check. (Almost) impossible to solve? Check.
The thing that is so frustrating, is that while this gender war keeps us busy blaming each other, we’re not blaming the actual perpetrator of both sides: the system of patriarchy.2
In this war of binaries if men are empathized with, women are not. If we admit women are victims that means men are not. Any petition for both/and thinking is diminished as a mere vote for the opposing side.
For instance if you were to comment on one of the above TikToks that you do see male suffering as real and valid and you are concerned about it- you would likely be labeled a male apologist and your opinion dismissed. Similarly, if you commented on the Diary of a CEO video that actually women have been systemically oppressed for centuries and aren’t responsible to be the shock absorbers for male pain, you’d be labeled a misandrist and dismissed.
Meanwhile, as we fight each other, patriarchy continues to fuck us all.
And listen- I’m not calling for increased himpathy with no accountability. I’m not saying we all cease our fight for gender equality to ensure that all the sad bois get laid immediately.
I’m merely asking for a little both/and in this hellscape of either/or.
I want less of “Either men are the real victims or women are the real victims.”
And more of “Patriarchy hurts women AND patriarchy hurts men and we can have compassion for both.”
Less “You’re either on men’s side or women’s side. You either believe in male pain or female pain.”
More “Is there a way to have less pain for everyone?”
With this goal in mind, allow me to articulate a number of both/ands to each “side” for a quick sec3.
My complicated feelings towards The American Institute for Boys and Men
I know better than to waste my breath trying to convince red-pilled misogynists that women aren’t to blame for all of their problems, but there is someone I would consider worthy of my breath who spends the majority of his time illuminating the societal victimhood of men- let’s talk about
for a minute.Richard is the president of The American Institute for Boys and Men mentioned above that Scott Galloway is an advisor for. He is often the cited expert whenever the male crisis makes the news. He has been interviewed on The Daily Show, NPR, The Guardian and recently The Nation did a viral profile on him called “Are Men ok?”
I first heard of Richard while researching for my article on why boys aren’t going to college. Who was this man who was quoted in every single article I read?
I must admit my knee-jerk reaction to Richard was to reduce him to a representative of male tears. But I will say, he’s grown on me.
Last fall, I critiqued Richard’s inadequate explanation of why boys aren’t going to college in my article.
Then Richard4 shared my article on his Substack and for a time listed me as one of his three Substack recommendations.
So I began reading his Substack and am regularly equal parts annoyed and grateful for his work in the world.
On the gratitude hand:
He consistently speaks out against the manosphere and misogyny.
He regularly points to the fact that black men are hit the hardest in the challenges men face.
He is a proponent of gender equality.
He rejects the gender war, holding that “we rise and fall together.”
Hell yeah Richard Reeves!
The best thing about Richard is that he saw a hole between the stance that blames all of men’s struggles on women or feminism on one side and the stance that men don’t have problems, men ARE the problem on the other—and he filled it.
Healthy spaces that validate male pain without demonizing women are few and far between. I’m glad he rose up to fill the gap.
Because of his centrist stance, he is routinely critiqued by both sides—he’s not anti-woman enough for the right; and not pro-women enough for the left.
But he tries to navigate discussions on gender while being pro-everyone and not anti-anyone in the midst of a gender war, which is difficult and which I respect.
On the other hand, watching Richard illuminate the many destructive by-products of patriarchal male conditioning without ever mentioning patriarchal male conditioning is unendingly frustrating.
I have very little confidence any of his solutions will ever be effective because he neglects to address the root of the issue.
For instance, one of his repeated solutions to the crisis facing men is for them to go into HEAL professions (Healthcare, Education, Administration and Literacy), but he never addresses WHY they don’t in the first place.
Men were in those jobs once upon a time, but they left as they became female-dominated because rule #1 of patriarchal male conditioning is to avoid the feminine. Those professions were then de-valued. Just telling men to go into under-valued female-dominated professions without understanding that patriarchal masculinity prohibits this is never going to work.
He says men are victims of changing societal structures like education, employment and fatherhood, but makes no mention that patriarchal masculinity is the engine that both formed and changed these societal structures.
Men’s patriarchal allergy to the feminine explains all of this, but is never addressed.
He calls for an increased empathy that men are so disconnected without ever bringing up disconnection is the very predictable result of patriarchal masculinity.
Men are socialized not just to be disconnected, they are socialized to be dominant. The answer to domination conditioning is not empathy- its education and accountability. Until patriarchal education and accountability are coupled with empathy, I don’t have hope that we will see any progress in the male loneliness epidemic.
If I was in charge of selecting a male to lead the discussion, I would choose Terry Real, who does manage to both validate male suffering AND point to actual solutions for their suffering.
His book I Don’t Want to Talk About It: Overcoming the Secret Legacy of Male Depression was written in 1997. Two decades before the male loneliness epidemic became a buzz word, Terry wrote a book all about why so many men suffer:
“We condition boys to repress their feelings, desires and ability to connect. It’s no surprise then that so many of them grow up to be depressed, lonely and empty.”
“Too often the wounded boy grows up to become a wounding man.”
Back to Richard. This article could be renamed “two things can be true.” So. Two things can be true: 1. If Richard Reeves really wanted to help men, he would need to address their patriarchal masculinity conditioning that lies at the heart of both their loneliness and their falling behind. And 2. If he did this, he probably wouldn’t have as many men listen to him as he does.
(because trust me, this is not a popular message among men.)
Anyway, despite my frustrations, in the end, I think Richard Reeves’s effect on the world is net positive and I am thankful he stepped up and filled in the gap he has.
Two things can be true: 1. Men are harmed by their patriarchal conditioning. and 2. Men cause harm because of their patriarchal conditioning.
BOTH must be addressed.
Two things can be true: 1. We can validate and care about male suffering, and 2. We can hold men accountable.
My complicated feelings towards those who preach that all male pain is their own damn fault
For how many times we say “patriarchy and men are not the same thing,” we’re still chronically conflating the two.
Patriarchy is a SYSTEM. Men and women are the people trapped in this system.
Blaming each other is not an effective way to dismantle this system. Education, working together, grace and accountability are better tactics.
But I get it. It’s understandable for women to not be overly-enthusiastic to come to the plate when asked to go to bat for more empathy for male pain in a world that for hundreds of years has run on women being the shock absorbers for male pain without ever acknowledging the toll this takes.
Here’s what I don’t mean when I say I am concerned with the male loneliness epidemic:
I don’t mean that women should suck it up and give it up because the men are sad and lonely.
I don’t mean male pain is either women’s fault or their sole responsibility to alleviate.
I don’t mean that men should bear neither responsibility nor accountability in their predicament.
What I do mean is that suffering is not a zero sum game. Just because we acknowledge men’s loneliness as real doesn’t mean men win and women lose.
What I do mean is that we should pay attention to bell hooks when she said that the great flaw of feminism is its unwillingness to look at male pain—preferring to see men as adversaries rather than potential co-workers in dismantling patriarchy.
"Rather than bringing us great wisdom about the nature of men and love, radical feminist focus on male power reinforced the notion that somehow males were powerful and had it all. Feminist writing did not tell us about the deep inner misery of men."
"The truth we do not tell is that men are longing for love. This is the longing feminist thinkers must dare to examine, explore and talk about."
“The reality is that men are hurting and that the whole culture responds to them by saying, ‘Please do not tell us what you feel.’”
"Many women cannot hear male pain about love because it sounds like an indictment of female failure." - bell hooks, The Will to Change
I have two sons in elementary school, one of whom is about to enter middle school. Mothering a boy just entering puberty, I am hyper-aware, maybe for the first time of just how short the window is for boys to move from being seen as cute, innocent children to being seen as a scourge on society.
At what age to they become culpable? Made to bear the sins of patriarchy? At what age do they move from being innocent little boys to being “toxic”? Is it 16? 13? 10?
Mothering two teenage daughters has highlighted this short window. I see the boys my girls were in elementary school with. I remember volunteering in those classrooms- laughing at the boys’ silly jokes and coy little smiles. But now just a few years later, if those same boys are going to hang out with my teen girls? I don’t see them as innocent cute little boys anymore. I suddenly want to know who they are following on YouTube, what video games are they playing, do they feel entitled to sex? Have they been red pilled yet?
The fact that soon other moms will be looking at my little boys with suspicion, trying to assess their potential for harm, saddens me.
How are we as parents supposed to cram in a full understanding of history, patriarchal structures, patriarchal masculinity and a full understanding of how to be a loving, intimate partner in the sliver of time when boys are old enough to understand such things, but not so old that we, as a parents, but especially as mothers, lose our foothold as the credible authority figure in our son’s lives to his peers and media?
All too often by the time boys are old enough to understand systemic structures, they have already gotten the message to discount any argument including the words “patriarchy” or “feminism.”
In her upcoming book, The New Age of Sexism, researcher Laura Bates has found that when you set up a TikTok account in the name of a teenage boy, on average it takes less than 30 minutes before the first piece of misogynistic content comes up.
And yet, once boys become men, we act as though they have a full patriarchal education and all the training they need to be caring, emotionally mature relationship experts and then are simply choosing not to use that training out of laziness or spite.
But as Terry Real says, the typical male patriarchal conditioning does not set them up with the skills to be attuned to the emotional needs of either themselves or others:
“Most heterosexual women are asking for more intimacy from men than we raise boys and men to deliver.”
“What we know from research is that intimate connection is what the human species is designed for, and it’s pounded out of our boys. Patriarchy hurts both men and women.”
“The essence of being a man is invulnerability, the more invulnerable you are, the more manly you are. The more vulnerable you are, the more girly you are. Guess what? What you learned as a boy will guarantee that by today’s standards you’ll be a lousy husband.” - Terry Real
This doesn’t mean women should lower their standards or take on the sole responsibility for educating men on how to be intimate, caring humans, but it does mean we should have some understanding that patriarchal conditioning is more to blame for men’s lack of relational skills than intentional callousness.
We don’t acknowledge enough that boys are both conditioned for loneliness and then blamed for it.
Men are harmed by patriarchy and then often faulted entirely for this system they are stuck in all without ever having been educated on the system that causes their suffering.
Not that a patriarchal education is in anyway a straightforward endeavor. This system that shapes their lives is never discussed anywhere boys hang out—not at school, amongst friends, in comic books, video games or shows marketed to boys. When and how to educate about patriarchy are issues riddled with potholes, and will take both men and women working together to navigate.
Regardless of the reason for the lack of education, we often treat men as if they are fully informed about the forces that shape their lives—patriarchy and patriarchal masculinity—but they aren’t.
In her book For the Love of Men,
interviewed hundreds of men about masculinity both publicly and privately. These men were all eager for a place to discuss their lives, but when asked “Tell me about how masculinity has affected your life?” over and over again Liz received the same response, “Huh, I’ve never thought about that before.”Once they got going though, they all had stories of the pressure to perform manhood from childhood to adulthood—in their home, at school, at work—they could never escape it.
They had just never thought about it.
For the Love of Men mentions a study that divided men into two groups- one braided rope, one braided hair, they were then presented with a choice to work on a puzzle or punch a punching bag. The men randomly assigned to braid hair overwhelmingly chose to punch the punching bag and did so more aggressively than those who braided rope.
The researchers of the hair-braiding study said,
"The most liberal, non-homophobic men in our studies were just as uncomfortable braiding hair as those who hold very traditional beliefs about gender roles... Men's anxiety about violating the male gender role is almost like a classically conditioned response.... when men feel less strong, they have all kinds of ways to compensate for it. And most of this isn't conscious or intentional." - For the Love of Men
Navigating life based on an inner patriarchal masculinity compass whose due north is always “be a man,” which is defined as “don’t be like a girl” wreaks all kinds of havoc on men’s lives and the lives of those around them, but this compass is often unconscious and invisible even to those who map their daily lives by it’s directions.
Two things can be true: 1. Men are victims of patriarchy which doesn’t train them to value intimate relational skills. and 2. Men should still be held accountable and responsible for how they treat people.
Two things can be true: 1. Women should not be expected to be either the sole male educators or the shock absorbers for male pain under patriarchal conditioning. and 2. Women can believe male pain is real and valid.
If we could move away from the blame game being the center of our activism, if we could communicate better across divided gender war lines, maybe we could see that we all want the same thing—we all want less pain.
Then maybe we could start focusing on educating everyone about this system that harms us all instead of focusing all our efforts on pointing fingers at our fellow victims of this system.
What are your thoughts on the male loneliness epidemic? What did I leave out? Are you concerned about it? Are you not? Are you tired of talking about it? Let us know.
And if you like talking about this stuff- please join us for our next Matriarchal Blessing discussion group where we will be discussing a boy very pertinent to this conversation- BoyMom by
in July on zoom by becoming a paid subscriber:Alternatively, you could also just pay me for my work just cause, that is also very cool and very appreciated! Thank you!
*class and race dependent. Particularly talking about middle class white men here.
I know, I know, rich coming from a feminist. But I’ve said before that I think it is harder to be a man than a woman, and that is entirely because of patriarchy. The problems that men routinely describe about their lives can all be explained by the system of patriarchy.
read: a pretty long sec
Or possibly an intern working for Richard.
My thoughts- has anyone talked to women in their 20s and 30s about how lonely they are? And how they want a relationship with a man?
There seems to be yet again media focus on how lonely the men are and nobody is talking to the women who have given up on dating because the men are crude and entitled and arrogant.
The women are lonely! They want a real relationship with a man who is a real person. I think I’ll probably die waiting for that article to be written or that story to be reported.
You know, this is a perfect illustration of why men need to step back for a while and let the women try their hand at being in charge. It’s not like we haven’t had our chance, guys, and look where we’ve gotten us: can’t get a date, can’t get a job, can’t get a clue. Reasoned, reasonable, rational explanations like this are invaluable in understanding how we got here and how best to move forward.
She gets it: life’s a journey, not a race. It’s easier together than opposed.
As for the whole “unfuckable” thing, it took some time and effort, but eventually I was able to see my own patriarchal conditioning to view women as kind of a housekeeping robot I could have sex with just might have had an effect on my past relationships.