If I can offer this from someone who does care about the pain of all humans - it’s not that we can’t see your pain or even empathize. It’s that right now our rights are being stripped from us, in dramatic fashion, and in a little over two weeks it could get worse.
Our pain is utterly ignored. Physical and mental pain are expected of us, and people are rooting for it. Men’s pain, while suppressed by patriarchy, is literally ruining our lives. All of that pain is being taken out on us.
So we can empathize. But women can’t center men’s pain right now. We just can’t.
So it’s great you are doing what you’re doing. I think more men need to be in therapy. Even my very evolved feminist ally husband took YEARS to agree to go. It’s a mentality I hope will change.
I agree with Kari. We see it. We can empathize. In my experience, though, most men *don't* see how it's hurting them, so what this sounds like is a kind of request that women do yet another unpaid, unappreciated task: helping men learn to see how patriarchy and toxic masculinity are harming them and teaching them what a better way might look like.
We're already having to carry too much.
Men need to take responsibility here and, as they begin to see the problem and heal themselves, help the men around them do the same. Men aren't going to change because a woman told them to. If this were true, the problem would have been solved a long time ago. Instead, most men only listen to other men. Men *must* be the ones to do this work, for themselves and then to help heal the men around them.
Yes - it's more emotional labor. And I think if you ask any woman who has men in her life - dads, brothers, sons, husbands - their needs are often centered as it is. Men are going to have to do the work on themselves. We can't be the ones to carry the burden of making them do it.
Hi Sarah! Do you read Jeremy’s article as a request for pity or for women to do more emotional labour?
I see this Substack as the work of a man who has done his own work (which he admits was too late for his first marriage), trained so as to facilitate others to the necessary work and is using his Substack to encourage other men beyond those he can work with personally to do theirs.
I think what he’s asking is for is just for women to lay off attacking him every time he talks about male pain and social oppression. If you want men to do their work, it’s necessary for them to see they they need to do it for themselves as well as for the benefit of women.
Actually, I read it as a request for information. Jeremy said he didn't understand something and asked for help.
I am helping.
I answered a question I thought was asked honestly and in good faith with my own honest, good faith reply.
If he wants women to stop attacking him, then perhaps he should consider asking a different question. Rather than "why can't women see men's pain," perhaps something more along the lines of "why do so many women attack me when I say things I think are good to say?"
But he didn't ask that question.
Are you sure that's what Jeremy really meant? He seems to be a pretty thoughtful person and I give him credit for saying what he means. Could it be that this is really your concern? That in your experience, when you try to get involved in these conversations you feel attacked?
“I think what he’s asking is for is just for women to lay off attacking him every time he talks about male pain and social oppression. “
Yes because women expressing their opinions is attacking. I am 100% sure no women are sending him death threats or threats of sexual assault like female authors.
this, exactly! most women have had an "i can fix him" phase or had fruitless discussions with their male friends ab how their alpha sigma macho guy act is not good for them and have recieved mockery for it. A lot of the time men even pretend to be soft or feminist in order to sleep with women or get something out of it. Besides, its tiring to show empathy for men as a class when majority of them will then go on to say smt sexist mean or condescending at best or to rape abuse and hurt other women. It's not inherent to male nature biologically or some bullshit.. i just find most men are not interested in changing, they're happy with the power patriarchy affords them. So from where im standing, it looks like men have accepted this bargain and are happy with the results and empathising w them is a fruitless endeavor especially when getting allyship out of it in return is so rare. I reserve my empathy for the men i know personally rather than men as a class.
This is such a helpful perspective, Kari! It's what I expected and it clarifies my understanding of my goal to create spaces for men to center our pain with the goal of connecting to the larger feminist movement. Thank you for reading and commenting!
Yes! I think creating spaces that center men with the purpose of understanding, healing trauma, and navigating the confines of patriarchy is so important. It's good work, and work that is valuable and needed. I think that will enable men to be better partners and fathers, and that will carry forward to future generations. It's going to be hard work, but we have to start somewhere.
Hi Kari! I hear you and acknowledge what you say. I’m not asking women to centre or carry men’s pain, and I don’t suspect Jeremy is either. I think what we’re asking is for a subset of rightly angry women not to attack us when we’re trying be on the same team - everyone vs patriarchy. Patriarchy just sits back and arches its fingers and smiles when some feminists fight against trans rights, or women fight men who are trying to be allies.
If what you need is for a certain subset of women to stop attacking you, then you need to be engaging with those specific women who do things that feel like attacks and working with them to understand what's going on there. What it looks like is that you're engaging with a number of women who are trying to answer Jeremy's question and asking us to stand in as proxy for other women.
As if we're interchangeable, maybe?
Can you see how this might not result in really positive, enthusiastic responses?
Yes, it will be much harder to engage with the women who only want to yell at you. In my experience, they're yelling because they don't feel heard. What a great thing if you could be one of the rare men with the patience and courage to really listen and work to understand them. Those skills are, I think, invaluable in tearing down the patriarchy. Maybe think of those encounters as an opportunity to practice!
I agree. This post isn’t asking women to carry or center men’s pain. When a man in Jeremy’s position, a man who is actively advocating and doing something about men’s suffering under patriarchy, is asking for women to see and acknowledge (not DO something about it or take it on as their own) I really don’t see it as difficult to do.
Hi Elizabeth - I see what you're saying, but I want to ask Jeremy - what IS he asking women to do? If it is seeing and acknowledging, I'm not sure that's not DOING something. Seeing and acknowledging is emotional labor. And emotional labor takes energy. Seeing and acknowledging when it's not reciprocated, or when the person you are seeing and acknowledging doens't see and acknowledge what you see themselves, then to see and acknowledge means either (1) helping them see or (2) being compassionate within a view of reality you don't share. Both of these are emotional labor. Both of these take energy. Both of these are exhausting if you're tired and burned out. I'd like to have Jeremy clarify what he's asking for. Maybe it will help the dialog.
Perhaps. I think it may depend on the context here, too. Are you acknowledging male pain in a general sense? Because if you are seeing it and acknowledging it without taking it on as your own, I don’t see how that’s emotionally burdensome. Personally, I don’t find it so. I don’t see why every acknowledgment has to be emotionally draining, which is what you and Kari and Sarah seem to be saying. I understand it’s hard for some women to do that, but I don’t see how that isn’t about personal boundaries.
I’m not trying to be cold, I’m a woman too, I just find it incredibly easy and almost a relief to see how men suffer. If they suffer too, then something can be done to change it. If they didn’t suffer, what could be done to incite personal change?
As to acknowledgment, I don’t see this as helping them see (that’s not your job), nor does it have to be seeing a reality to don’t share, it means to see the existence of something. And I don’t think suffering under patriarchy is a reality we don’t share, it very much is.
I suspect we agree on more than we don't. I do see and acknowledge men's patriarchy-generated pain when I can. Sometimes I can't because I'm not a man. I don't always know what is painful for "men" (as they don't always agree on that themselves). When a man articulates his pain with the patriarchy (which I agree with you and Jeremy hurts us all), I will happily acknowledge it--but honestly, only if he acknowledges that the pain is counter-balanced with privilege in a way it isn't for "women."
The catch is that most men do not acknowledge their pain. As Jeremy says in his post, he gets blank stares from lots of men. And if they don't, I don't see it as my job to see and acknowledge it for them beyond a perfunctory remark or two. I'm certainly not going to spend my political and energetic capital on it when I want to spend that capital on helping women.
I'm beginning to think this may be an argument about centering. Jeremy is a man. He works with men. He centers men. And men need to be centered to do a lot of the work he need and wants them to do with him. I applaud his work for this reason. I'm glad he's doing it and glad he's attracting men to work with him. So from that perspective, it makes sense that if men at the center of their pain do not feel validated by the women around them, or women in general, that is a pain in and of itself. And it would help us all if women would do that more.
AND men are so used to being centered that when they're not, many of them overreact and get triggered in ways that women (who are so rarely centered in a non-sexual context) find childish. Women who see these issues also see the energy they've put out (and still do) accepting the centering of men, and many consider entering a man-centered conversation an act of emotional labor they've done all their lives and have decided not to do anymore - to buy back some much-needed energy.
At least that's how I feel and how I read alot of these comments. I take your point that men's suffering may be necessary to create change, and I'm all for supporting men who want to do that work--like Jeremy. That support, however, doesn't include emotional labor.
So you're asking women to be less angry, to suppress their rage, and to be nicer because TERFs exist? And I am sorry to say, but right now, it doesn't feel like we're all on the same team. You also don't get extra credit for "trying" to be an ally.
TERFs (mercifully) make up a very small subset of women. They're just loud. Internalized misogyny is a result of patriarchy. Transphobia, homophobia, all the phobias. It all comes from the same structure. Women have been trying to change the structure for centuries. We need help in doing that.
I would also ask yourself what the real life consequences of being "attacked" by a woman are. Do you lose rights from that? Will you wind up dead? Will you die of sepsis in a parking lot?
The anger is right, valid and appropriate. Your whole comment is right. I don’t disagree at all.
You want to change the structures. I want to do that too. But on this Substack, and other feminist substack I comment on, I am repeatedly treated with abject contempt by people whose issues I largely agree with.
I don’t want women to be less angry. I’m angry too, about the way women, people of colour, LGBTQ+ and every oppressed person is treated by a toxic system.
I’m just asking not to be treated with the level of contempt I have received from some women.
I mean, I got told to “man up” by a woman in a reply to one of my comments on an other of Jeremy’s posts. 🤷♂️
Hi Clint, I want to jump in and say thanks for reading and commenting! I really appreciate your support of this project. I also want to clarify that it seems like we're looking for something different. I agree with most of what you've said in your comments. What I don't agree with is asking women to not treat us with contempt. I'm not looking for that. I mean, it would feel better, for sure. But I understand that I'm a man, and that so many women have been harmed by men and are justifiably angry (seems like you understand this too), and that we're having these conversations on the internet with strangers. What Dana said really clarified it for me: "Most of us women don't know what it's like to have a man hear and see our expressions of anger and allow them to be what they are." It's similar to my work with clients who've been traumatized (as we all have been). Holding space, listening, not taking things personally, these things often (but not always) lead to healing and then connection. That's what I wanted to do with this post and in these comments. I think us men who want to be part of feminist movements need to be able to do these things and handle the discomfort that sometimes comes because of the contempt you're naming. To clarify: My desire to explore why some women can't hear men's pain isn't to make them be nicer to me, it's to figure out how we're going to build a big enough mass movement to change the political and economic systems that are responsible for oppression and inequality. How can working-class men and women (and other marginalized genders) work together to build enough collective power to change our systems? Those are the questions I'm grappling with, and I realize now that I should've centered those in my post in the first place 🤦
Hi Clint - I'm glad you don't want women to be less angry. But it's super hard to be angry and compassionate at the same time. That's a shit ton of emotional labor. And I'm sorry that you've been subject to women who don't see your intention and don't bother to manage their own triggers when you accidentally trip over them. I know how that feels and it sucks.
I think what I would appreciate from you in the effort to be an ally is curiosity. Questions that demonstrate you're understanding that anger is a legitimate feeling, without regard to how it affects you personally.
Here's what's happening. All that anger is processing. It's a phase of "seeing" what we haven't seen and understanding the repressed emotions under it. Some of us will manage through it, and some of us won't. Instead of letting it trigger you, be curious and help us process by letting us EXPRESS what is inside us. That's much of what's not understood in this debate. Women's expression has been so suppressed (often self-suppressed because we've learned how to survive) that the mere expression of it is healing. And somebody has to be on the receiving end. When the receiver gets triggered and pushes back, it makes the person expressing-to-heal feel unseen, and they get more belligerent. They put more anger out in an effort for it to be seen and heard. This is hard enough in private 1-1 therapy sessions and relationships. It's really hard in public forums.
Most of us women don't know what it's like to have a man hear and see our expressions of anger and allow them to be what they are. You will do the women you want to ally with a huge service simply by listening, validating and not judging. You will help us not be so triggered by not being so triggered yourself and helping us believe men can be that way.
Because right now, most of the men I know outside a very few center themselves by getting triggered. They don't do the work to get untriggered and want the women to do the work to manage around their triggers. This is what's exhausting. And as I said in my own comment below, I don't have a fuck to give on that anymore. I spend my energy on those who help me heal and who I can help heal.
So, THANK YOU for being on the journey with us. THANK YOU for caring enough to show up and have this conversation. THANK YOU for engaging. I'm happy to keep engaging, but I'm not sure I want to do it on your terms.
-being called a cunt (I lost count of how many times I have been called that on the internet)
-being stalked
-rape threats
-having a man message me on Facebook and tell me that he wanted to murder my cats
this is a smattering of the responses I have received.
For what it is worth, I am not meaning to be contemptuous. I am just trying to foster understanding of why women aren't necessarily walking into these conversations with a plate of cookies and a smile. We may come off as prickly or defensive, but I assure you that is for a reason.
We have endured mistreatment - just for writing words on the internet! - for years now. This plus the current political situation means we just don't have a whole lot of room for caretaking. And in asking us to soothe what you view as attacks, you're also asking for us to do emotional work in a comments section of a Substack post. I'm not saying you aren't allowed your feelings - I'm just asking you to consider that misdirected anger from women doesn't mean they hate you, or hate men in general. I think a lot of women are having a tough time regulating their emotions, especially as this election approaches.
Cool, I've been sexually assaulted by women, my childhood sexual abuser was an older girl, when I tried to talk about my hangups related to this my first (female) therapist laughed at me. Is that enough oppression points for my voice to be heard?
Your main motivation is antipathy for men; you shouldn't be commenting here.
As a Black Male who has lived in the US his entire life:
You are full of shit.
You never cared, and to have a gaggle of White woman...the most coddled, catered to demographic in The West for the last 600 years whine about how your "pain is ignored" is so ridiculous on it's fucking face it isn't even worth debunking point by point.
I am not surprised by your comment. I've been waiting for the racial dimension to surface here. The same dynamic that's playing out on this post is certainly happening in racial discussions and spaces. Each wounded person and group is grappling with their version of the same pains. The pains are not the same, but they have similarities.
Black people have every right to look at arguments like this in a white-dominated space and feel it's insensitive to their plight. Because it is. As you say, white women are highly privileged in many ways.
And black men enjoy certain privileges of "maleness" that no women (including white women) enjoy. In this sense, intersectionalism hurts the debate because comparing people's pain fundamentally devalues everyone.
Personally, I'd love to learn from your experience in how these kinds of issues are handled productively in the spaces where you engage on them. Basically, we all suffer from WHITE MALE privilege unchecked. It would be nice to learn from each other about how to create change.
No, it's not correct to see "black maleness" as giving them some sort of male advantage which women don't enjoy. What you're perpetrating here is racist misandry.
Bluntly, you should be more empathetic. You think that you're being asked to be empathetic when you already are too empathetic, but you're not; women have less empathy for mens' problems than the reverse.
Actually, statistically women empathize with men much less than the reverse. Whether it's a matter of you *can't* or *won't* see our pain may be a matter of semantics. There's a lot of emotional labor that men do that people like you don't want to talk about because then you'd have to let up on the "menaretrashkillallmenmenarerapedemons" talk.
What state do you live in? Here in CA, that right is not being stripped from women.
That said you’re correct if what you actually meant was that women are no more capable of feeling empathy than men for a variety of reasons. All humans can feel empathy. Women simply exercise this ability more generally.
I’m happy to discuss emotional labor men perform. I am sure they do, there is just not enough of it that has the effect of making women feel safe in our society. Until that changes, this gap will persist.
Women "experience compassionate feelings" more, maybe, but it's not towards men. My point is that men spend more time caring about womens' pain and problems than the reverse, and it's very common for women to inculcate a callousness towards mens' pain, referring to anyone who does care as a "pickme" and so on.
The empathy gap is real, it's been well-studied, and it starts at birth.
At a certain point women are demanding an *unreasonable* amount of emotional labor, far more than they are willing to perform themselves, to feel "safe," while at the same time stoking their neuroses with true crime documentaries and shaming anyone who suggests that their purposefully spiraling their anxiety out of control. The feeling of safety has to come from inside; this is something men learn young, frequently as boys, as mother cuts them off from nurturance far earlier than it does girls, and shames them for showing anxiety.
I'm not sure you're making your point. You originally said "My point is that men spend more time caring about womens' pain and problems than the reverse, and it's very common for women to inculcate a callousness towards mens' pain..."
Neither of the links you provide come close to making this point.
The APA link is interesting, but it doesn't support your conclusion that mothers are "hostile" to boys' negative emotions, as you assert. It simply says mothers are "more favorable" toward girl's sadness and anger. Showing more support for girls is not the same as hostility towards boys. The conclusion also showed fathers showed no preference but it made no comment on whether fathers and mothers showed equal amounts of empathy overall. This study shows that mothers demonstrate more emotionally relevant behavior towards children than fathers "Although early studies did not find parent-gender differences in emotion discourse, more recent work suggests that mothers may participate more in parent-child discussions about emotion, exhibit a heavier focus on emotion, and use more emotion words than fathers (Fivush, Brotman, Buckner, & Goodman, 2000)." (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3082208/). So even if girls get more support for negative emotions than boys (as the APA study found), boys may still be getting more emotional support overall from their mothers than their fathers.
Here's another study that showed in a study of 57 countries that while in 21 countries the genders showed similar cognitive empathy, in 36 women showed more. In no country did men show more empathy than women. (https://www.voanews.com/a/are-women-more-empathetic-than-men-/6924270.html) Now these are averages. Of course some individual men are more empathetic than some individual women, and if you happen to be surrounded by unempathetic women and more empathetic men, it might appear to you that women are less empathetic than men.
I'm not denying that men are experiencing concerning levels of depression and other mental health challenges, and as the mother of two sons this concerns me. I agree that men need emotional support and that research should look at this issue. But I'm not seeing any evidence that women are the cause of this problem. . As Jeremy says, I'm more inclined to blame the patriarchy (which both women and men perpetuate) for shaming men from providing empathy to each other and for supporting men in gaining the kind of emotional tools and supports necessary to manage their emotions more healthfully.
I kind of feel like you answered your own question in the course of the piece - it’s not that we don’t care, it’s that the emotional labour of caring alongside trying to stay alive is exhausting, and constantly taking the time to show that care to people - many of whom continue to perpetuate stereotypes of patriarchy even when they think they’re trying not to - wears you down. Some days we are able to mask it and continue to make with the empathy and support…other days not so much.
When you’ve been raised your whole life to put men’s needs, wants and feelings before your own…and you finally find your voice and start to draw boundaries, someone asking you to make some room once again for that which has (knowingly or not) continually harmed you is a hard pill to swallow. It passes, the rage and the fight or flight dies down and we inevitably fall back into empathy again for one person or another…but I find many women are just not able to keep up that level of empathy continually any more. The mask slips, and sometimes even falls off.
I believe that the more things change, as men start to prove that they too are in it for the long haul, as they start to work together openly with women to build a better world, women will begin to feel safer letting their guard down enough in order to allow some more empathy back in.
But right now, it’s still too close to being akin to that partner who changes behaviours just enough to stop you leaving them. Anyone can toe the line for a little while to get what they want. What matters is how they behave when there’s no reward but self improvement or the betterment of things for others outside their own lot. That’s when the true growth begins, and that’s when the trust can start to be rebuilt.
James this is exactly the kind of attitude that makes us not want to bother. Thank you for proving my point spectacularly. If you yourself have been in a position where you have felt this exhaustion, your feelings are valid and should be addressed. But this isn’t about you, and minimising the lived experience of millions of women because of your own feefees is exactly the kind of irrational response that leads to question like “why don’t women care about men’s pain.”
You're not asking men their lived experience, however. You're only getting half of the story.
It's not just about me. It's about every man who has had to learn that the relationship is a space for his female partner to be vulnerable, but if he requires even a fraction of the emotional support she does he'll be mocked, ridiculed, or kicked to the curb. Meanwhile his partner has endless energy to support her female friends, family, whoever.
If it makes you not want to bother that's a failing on your part, from my perspective. If it just makes you feel viscerally uncomfortable to see men being treated with respect and compassion that's not something that can be fixed by phrasing things diplomatically; it's a fundamental difference in values.
That’s a whole lot of projection and generalisation going on there James, and I suggest you speak to a professional or some trusted friends about those feelings, because while they and your experiences are valid, you have brought them into a space where someone has asked women specifically for their perspectives about a topic, and instead of engage with them in order to understand what is going on from their perspective (which was the entire point of the original post and the questions posed within it), you’ve chosen to make it about your very specific scenario and bring the conversation back around to men once again.
I personally don’t have the emotional labour available to help you through this. But there are a lot of good men on this thread who might be able to offer what you’re looking for, or point you in the direction of someone who can.
Oh my gosh!! This guy is so not worth it. He is trying to convince you, you are somehow a bad person if you don’t take every second out of your life to emotionally open up to every man’s issues!?!?
He thinks it is our job to be the world’s mommy???
Don’t listen to this!! Your point was beautiful, and exactly explained my feelings!! Thank you so much!
If you don't have the "emotional labor" available to not feel outright contempt for men maybe you should just can it. You're making the world a worse place with your commentary.
I can absolutely see my husband's pain, which lives at the center of our marriage and has destroyed 90% of his relationship with his children, because their lives don't look the way he wants them to and he has no idea how to cope. Will he go to therapy? Of course not. Does he see my pain? He knows it exists, but he's kind of mad about it. I don't think he sees the kids' pain at all. And he is a good man, and at least some of his pain is legitimate; but he's built his walls so high and hugged that pain so close that very little else can get in. So, yeah, he could really use some therapy and I wish he would do it. But exactly how much empathy is required of me before he will? Is anyone ever going to pay any attention to the rest of us? (The kids and I go to our own counselors.). I have to save some energy for things I can actually do something about...
I'm sorry you're dealing with this, Jean. It sounds so, so hard and, I'm sure, hopeless at times. Thank you for reading the post and sharing your perspective. You really helped me feel in a palpable way what many women have to experience in relation to men's pain.
I think my comment is probably not that relevant to the conversation but it just came out of me, so there it is. Usually I am pretty locked down but something in here brought it up.
That's kind of you. I probably shouldn't have said it. And I'm so fortunate in many ways, it's just that this lives at the center of my life and I kind of hate it. I know I could quit, and so far I'm not willing to do that, so here we are.
Thank you. Something so central would affect anyone - it would almost seem odd if it didn't. At one point in my almost 20 year marriage I too built a wall of pain and isolation and refused to get help until the absolute last second. For me it happened when my partner quit pushing me and withdrew and was ready to leave. I didn't get it until then (didn't think she was serious, etc.) and had taken all the power in the relationship by retreating emotionally. I wish I was more surprised that 70% of divorces are initiated by women.
Thanks for posing the question. From a restorative justice perspective, it's hard to ask someone facing continued harm to find compassion for those causing the harm when the harm is ongoing. (and in terms of both policy and culture, arguably the harm is very much ratcheting up). We have to acknowledge the power dynamics here: who holds institutional power, and who doesn't? Who is the oppressor, and who is being oppressed? Yes, all are being harmed in the system, but is it fair to ask the oppressed group to feel empathy for their oppressor when the oppression is still very much alive and when threats to our physical, mental, financial safety still very much exist?
Meaning: we need more folks like you to do the work because its harder for us to. It's similar to racial equity work: the cost is higher on BIPOC folks to do the work of educating white folks, which is why its so crucial for antiracist white folks to step in and carry the work of educating other white folks (like @garrettbucks does with his barnraisers project for example)
Some women have also internalized this patriarchal message and have joined the boys' club. The women in my family among them.
As a woman who has discovered the Wheels of Power and Control after 37 years of being raised in a patriarchal household and having internalized a lot of misogyny, I am still also unlearning a lot of the toxic messaging. I felt my place was to be of service to men, like I witnessed between my parents. My dad and my brother were both emotionally abusive toward my mom and I. I was dismissed and devalued at every turn. Although I didn't like it, as a child I had to survive it. When I married, I thought I had chosen a safe, feminist, partner. In fact, I chose a much more covert abuser. Though I came from wealth and means, my children and I are now isolated. My family cannot and will not see coercive control as harmful. They have abandoned us as we have left my abusive marriage. I love men. I believe the best in people. And there is still no protection for those of us abused and endangered by men. As I face the court system, trying to protect my children, I have very little support. We now live in emergency housing while their dad lives in our family owned income property and we were forced to move from our family home as I agreed to its sale, not having been warned that if he didn't agree to the release of the money, I would not be awarded my portion of it.
The legal system is rife with abuses being leveraged against survivors. What I have learned about how our society profits off and is built on the backs of women is excruciating. You don't really see it until you are forced to live it. My perspective is that of an educated woman who had been isolated her whole childhood, and again in a decade of DV in marriage. I was prevented almost completely from validating my own experience.
To pull your head from the sand and truly know what has been done to you, by men, is numbing and gut wrenching. And yes, men are doing this to each other, and to women. My question for you is, why do you ask why women can't see men's pain? Why can't men see men's pain? And women's? Why are men expecting women to rally if they want change? If we rally, our children are harmed by their own fathers. If we rally, our bodies are attacked. Why aren't men rallying? In my understanding, to be close to power is often to enjoy the privilege it comes with. Proximity to power and privilege prevents many men, and white women specifically, from recognizing the oppression and exploitation of others. It was true in my case, until I found the relevant materials to truly know I could and should believe myself and other survivors. Some women can't see themselves as oppressors when they align with men. And while that IS awful, the oppressors are truly the men. Those women mostly don't know they have been lied to and coerced.
I'm an older cis-het-white dude finishing his MSW on a progressive campus so that I can help men. I'm in a tiny minority in my large program but can say with confidence that to the extent some women can't hear men's pain it's often due to their valid anger and disappointment with men. We are still very early in the process of achieving parity and reconciliation between the sexes and misogyny is still alive and well. I have been on the receiving end of my share of animosity and as uncomfortable as it is see it as part of the process of forgiveness and repair. Few women are really in the best position to center on men's pain right now - they are still actively experiencing pain themselves. Men can hear other men's pain more clearly. I will say that many times if I stay in conversation with women about men's pain long enough after they respond negatively they express grief for their brother or father's pain.
>I'm in a tiny minority in my large program but can say with confidence that to the extent some women can't hear men's pain it's often due to their valid anger and disappointment with men.
If you think this you need to stay the fuck away from the mental health field, especially as it relates to men and boys. You'll just become their next victimizer.
I think a lot about masculinity, especially in relation to the historical romance genre and in film, and in my discussions with people, usually strangers on the internet, but sometimes in person (if they don’t tune me out with eyes glazing over), the few reactions of negativity to opening the door to a conversation about how hegemonic masculinity hurts men, have been from women. It has always shocked me how quickly it gets shot down through women. They immediately close off, as if the idea hurts them.
I had a sociology professor once that said, if we want to understand white people, we need to study whiteness, the same way we do to everyone else, and I’ve always considered that applicable to men as well.
Men’s feelings, men’s experiences, we see them in media, we read about them in fiction, but we don’t really see or hear them. Because the male (mostly white, cis, heterosexual) experience is so ingrained as a wider culture, we talk about everything else around what we see except for what’s happening in the shadow self, the quiet, internal world that he’s been taught to repress, as not to be vulnerable.
I see the penis joke, or references to compensation of size as a way for women to comment on either men they see as weak or displays of men wanting to be seen I.e a truck (is it ever “just” a truck?) as a good way to point out how women participate willingly in demeaning sex jokes about men. When I’ve called it put, I’ve noticed how lots of women haven’t even thought about it before. Why would we use something someone can’t change about themselves as a way to insult them? It’s cruel, and it shouldn’t be so prevalent.
I guess I didn’t really answer your question, but to that, I think there’s a lot of self-righteousness (not necessarily based on nothing, but still not helpful) from women who have been deeply hurt by men in their lives, but this is where the tendency to generalize gets us stuck. Generalizations ie “men” can be useful, but sometimes they are harmful. They don’t help us in understanding each other on an individual basis, and that is where the conversation needs to change.
Maybe I didn’t really answer your question, but these are my thoughts!
Totally agree with Kari, Sarah and Lucy about why many women don't spend energy on men's patriarchy-generated pain. I would add this from my own consideration of these issues. I DO care and acknowledge men's pain. When my sons were born I spent many hours worrying for them as adults (when they were brand new) because I knew they would suffer at the hands of the patriarchy, and I work now to make sure they (as adults) know they have options other than carrying patriarchy-generated pain. AND, in my own work, I see the lopsided impact of patriarchial pain. I have devoted my life and work to supporting women in finding authentic ways to find success on their own terms within it. That takes all my energy professionally. Personally, I'm still dealing with the exhaustion and anger in my daily life. I've made a personal decision to allow my healing the time it takes, and what I find is that I am totally there for the men who acknowledge their own pain and mine. But for those who are blind to it, reject this truth, or are just uninterested, I don't have an emotional fuck to give them.
So most women are your biggest and vocal supporters, most men give you blank looks, and some women react negatively. But it's the small portion of women not reacting positively that really bothers you. I think if you just read what you wrote, this wouldn't be a big mystery. These women react negatively, you say, because men are the benefiters of the patriarchy and the concept of centering men further offends them. That's....That's it. I don't understand what the confusion actually is here. In your comments, you say that it's about wanting to know how to achieve as much mass towards political change as possible, creating universalist arguments to make the biggest tent. But, like, you do get that going "why can't EVERYONE just get along? why can't ALL women see men's pain?" isn't very helpful, right? In systems of oppression, there will always be a subset that is going to be unable to sympathize with their oppressor. Because even though oppresive systems hurt everyone, it does not hurt everyone the same.
I read a very good substack article recently about how, in the effort to recognize all forms of abuse, emotional abuse is increasingly stated to being just as bad, sometimes even worse, than physical abuse. The author, a woman who has been on the receiving end of many kinds of abuse, talked about how, as much as emotional abuse hurt, it is very much NOT the same as the primal life-and-death terror of a pair of hands strangling your throat or punching your skull. And similarly, even though men do suffer under the patriarchy, it is very much NOT the same as the life-and-death terror of not having legal bodily autonomy. There are always going to be some women who can't empathize with men being unable to fully express their emotions when they live in a much more primal state of fear for their lives and bodies. This shouldn't be a surprise, nor should it be something that confuses or dispairs you. It is an inevitable outcome of the system.
Focus on the majority of men who don't see the value in what you do. Not the minority of women. By your own admission, the majority of women are already on your side. Even if all women 100% ageed with you and no women ever said a single negative thing ever to you, how much would that really help your goal anyway? Focus on the majority of men.
I totally agree with this comment. Especially, “There are always going to be some women who can't empathize with men being unable to fully express their emotions when they live in a much more primal state of fear for their lives and bodies … It is an inevitable outcome of the system.”
I guess, reflecting on why I wrote this post, I hadn’t had this conversation in public before. I’ve had it with folks (including women) privately. I wanted to pull in more perspectives and learn from folks to clarify my understanding. I’m a little disappointment that more men are chiming in, which is really what I was hoping for.
Jeremy, I've taken some time to read more comments and more of your replies, and something keeps comming up. I think one of your biggest flaws in your arguments is a failure to properly understand intersectionality. We live in a society of many types of oppressive systems. Often, these systems overlap. Like a venn diagram, some people occupy a space where two systems overlap. Others occupy spaces where several types of oppression overlap. Where you frequently miss the mark is by acting as if intersectionality is like a point on a flat map where many roads meet up to a single issue. To you, capitalism is the seeming end point of all oppression and therefore we must defeat capitalism to fix all other types of oppression. It's not incorrect to say we must fight against capitalism. It's not incorrect that we must strive to change mass systems. The fight against capitalism (from a feminist lens) is the stage where we fight for maternity and paternity leave, universal childcare, free lunches for kids in school, ect. But sexism has existed long before capitalism, and capitalism is not the reason for ubiquitous rape, sexual assault, and intimate partner violence. There is the same amount of capitalism in states where women can obtain abortions as there are in states where women cannot. The fight against capitalism is a big fight, but it is not the only fight.
When you frame the ultimate fight as being against capitalism, you are able to put a wide gulf between yourself and men with political power. You can put a wide gulf between a handful of bad men and the rest of men. Notallmen, just the ones who are billionaires. I want to quote N S, the very same quote you used to open your writing, but I want to highlight what you left out.
"there’s something inherently unsatisfying about the idea that suffering for women happens at an individual/personal level but men get to speak about it in higher level terms as if it had nothing to do with them.
That’s the thinking that allows men to call themselves feminists and at the same time exploit their partners, family members, employees, and coworkers."
This what happens when you twist feminism into only being about capitalism. This is the problem with going "actually, most men really don't have power." Women mostly suffer at the personal level. They often suffer directly with their bodies. And it's not the nebulous construct of capitalism that harms them, it's individual men. It's a romantic partner, father, brother, uncle, cousin, doctor, teacher, religious leader, boss, coach, or someone else close and trusted. And individual men overwhelmingly harm women out of simple feelings of entitlement, not because capitalism makes them. And again, fighting capitalism IS important. I just think you fail to realize the limits of that particular argument.
Hi Lizy, I appreciate this follow-up so much. In fact, it helped me clarify my thinking about this issue and I want to write next week's post about it. I think you hit the nail on the head with my thinking. Though I have some thoughts about how, to me (and other socialist feminists), it's both/and. Men need to work on ourselves at the individual level to not cause more harm to the women in our life AND it really is capitalism that is at the core of the collective, systemic problem. I want to elaborate on that next week in a post, and I'll try to get back to this thread and share the link when it's live. I'll be curious your thoughts.
Is there a cruel, hateful, misandrist comment from a woman that you won't thank them for? How can men benefit from your practice if your message to them is "You are inherently a problematic, harmful being just for existing"?
If you want to help men, you need to treat them with respect, and your cheerleading for dehumanizing language towards men in these comments makes me think that your goal is being a good feminist boi rather than actually helping men.
Crenshaw cruelly advocated against black boys receiving targeted help for the fact that they are the least well served by the education system in the US. Intersectionality can fuck right off.
You realise this is straight from the patriarchy playbook? Blame women for not patting you on the back for the teeny tiny bit of work you're doing to unravel a system that still privileges you regardless of what you write or do. What do you expect? An award? A bunch of flowers? Sit in the discomfort, it's good for you. Feel the same way women have been feeling for centuries then move ahead with the work. But don't blame women for your pain, it's not our fault. This writing is way off the mark.
Thanks for reading and commenting, Jacqueline. If you're open to it, I'm a little confused about how what I wrote is blaming women for not patting me on the back. Could you explain that a little more? I get the concept, for sure. I just don't see how what I wrote in particular is doing that. I strove hard when writing it not to do that. I understand if this isn't something you feel like doing. And for feedback's sake, I'm not feeling discomfort reading your comment. I just want to understand better.
I actually think that you and Celeste Davis are asking two different questions. Your question - why can’t some women see that patriarchy is life-threatening to men? - is different from the question “how do we integrate our belief that people are good with the fact that they are hurting others?” Your question is about one side: why can’t women see men’s pain? Celeste’s question is about *how* to hold both sides. Another way to put what I’m getting at is: what about women who see men’s pain more than their own, who fall off the cliff on the other side of the tension Celeste identifies? I know plenty of women who only see men’s pain; I am myself very often one of them. I’m trying to learn not to be. Are you worried about those women too? About the ones who excuse the harm because of the humanity, even to their own detriment? We’re all falling off the cliff on different sides at different times.
If I can pose a genuine question in return: why do you care that some women can’t see what you’re doing? Do you need them to care and understand? Is there something you’re afraid will happen if they don’t?
Thanks for this! I hadn’t thought about the women falling off the cliff on the other side while writing this post, so I appreciate you bringing that in. I love your question. I think part of it for me is that I definitely have a part of me that is afraid of conflict and wants everyone to get along. That comes from my family, who push everything under the rug. I get thrown off and self-critical when people criticize my writing or disagree with my arguments. I’m working standing strong in my views while also accepting and internalizing others’ perspectives. I think mostly though it has to do with my politics. I’m a socialist who believes that mass movements are the only way to make the substantial change happen that we so desperately need. So I’m also looking for universalist arguments, trying to help build the biggest tent possible to take on those with substantial political, economic, and material power. I want to be part of a socialist feminist movement for multiracial democracy, and so it feels counter to that when folks don’t give me an inch (or at least it feels that way).
Your question: why do you think some women can’t see men’s pain?
I think the responses here in the comments gave some pretty good food for thought. However, I would like to raise you another question:
WHY are you asking?
I loved Ellen’s comment: “I've found it helpful to focus on the systems rather than the people, or groups of people. Patriarchy hurts EVERYONE. White supremacy hurts EVERYONE. Colonialism hurts EVERYONE. Capitalism hurts EVERYONE.”
I appreciated the content of your article - the way you called out specific statistics, shared some of your own experience, and highlighted feminist authors. However, it wasn’t the content of your piece that left me questioning. It was the context in which you centered the piece at all.
Could those exact words have been put in a context that centered more in the system we all suffer under? Words have power and I think an article wondering why people (in general) can’t see men’s pain would have landed better with me.
After all, are women the keeper of seeing men’s pain? NO. Plenty of men don’t see men’s pain. Yet, the title of your article wasn’t about why some men don’t see men’s pain. It was women. Why?
Overall, I don’t think it matters that some women don’t see men’s pain in the context of the oppressive systems we all live under. And I don’t think that conversation is productive to have, especially when there is so much important work to do.
If you want to converse over why men’s pain isn’t seen by some groups, then let it be about that! Better yet, why are there some (I would argue most) men who don’t see men’s pain? Why aren’t men working to better the system that causes their own suffering and far greater suffering of others? We don’t need more articles blaming, or calling out women for a system’s shortcomings - and a system that isn’t of their own making to boot, especially from a man.
I feel confident you are growth oriented enough to take all the feedback in, and I genuinely hope to see more articles from you that use your own experience as a man in a patriarchal society for the betterment of all (and not calling out why some women are “doing it wrong”).
P.S. I almost never interact with men (authors or otherwise) in this way (feminist or not), as I usually find it a lost cause and a waste of my time. I think the work you do is valuable and believe you will continue to grow in your understanding of the systems that really do hurt us all, and how to not further perpetuate that hurt.
Thank you for interacting with me. To be transparent, I feel like what I've done with his newsletter for almost two years is put the writing in a context of the systems hurting everyone. With this post, I wanted to try something a little different in the framing. I think I'm realizing through reading the reactions that part of me desires so badly that those of us without power relative to the rich and powerful can see past our different lived-experiences enough to come together and take power back for everyone. It hurts me so bad that the left can't make that happen and the rich and powerful keep winning more power. And so I think that pain is where this post (or the framing of it) was coming from. I want to be having these conversations beyond the people in my day-to-day life. So, thank you again for commenting and what you said makes total sense.
I agree that the system itself destroys people. But also, the system *is* people. And not just the few rich and powerful people at the top. It's in all of us, to a greater or lesser extent.
How would you destroy the patriarchy? What would you replace it with? How would you build that?
I am not sure I have clear answers to these questions myself, but my feeling right now is that the first thing I need to do is find all the places it lives inside me and dig it out. I might not be able to do that alone, so the help of friends and family also doing this work makes it easier. This, to me, is also how we build true community. We have to learn to trust one another and listen to one another and be vulnerable with one another. I see fear as the greatest tool the patriarchy uses to keep us divided, so we need to have the courage to see through that fear to the person beneath. And when I say we, I mean each of us as individuals.
For me, in order to make space for trust and vulnerability, I first needed to let all the rage and the anger have room. It's still there, but now I see it for what it really is: anger and rage are the voice of my pain. Now when I see anger, I feel empathy instead of fear.
Mind you, I still have rage. It hasn't gone away. But it's easier for me to see around it, and to know why I'm feeling it. And that makes it easier to do something about it.
Could this be a piece in the puzzle you're working on?
P.p.s. Also, if your goal is “looking for universalist arguments, trying to help build the biggest tent possible to take on those with substantial political, economic, and material power” - then it extra means you need to be asking the question, why don’t some men in power see men’s pain? After all, it’s a majority of men who have substantial political, economic and material power. Just some more food for thought.
Or even, why don't men see that they are in pain, and that they are not alone in this? I think the men in power aren't really in pain. They benefit. That's why they don't see the suffering of others. It's not their problem.
Such idealism makes my heart ache. I think that you are trying very hard to be a complete emotional being and we live in a culture that doesn't recognize such a creature. The question posed is a symptom of your struggle to bridge the gap between the sexes, bring a peaceful end to the gender war, but the gap is an illusion. There is no meaningful difference between genders, only window dressing. You can't answer for all the rape and sexual assault men do every minute of every day, why would any one woman be able to answer for the dismissal of the emotional pain endured by men? I guess what I want to convey is that you are looking up the wrong skirt.
Hi Jeremy. Thanks for revealing your worldview and how it's informing your work, including, I presume this post. If you have difficulty with conflict, and are working on standing for your views and learning to integrate others' viewpoints, you picked a great topic! You are a therapist and comfortable in people's private worlds. But you want to be part of a social movement. Those two realities are two very different things and the safety you can create 1-1 is harder very different in a public forum. But I suspect the same solution applies. You create a safe space with individuals by listening and being non-judgmental. Your post is being heard by many women here as judgmental and not listening. I'm not accusing you of that, but I think that's what's happening. I think we all support on some level what you're doing and the dialog you want to have. I think you can get a whole other post out of this if you want to. Please keep exploring these topics.
Reading this comment instantly calmed my nervous system down. Thank you, Dana. This makes so much sense. I'm trying to do both: the 1-1 work and the movement work. And it's hard. And things are very different in both. I'm now thinking of writing another post about this soon, integrating what I'm learning through the conversation. Thanks again!
Women are hyper vigilant now because our rights are being taken away. The solution to men's pain cannot come from women. Men like you need to help men. See the anger and pain of women and their rejection of men as incentive for men to change, not an obstacle.
I find these gender discussions very poignant. I am 71 and I dig very deep into my memory to remember what it was like before feminism was mainstream. I can tell you in 1955 that 'alpha' males were not the ones who married well and had successful personal lives. They were the men 'who wouldn't settle down', never married or had failed marriages. Society was very harsh in its negative consequences for them. Men today are being sold a past that never existed. That past was more restrictive for men, too. And the restrictions on women were ridiculous. I can't tell you how grateful I am that they were lifted in time for me.
Thinking in terms of hegemonic and subordinate masculinities, and engaging with global research into different styles and forms of masculinity, will take us further than a brute concept like *patriarchy*. My years of academic and cross-cultural research into men and masculinities (please - plural. There's no single form) have taken me from my 1980s use of the term *patriarchy* and the idea that all men have privilege over all women and into the idea that it's the *sex-gender* system that fucks everybody over. Intersectional and 4th wave feminism would concur. We have to be careful to keep the complexities in this very complex terrain. Here's a couple of things.
Thanks for commenting! I generally don't use the term "patriarchy" but did in this case because the inspiration was conversations with women who use that term. I usually use the term "traditional masculinity." I'm aware of the "masculinities" discourse and want to dig deeper into it. I'm not an academic and really try to write in the language that folks are using, while borrowing concepts from academics who are doing the deeper work. Thanks for sharing those resources!
This link is so old no one else may see this, but you've got a very serious problem with "Traditional Masculinity." However, as a deep history person, I would find that would take...a decade or more to somehow communicate to you. Today's narrative is well formed, but it's well formed to today's task, today's election or what not, and is sadly so unlike the deep, complex, historic truth it can scarcely be held in the same breath. The magic being, to explain the cartoon so it can be real, would require tenfold time, understanding, details, cultures, caveats... And who would do that?
We'll make local political hay instead.
But you can ask -- just when things are said -- flip it as the opposite and see if it holds. They say "1950 this": do we REALLY think that 99 1/2% of people were unbearably unhappy then? That's what's sold far as I can tell -- as a cartoon. ALL women were suicidal, Valium fiends. ALL were "Mad Men", ignorant, alcholoc wife beaters. Not a sane one among them! All children were miserable, never smiled, mental illness was worst in U.S. History!! And there are always people unhappy at all times. But the Mostest, worstest ever, that we should run screaming? I mean, compared to NOW? The people are referring back, pointing back, to this Oppression, great. However, THEY WEREN'T THERE. They have no idea any more than I do, (less actually) of how much of who exactly was perfectly happy or unhappy as they wanted to be. Yet that's the fulcrum of the arguments: a historic past of a generalized group, that actually, if you read a ton of ton of records, turns out to be pretty small, although I'll be hanged for it. They will just swap goalpost from "Bad thing x" once happened, so that therefore 1950 wasn't say, 70% good (while ours is 30% -- people have measurably never been more unhappy than now in history outside of war) because I dunno, crime stats in Boston were poor in 1957. If you were gay there were only like 3 bars per city for that. Know what I mean?
This, incidentally, is why *literally no man will speak*. Why bother? And I wasn't going to and in fact shouldn't since literally nothing good will happen except being set upon by flying monkeys. But some of the comments I've posted (as I'm new on Substack) were things like "Violence was always allowed and approved". Ask: Hey, um, my sense of history is that if a man killed a woman or child in almost any culture, in almost any era of the last 5,000 years, he'd be *hunted down and executed on the spot.* By other men. Joyfully. How do those two contradictions comport? It was so normal for women to be abused that men...saw it as unconscionable and stabbed them all... what? It an ONLY be rare and not done, OR it can be seen as normal, not both, you know? If they thought it was cool there's no blood vendetta to chase. But we know there was, through deep history through all the last centuries, to only 1940...up to right now.
That men have always been pigs, while the aspiration -- for men -- was chivalry, which was the DEFENDER of women, of family, of house, of honor, etc. Going back 1,000 years to 1,100AD in some form or another. That's the durn Viking Age. Men so abused women and hated the idea that it was THEIR OWN CODE, that they would gladly excommunicate, duel, die, and kill each other in defense of the wives, daughters, women of their family, women of their community, women of FRIEND'S community, women of the entire Western Catholic Church... Women you never heard of if you had time... Wait a minute, you tell yourself, hold on. Defending woman as a universal male code is the OPPOSITE of oppressing women as a universal male code. Which is it? NOT that abuse doesn't happen and people don't throw plates, they always have. But that's still a cartoon version, yet it's the dead opposite of TODAY'S cartoon version -- and barely, since that code was only erased since Feminism in 1979 or so. I bring it up because it's one I can easily transmit it and is consensus reality. Well maybe. It's being erased fast. Which cartoon would you like? Or the more nuanced reality, which will also conflict?
So an entirely false past -- delivered as a Myth to (modern) men and women alike -- is merely great fodder for a bonfire to get us all going. Not that there wouldn't be trouble without it, but I see in these comments another whole LAYER of hatred, abstraction, for things individuals never personally saw. Are not personally the victims of. ...And may not have ever happened. How can you be traumatized by something you never saw and never happened to you? Because a story?
So like any other therapy, you see one party say "They did that thing!" ...And you as a therapist, your job is to turn and say, "*DID* you do that thing?" Did that REALLY happen, and why? When they talk about 1900, 1940 -- or 1840 -- women were trapped at home. Okay, did you REALLY want the woman out in 30f weather in Liverpool, riding fishing barges, in coal mines in Cumbia, breastfeeding on one side because bottles hadn't been invented yet, or was being stuck at home actually the safe, WARM place -- not that there wasn't known and valued work there, (unlike today, it was, and desperately so) but about half the chance of being cut in two by the rigging? Then it looks like men died for centuries PROTECTING women with their very lives. ....And our forgetting that is really spitting on our fathers. Or even mens' intent now. As a Therapist, you turn, and you ask. Right? DID that happen? WHY did that person think that was the best, good thing, not "oh you pitiable, misguided, abusive fool". Right? BOTH points of view, and not just for your sake but so both parties in your office can hear it said out loud. This is my sense of history, which is a layer this thread is not directly about, IS relevant. I hear the historical grudge. But adding why men don't bother. Why bother comment to the women -- you see what happened -- nor to you either. What's the point? They'll go do something useful. As I should. You see me making only three points here, and that took a chapter's length. Being dismissive is easy and takes no time at all.
I was raised in a family that didn't acknowledge emotions, and therefore found it easy to be friends with men, since we had the same denial pattern. When I was growing up, girls and women who talked about feelings made me extremely uncomfortable. However, I wanted to be able to have women friends, and made myself become more vulnerable with my emotions.
So I have a lot of empathy for men, since they don't have the same kind of gendered peer pressure that girls and women do.
I think men who are emotionally more healthy make for a healthier society, so love that you're supporting men in this way.
Feminism can be interpreted in many ways, and the way I like best is the kind that allows all of us to be fully who we are.
Thanks for this post, and I hope you gain clarity from others about this important issue.
While I think there has been some very good insight in these comments. Jeremy, I do want to say that I'm sorry that some of them have been answering your question by doing similar to what inspired you to write the article in the first place.
While I do believe the question asked in the title does a good job of drawing people to read the article, I think it does not serve the article's point properly.
The subtitle of "Some women respond negatively when I say I'm a therapist who helps men" was the actual point of it and I believe that the title above it hits people in a way that makes them quick to gloss over that point and instead read this as yet another post accusing women as a whole of not being willing to help men at all.
I think that the comments are accurate to why many women can't or won't hear men's pain.
They simply don't have enough bandwidth for it.
They're tired and exhausted from so many other things affecting them, or from simply hearing and not being heard back. It does make me sad that this is the case, but I know from experience that what they describe is largely true, so it's also completely understandable that they feel this way. The issue I take with them is more the fact that you already very clearly covered this sentiment in what you wrote. You even point out that your issue isn't even with women as a whole, that many women support you in the work that you do, but there are also some women that are directly opposed to the idea of giving men any help, and from the way you describe it, even help from other men:
"when I tell people I’m a therapist who specializes in helping men... ...some women respond negatively to the idea that men need help. They say men have privilege and all the help we need already. They say we shouldn’t be centering men’s concerns."
So while women aren't a monolith, its a way for women in general to give you some insight on why these women in specific don't just stop at not having space for men's pain, which is reasonable, but go as far as to outright reject the idea that men need help or even suffer under the patriarchy at all.
Granted, I don't think that most of the women commenting here think this way. But I do think they misunderstand what you are asking because of the title and I can't really blame them for that either. So while I think the answers that you are getting here to this point are not actually answering your question.
On one hand they are correct, it isn't their responsibility to fix men. They have every right to center themselves and that does need to be acknowledged. While I believe that this functionally ends up with the blind trying to lead the blind. (As the men like us are only now recently starting to figure any of this stuff out) Ultimately they are correct, it's our problem to solve.
However, this doesn't mean that individual women that ARE able and willing to give space to men's pain under the patriarchy don't exist. And if they desire to help men, then why shouldn't they be allowed to should do so? In my interactions with feminist spaces online. There is a significant number of people within the space that genuinely believe that men's issues do not need any attention, not just from the women that can or can't give it to them, but from men either. And I think that like you, this saddens me greatly, because men do deserve to be free of the suffering that we experience under the patriarchy and a chance to be able to heal ourselves from the ways that it has hurt us.
As far as answering your question. I can only guess, but I tend to come to one of two conclusions. That these particular women are genuinely unaware that men's suffer under patriarchy, or are aware of men's pain, but feel that women need enough help that the goals of feminism is better accomplished by both men and women focusing on women's issues. I think that overall this is a minority within the movement. And even further there probably are a very small number that are genuine misandrists that have been jaded and hurt by men to a point that they would rather see men suffer than helped to become better.
I think we need ritual spaces for conflict -- this requires consent, preparation, and a shared ethos. As a culture we have no skillsets to ritualize conflict -- it all feels urgent and life threatening (and for many of us, it is!) When we can't ingegrate/initiate our shadows -- they come out in the real world as pathologies and violence.
I've also noticed patterns of relating that, when come from a traumatized place (both men and women) the conversation cannot continue. I wonder if for many men, it starts with deconstructing shame, because it makes it impossible on the nervous system level to listen to someone else sharing about harm. That's a whole different conversation, though. One I'm eager to have!
If I can offer this from someone who does care about the pain of all humans - it’s not that we can’t see your pain or even empathize. It’s that right now our rights are being stripped from us, in dramatic fashion, and in a little over two weeks it could get worse.
Our pain is utterly ignored. Physical and mental pain are expected of us, and people are rooting for it. Men’s pain, while suppressed by patriarchy, is literally ruining our lives. All of that pain is being taken out on us.
So we can empathize. But women can’t center men’s pain right now. We just can’t.
So it’s great you are doing what you’re doing. I think more men need to be in therapy. Even my very evolved feminist ally husband took YEARS to agree to go. It’s a mentality I hope will change.
I agree with Kari. We see it. We can empathize. In my experience, though, most men *don't* see how it's hurting them, so what this sounds like is a kind of request that women do yet another unpaid, unappreciated task: helping men learn to see how patriarchy and toxic masculinity are harming them and teaching them what a better way might look like.
We're already having to carry too much.
Men need to take responsibility here and, as they begin to see the problem and heal themselves, help the men around them do the same. Men aren't going to change because a woman told them to. If this were true, the problem would have been solved a long time ago. Instead, most men only listen to other men. Men *must* be the ones to do this work, for themselves and then to help heal the men around them.
Yes - it's more emotional labor. And I think if you ask any woman who has men in her life - dads, brothers, sons, husbands - their needs are often centered as it is. Men are going to have to do the work on themselves. We can't be the ones to carry the burden of making them do it.
If you ask the men, the reverse is true. Who's right?
Hi Sarah! Do you read Jeremy’s article as a request for pity or for women to do more emotional labour?
I see this Substack as the work of a man who has done his own work (which he admits was too late for his first marriage), trained so as to facilitate others to the necessary work and is using his Substack to encourage other men beyond those he can work with personally to do theirs.
I think what he’s asking is for is just for women to lay off attacking him every time he talks about male pain and social oppression. If you want men to do their work, it’s necessary for them to see they they need to do it for themselves as well as for the benefit of women.
Hi Clint,
Actually, I read it as a request for information. Jeremy said he didn't understand something and asked for help.
I am helping.
I answered a question I thought was asked honestly and in good faith with my own honest, good faith reply.
If he wants women to stop attacking him, then perhaps he should consider asking a different question. Rather than "why can't women see men's pain," perhaps something more along the lines of "why do so many women attack me when I say things I think are good to say?"
But he didn't ask that question.
Are you sure that's what Jeremy really meant? He seems to be a pretty thoughtful person and I give him credit for saying what he means. Could it be that this is really your concern? That in your experience, when you try to get involved in these conversations you feel attacked?
Hmm. Interesting question. You’re probably right, at least to some degree. Projection is very easy to fall into.
“I think what he’s asking is for is just for women to lay off attacking him every time he talks about male pain and social oppression. “
Yes because women expressing their opinions is attacking. I am 100% sure no women are sending him death threats or threats of sexual assault like female authors.
Totally agree! Thanks for reading and commenting, Sarah.
this, exactly! most women have had an "i can fix him" phase or had fruitless discussions with their male friends ab how their alpha sigma macho guy act is not good for them and have recieved mockery for it. A lot of the time men even pretend to be soft or feminist in order to sleep with women or get something out of it. Besides, its tiring to show empathy for men as a class when majority of them will then go on to say smt sexist mean or condescending at best or to rape abuse and hurt other women. It's not inherent to male nature biologically or some bullshit.. i just find most men are not interested in changing, they're happy with the power patriarchy affords them. So from where im standing, it looks like men have accepted this bargain and are happy with the results and empathising w them is a fruitless endeavor especially when getting allyship out of it in return is so rare. I reserve my empathy for the men i know personally rather than men as a class.
This is such a helpful perspective, Kari! It's what I expected and it clarifies my understanding of my goal to create spaces for men to center our pain with the goal of connecting to the larger feminist movement. Thank you for reading and commenting!
Yes! I think creating spaces that center men with the purpose of understanding, healing trauma, and navigating the confines of patriarchy is so important. It's good work, and work that is valuable and needed. I think that will enable men to be better partners and fathers, and that will carry forward to future generations. It's going to be hard work, but we have to start somewhere.
This is a really helpful perspective. Thanks for sharing.
Exactly this. Beautifully put.
Hi Kari! I hear you and acknowledge what you say. I’m not asking women to centre or carry men’s pain, and I don’t suspect Jeremy is either. I think what we’re asking is for a subset of rightly angry women not to attack us when we’re trying be on the same team - everyone vs patriarchy. Patriarchy just sits back and arches its fingers and smiles when some feminists fight against trans rights, or women fight men who are trying to be allies.
Hi Clint,
If what you need is for a certain subset of women to stop attacking you, then you need to be engaging with those specific women who do things that feel like attacks and working with them to understand what's going on there. What it looks like is that you're engaging with a number of women who are trying to answer Jeremy's question and asking us to stand in as proxy for other women.
As if we're interchangeable, maybe?
Can you see how this might not result in really positive, enthusiastic responses?
Yes, it will be much harder to engage with the women who only want to yell at you. In my experience, they're yelling because they don't feel heard. What a great thing if you could be one of the rare men with the patience and courage to really listen and work to understand them. Those skills are, I think, invaluable in tearing down the patriarchy. Maybe think of those encounters as an opportunity to practice!
Hey, Jeremy...
I think I found the answer to your question. His name is Harry Harryson.
I agree. This post isn’t asking women to carry or center men’s pain. When a man in Jeremy’s position, a man who is actively advocating and doing something about men’s suffering under patriarchy, is asking for women to see and acknowledge (not DO something about it or take it on as their own) I really don’t see it as difficult to do.
Hi Elizabeth - I see what you're saying, but I want to ask Jeremy - what IS he asking women to do? If it is seeing and acknowledging, I'm not sure that's not DOING something. Seeing and acknowledging is emotional labor. And emotional labor takes energy. Seeing and acknowledging when it's not reciprocated, or when the person you are seeing and acknowledging doens't see and acknowledge what you see themselves, then to see and acknowledge means either (1) helping them see or (2) being compassionate within a view of reality you don't share. Both of these are emotional labor. Both of these take energy. Both of these are exhausting if you're tired and burned out. I'd like to have Jeremy clarify what he's asking for. Maybe it will help the dialog.
Perhaps. I think it may depend on the context here, too. Are you acknowledging male pain in a general sense? Because if you are seeing it and acknowledging it without taking it on as your own, I don’t see how that’s emotionally burdensome. Personally, I don’t find it so. I don’t see why every acknowledgment has to be emotionally draining, which is what you and Kari and Sarah seem to be saying. I understand it’s hard for some women to do that, but I don’t see how that isn’t about personal boundaries.
I’m not trying to be cold, I’m a woman too, I just find it incredibly easy and almost a relief to see how men suffer. If they suffer too, then something can be done to change it. If they didn’t suffer, what could be done to incite personal change?
As to acknowledgment, I don’t see this as helping them see (that’s not your job), nor does it have to be seeing a reality to don’t share, it means to see the existence of something. And I don’t think suffering under patriarchy is a reality we don’t share, it very much is.
I suspect we agree on more than we don't. I do see and acknowledge men's patriarchy-generated pain when I can. Sometimes I can't because I'm not a man. I don't always know what is painful for "men" (as they don't always agree on that themselves). When a man articulates his pain with the patriarchy (which I agree with you and Jeremy hurts us all), I will happily acknowledge it--but honestly, only if he acknowledges that the pain is counter-balanced with privilege in a way it isn't for "women."
The catch is that most men do not acknowledge their pain. As Jeremy says in his post, he gets blank stares from lots of men. And if they don't, I don't see it as my job to see and acknowledge it for them beyond a perfunctory remark or two. I'm certainly not going to spend my political and energetic capital on it when I want to spend that capital on helping women.
I'm beginning to think this may be an argument about centering. Jeremy is a man. He works with men. He centers men. And men need to be centered to do a lot of the work he need and wants them to do with him. I applaud his work for this reason. I'm glad he's doing it and glad he's attracting men to work with him. So from that perspective, it makes sense that if men at the center of their pain do not feel validated by the women around them, or women in general, that is a pain in and of itself. And it would help us all if women would do that more.
AND men are so used to being centered that when they're not, many of them overreact and get triggered in ways that women (who are so rarely centered in a non-sexual context) find childish. Women who see these issues also see the energy they've put out (and still do) accepting the centering of men, and many consider entering a man-centered conversation an act of emotional labor they've done all their lives and have decided not to do anymore - to buy back some much-needed energy.
At least that's how I feel and how I read alot of these comments. I take your point that men's suffering may be necessary to create change, and I'm all for supporting men who want to do that work--like Jeremy. That support, however, doesn't include emotional labor.
So you're asking women to be less angry, to suppress their rage, and to be nicer because TERFs exist? And I am sorry to say, but right now, it doesn't feel like we're all on the same team. You also don't get extra credit for "trying" to be an ally.
TERFs (mercifully) make up a very small subset of women. They're just loud. Internalized misogyny is a result of patriarchy. Transphobia, homophobia, all the phobias. It all comes from the same structure. Women have been trying to change the structure for centuries. We need help in doing that.
I would also ask yourself what the real life consequences of being "attacked" by a woman are. Do you lose rights from that? Will you wind up dead? Will you die of sepsis in a parking lot?
Hi Kari!
No.
Not less angry. Definitely not less angry.
The anger is right, valid and appropriate. Your whole comment is right. I don’t disagree at all.
You want to change the structures. I want to do that too. But on this Substack, and other feminist substack I comment on, I am repeatedly treated with abject contempt by people whose issues I largely agree with.
I don’t want women to be less angry. I’m angry too, about the way women, people of colour, LGBTQ+ and every oppressed person is treated by a toxic system.
I’m just asking not to be treated with the level of contempt I have received from some women.
I mean, I got told to “man up” by a woman in a reply to one of my comments on an other of Jeremy’s posts. 🤷♂️
Hi Clint, I want to jump in and say thanks for reading and commenting! I really appreciate your support of this project. I also want to clarify that it seems like we're looking for something different. I agree with most of what you've said in your comments. What I don't agree with is asking women to not treat us with contempt. I'm not looking for that. I mean, it would feel better, for sure. But I understand that I'm a man, and that so many women have been harmed by men and are justifiably angry (seems like you understand this too), and that we're having these conversations on the internet with strangers. What Dana said really clarified it for me: "Most of us women don't know what it's like to have a man hear and see our expressions of anger and allow them to be what they are." It's similar to my work with clients who've been traumatized (as we all have been). Holding space, listening, not taking things personally, these things often (but not always) lead to healing and then connection. That's what I wanted to do with this post and in these comments. I think us men who want to be part of feminist movements need to be able to do these things and handle the discomfort that sometimes comes because of the contempt you're naming. To clarify: My desire to explore why some women can't hear men's pain isn't to make them be nicer to me, it's to figure out how we're going to build a big enough mass movement to change the political and economic systems that are responsible for oppression and inequality. How can working-class men and women (and other marginalized genders) work together to build enough collective power to change our systems? Those are the questions I'm grappling with, and I realize now that I should've centered those in my post in the first place 🤦
Hi Clint - I'm glad you don't want women to be less angry. But it's super hard to be angry and compassionate at the same time. That's a shit ton of emotional labor. And I'm sorry that you've been subject to women who don't see your intention and don't bother to manage their own triggers when you accidentally trip over them. I know how that feels and it sucks.
I think what I would appreciate from you in the effort to be an ally is curiosity. Questions that demonstrate you're understanding that anger is a legitimate feeling, without regard to how it affects you personally.
Here's what's happening. All that anger is processing. It's a phase of "seeing" what we haven't seen and understanding the repressed emotions under it. Some of us will manage through it, and some of us won't. Instead of letting it trigger you, be curious and help us process by letting us EXPRESS what is inside us. That's much of what's not understood in this debate. Women's expression has been so suppressed (often self-suppressed because we've learned how to survive) that the mere expression of it is healing. And somebody has to be on the receiving end. When the receiver gets triggered and pushes back, it makes the person expressing-to-heal feel unseen, and they get more belligerent. They put more anger out in an effort for it to be seen and heard. This is hard enough in private 1-1 therapy sessions and relationships. It's really hard in public forums.
Most of us women don't know what it's like to have a man hear and see our expressions of anger and allow them to be what they are. You will do the women you want to ally with a huge service simply by listening, validating and not judging. You will help us not be so triggered by not being so triggered yourself and helping us believe men can be that way.
Because right now, most of the men I know outside a very few center themselves by getting triggered. They don't do the work to get untriggered and want the women to do the work to manage around their triggers. This is what's exhausting. And as I said in my own comment below, I don't have a fuck to give on that anymore. I spend my energy on those who help me heal and who I can help heal.
So, THANK YOU for being on the journey with us. THANK YOU for caring enough to show up and have this conversation. THANK YOU for engaging. I'm happy to keep engaging, but I'm not sure I want to do it on your terms.
How does this land?
well said. <3
I will trade you "man up" for:
-being called a cunt (I lost count of how many times I have been called that on the internet)
-being stalked
-rape threats
-having a man message me on Facebook and tell me that he wanted to murder my cats
this is a smattering of the responses I have received.
For what it is worth, I am not meaning to be contemptuous. I am just trying to foster understanding of why women aren't necessarily walking into these conversations with a plate of cookies and a smile. We may come off as prickly or defensive, but I assure you that is for a reason.
We have endured mistreatment - just for writing words on the internet! - for years now. This plus the current political situation means we just don't have a whole lot of room for caretaking. And in asking us to soothe what you view as attacks, you're also asking for us to do emotional work in a comments section of a Substack post. I'm not saying you aren't allowed your feelings - I'm just asking you to consider that misdirected anger from women doesn't mean they hate you, or hate men in general. I think a lot of women are having a tough time regulating their emotions, especially as this election approaches.
Cool, I've been sexually assaulted by women, my childhood sexual abuser was an older girl, when I tried to talk about my hangups related to this my first (female) therapist laughed at me. Is that enough oppression points for my voice to be heard?
Your main motivation is antipathy for men; you shouldn't be commenting here.
As a Black Male who has lived in the US his entire life:
You are full of shit.
You never cared, and to have a gaggle of White woman...the most coddled, catered to demographic in The West for the last 600 years whine about how your "pain is ignored" is so ridiculous on it's fucking face it isn't even worth debunking point by point.
I am not surprised by your comment. I've been waiting for the racial dimension to surface here. The same dynamic that's playing out on this post is certainly happening in racial discussions and spaces. Each wounded person and group is grappling with their version of the same pains. The pains are not the same, but they have similarities.
Black people have every right to look at arguments like this in a white-dominated space and feel it's insensitive to their plight. Because it is. As you say, white women are highly privileged in many ways.
And black men enjoy certain privileges of "maleness" that no women (including white women) enjoy. In this sense, intersectionalism hurts the debate because comparing people's pain fundamentally devalues everyone.
Personally, I'd love to learn from your experience in how these kinds of issues are handled productively in the spaces where you engage on them. Basically, we all suffer from WHITE MALE privilege unchecked. It would be nice to learn from each other about how to create change.
No, it's not correct to see "black maleness" as giving them some sort of male advantage which women don't enjoy. What you're perpetrating here is racist misandry.
Bluntly, you should be more empathetic. You think that you're being asked to be empathetic when you already are too empathetic, but you're not; women have less empathy for mens' problems than the reverse.
Actually, statistically women empathize with men much less than the reverse. Whether it's a matter of you *can't* or *won't* see our pain may be a matter of semantics. There's a lot of emotional labor that men do that people like you don't want to talk about because then you'd have to let up on the "menaretrashkillallmenmenarerapedemons" talk.
What state do you live in? Here in CA, that right is not being stripped from women.
I have no idea where your statement that men empathize more than women comes from. That isn’t supported by evidence, academic or anecdotal. Women are more likely to experience compassionate feelings than men https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/01/28/in-u-s-women-more-likely-than-men-to-report-feeling-empathy-for-those-suffering/
That said you’re correct if what you actually meant was that women are no more capable of feeling empathy than men for a variety of reasons. All humans can feel empathy. Women simply exercise this ability more generally.
I’m happy to discuss emotional labor men perform. I am sure they do, there is just not enough of it that has the effect of making women feel safe in our society. Until that changes, this gap will persist.
Women "experience compassionate feelings" more, maybe, but it's not towards men. My point is that men spend more time caring about womens' pain and problems than the reverse, and it's very common for women to inculcate a callousness towards mens' pain, referring to anyone who does care as a "pickme" and so on.
The empathy gap is real, it's been well-studied, and it starts at birth.
At a certain point women are demanding an *unreasonable* amount of emotional labor, far more than they are willing to perform themselves, to feel "safe," while at the same time stoking their neuroses with true crime documentaries and shaming anyone who suggests that their purposefully spiraling their anxiety out of control. The feeling of safety has to come from inside; this is something men learn young, frequently as boys, as mother cuts them off from nurturance far earlier than it does girls, and shames them for showing anxiety.
I’d like to see the peer-reviewed research studies you refer to. I do not believe they exist.
I’d like to see the peer-reviewed research studies you refer to. I do not believe they exist.
Mothers hostile towards negative emotions of boys but not girls:
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-46241-001
Here's a paper that references studies with respect to the idea that people experience less empathy towards men than women:
https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1534129/
I'm not sure you're making your point. You originally said "My point is that men spend more time caring about womens' pain and problems than the reverse, and it's very common for women to inculcate a callousness towards mens' pain..."
Neither of the links you provide come close to making this point.
The APA link is interesting, but it doesn't support your conclusion that mothers are "hostile" to boys' negative emotions, as you assert. It simply says mothers are "more favorable" toward girl's sadness and anger. Showing more support for girls is not the same as hostility towards boys. The conclusion also showed fathers showed no preference but it made no comment on whether fathers and mothers showed equal amounts of empathy overall. This study shows that mothers demonstrate more emotionally relevant behavior towards children than fathers "Although early studies did not find parent-gender differences in emotion discourse, more recent work suggests that mothers may participate more in parent-child discussions about emotion, exhibit a heavier focus on emotion, and use more emotion words than fathers (Fivush, Brotman, Buckner, & Goodman, 2000)." (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3082208/). So even if girls get more support for negative emotions than boys (as the APA study found), boys may still be getting more emotional support overall from their mothers than their fathers.
Here's another study that showed in a study of 57 countries that while in 21 countries the genders showed similar cognitive empathy, in 36 women showed more. In no country did men show more empathy than women. (https://www.voanews.com/a/are-women-more-empathetic-than-men-/6924270.html) Now these are averages. Of course some individual men are more empathetic than some individual women, and if you happen to be surrounded by unempathetic women and more empathetic men, it might appear to you that women are less empathetic than men.
I'm not denying that men are experiencing concerning levels of depression and other mental health challenges, and as the mother of two sons this concerns me. I agree that men need emotional support and that research should look at this issue. But I'm not seeing any evidence that women are the cause of this problem. . As Jeremy says, I'm more inclined to blame the patriarchy (which both women and men perpetuate) for shaming men from providing empathy to each other and for supporting men in gaining the kind of emotional tools and supports necessary to manage their emotions more healthfully.
I kind of feel like you answered your own question in the course of the piece - it’s not that we don’t care, it’s that the emotional labour of caring alongside trying to stay alive is exhausting, and constantly taking the time to show that care to people - many of whom continue to perpetuate stereotypes of patriarchy even when they think they’re trying not to - wears you down. Some days we are able to mask it and continue to make with the empathy and support…other days not so much.
When you’ve been raised your whole life to put men’s needs, wants and feelings before your own…and you finally find your voice and start to draw boundaries, someone asking you to make some room once again for that which has (knowingly or not) continually harmed you is a hard pill to swallow. It passes, the rage and the fight or flight dies down and we inevitably fall back into empathy again for one person or another…but I find many women are just not able to keep up that level of empathy continually any more. The mask slips, and sometimes even falls off.
I believe that the more things change, as men start to prove that they too are in it for the long haul, as they start to work together openly with women to build a better world, women will begin to feel safer letting their guard down enough in order to allow some more empathy back in.
But right now, it’s still too close to being akin to that partner who changes behaviours just enough to stop you leaving them. Anyone can toe the line for a little while to get what they want. What matters is how they behave when there’s no reward but self improvement or the betterment of things for others outside their own lot. That’s when the true growth begins, and that’s when the trust can start to be rebuilt.
So well put, Lucy! I really appreciate you reading and commenting. Your comment made me understand what's happening very clearly. Thank you :)
Right, but if a man runs out of energy to do the emotional labor for his wife he's a monster.
Men do plenty of emotional labor in relationships, people just don't like to talk about it because they'd rather talk about how shit men are.
James this is exactly the kind of attitude that makes us not want to bother. Thank you for proving my point spectacularly. If you yourself have been in a position where you have felt this exhaustion, your feelings are valid and should be addressed. But this isn’t about you, and minimising the lived experience of millions of women because of your own feefees is exactly the kind of irrational response that leads to question like “why don’t women care about men’s pain.”
You're not asking men their lived experience, however. You're only getting half of the story.
It's not just about me. It's about every man who has had to learn that the relationship is a space for his female partner to be vulnerable, but if he requires even a fraction of the emotional support she does he'll be mocked, ridiculed, or kicked to the curb. Meanwhile his partner has endless energy to support her female friends, family, whoever.
If it makes you not want to bother that's a failing on your part, from my perspective. If it just makes you feel viscerally uncomfortable to see men being treated with respect and compassion that's not something that can be fixed by phrasing things diplomatically; it's a fundamental difference in values.
That’s a whole lot of projection and generalisation going on there James, and I suggest you speak to a professional or some trusted friends about those feelings, because while they and your experiences are valid, you have brought them into a space where someone has asked women specifically for their perspectives about a topic, and instead of engage with them in order to understand what is going on from their perspective (which was the entire point of the original post and the questions posed within it), you’ve chosen to make it about your very specific scenario and bring the conversation back around to men once again.
I personally don’t have the emotional labour available to help you through this. But there are a lot of good men on this thread who might be able to offer what you’re looking for, or point you in the direction of someone who can.
Oh my gosh!! This guy is so not worth it. He is trying to convince you, you are somehow a bad person if you don’t take every second out of your life to emotionally open up to every man’s issues!?!?
He thinks it is our job to be the world’s mommy???
Don’t listen to this!! Your point was beautiful, and exactly explained my feelings!! Thank you so much!
If you don't have the "emotional labor" available to not feel outright contempt for men maybe you should just can it. You're making the world a worse place with your commentary.
I can absolutely see my husband's pain, which lives at the center of our marriage and has destroyed 90% of his relationship with his children, because their lives don't look the way he wants them to and he has no idea how to cope. Will he go to therapy? Of course not. Does he see my pain? He knows it exists, but he's kind of mad about it. I don't think he sees the kids' pain at all. And he is a good man, and at least some of his pain is legitimate; but he's built his walls so high and hugged that pain so close that very little else can get in. So, yeah, he could really use some therapy and I wish he would do it. But exactly how much empathy is required of me before he will? Is anyone ever going to pay any attention to the rest of us? (The kids and I go to our own counselors.). I have to save some energy for things I can actually do something about...
I'm sorry you're dealing with this, Jean. It sounds so, so hard and, I'm sure, hopeless at times. Thank you for reading the post and sharing your perspective. You really helped me feel in a palpable way what many women have to experience in relation to men's pain.
I think my comment is probably not that relevant to the conversation but it just came out of me, so there it is. Usually I am pretty locked down but something in here brought it up.
Ugh. That's a heartbreaking place to be JeanP and I wish it wasn't so common.
That's kind of you. I probably shouldn't have said it. And I'm so fortunate in many ways, it's just that this lives at the center of my life and I kind of hate it. I know I could quit, and so far I'm not willing to do that, so here we are.
Thank you. Something so central would affect anyone - it would almost seem odd if it didn't. At one point in my almost 20 year marriage I too built a wall of pain and isolation and refused to get help until the absolute last second. For me it happened when my partner quit pushing me and withdrew and was ready to leave. I didn't get it until then (didn't think she was serious, etc.) and had taken all the power in the relationship by retreating emotionally. I wish I was more surprised that 70% of divorces are initiated by women.
Thanks for posing the question. From a restorative justice perspective, it's hard to ask someone facing continued harm to find compassion for those causing the harm when the harm is ongoing. (and in terms of both policy and culture, arguably the harm is very much ratcheting up). We have to acknowledge the power dynamics here: who holds institutional power, and who doesn't? Who is the oppressor, and who is being oppressed? Yes, all are being harmed in the system, but is it fair to ask the oppressed group to feel empathy for their oppressor when the oppression is still very much alive and when threats to our physical, mental, financial safety still very much exist?
Meaning: we need more folks like you to do the work because its harder for us to. It's similar to racial equity work: the cost is higher on BIPOC folks to do the work of educating white folks, which is why its so crucial for antiracist white folks to step in and carry the work of educating other white folks (like @garrettbucks does with his barnraisers project for example)
I so totally agree with this. It helped me remember and clarify my mission with this project. Thank you for reading and commenting!
of course! Thanks for receiving it graciously.
Some women have also internalized this patriarchal message and have joined the boys' club. The women in my family among them.
As a woman who has discovered the Wheels of Power and Control after 37 years of being raised in a patriarchal household and having internalized a lot of misogyny, I am still also unlearning a lot of the toxic messaging. I felt my place was to be of service to men, like I witnessed between my parents. My dad and my brother were both emotionally abusive toward my mom and I. I was dismissed and devalued at every turn. Although I didn't like it, as a child I had to survive it. When I married, I thought I had chosen a safe, feminist, partner. In fact, I chose a much more covert abuser. Though I came from wealth and means, my children and I are now isolated. My family cannot and will not see coercive control as harmful. They have abandoned us as we have left my abusive marriage. I love men. I believe the best in people. And there is still no protection for those of us abused and endangered by men. As I face the court system, trying to protect my children, I have very little support. We now live in emergency housing while their dad lives in our family owned income property and we were forced to move from our family home as I agreed to its sale, not having been warned that if he didn't agree to the release of the money, I would not be awarded my portion of it.
The legal system is rife with abuses being leveraged against survivors. What I have learned about how our society profits off and is built on the backs of women is excruciating. You don't really see it until you are forced to live it. My perspective is that of an educated woman who had been isolated her whole childhood, and again in a decade of DV in marriage. I was prevented almost completely from validating my own experience.
To pull your head from the sand and truly know what has been done to you, by men, is numbing and gut wrenching. And yes, men are doing this to each other, and to women. My question for you is, why do you ask why women can't see men's pain? Why can't men see men's pain? And women's? Why are men expecting women to rally if they want change? If we rally, our children are harmed by their own fathers. If we rally, our bodies are attacked. Why aren't men rallying? In my understanding, to be close to power is often to enjoy the privilege it comes with. Proximity to power and privilege prevents many men, and white women specifically, from recognizing the oppression and exploitation of others. It was true in my case, until I found the relevant materials to truly know I could and should believe myself and other survivors. Some women can't see themselves as oppressors when they align with men. And while that IS awful, the oppressors are truly the men. Those women mostly don't know they have been lied to and coerced.
I'm an older cis-het-white dude finishing his MSW on a progressive campus so that I can help men. I'm in a tiny minority in my large program but can say with confidence that to the extent some women can't hear men's pain it's often due to their valid anger and disappointment with men. We are still very early in the process of achieving parity and reconciliation between the sexes and misogyny is still alive and well. I have been on the receiving end of my share of animosity and as uncomfortable as it is see it as part of the process of forgiveness and repair. Few women are really in the best position to center on men's pain right now - they are still actively experiencing pain themselves. Men can hear other men's pain more clearly. I will say that many times if I stay in conversation with women about men's pain long enough after they respond negatively they express grief for their brother or father's pain.
>I'm in a tiny minority in my large program but can say with confidence that to the extent some women can't hear men's pain it's often due to their valid anger and disappointment with men.
If you think this you need to stay the fuck away from the mental health field, especially as it relates to men and boys. You'll just become their next victimizer.
I think a lot about masculinity, especially in relation to the historical romance genre and in film, and in my discussions with people, usually strangers on the internet, but sometimes in person (if they don’t tune me out with eyes glazing over), the few reactions of negativity to opening the door to a conversation about how hegemonic masculinity hurts men, have been from women. It has always shocked me how quickly it gets shot down through women. They immediately close off, as if the idea hurts them.
I had a sociology professor once that said, if we want to understand white people, we need to study whiteness, the same way we do to everyone else, and I’ve always considered that applicable to men as well.
Men’s feelings, men’s experiences, we see them in media, we read about them in fiction, but we don’t really see or hear them. Because the male (mostly white, cis, heterosexual) experience is so ingrained as a wider culture, we talk about everything else around what we see except for what’s happening in the shadow self, the quiet, internal world that he’s been taught to repress, as not to be vulnerable.
I see the penis joke, or references to compensation of size as a way for women to comment on either men they see as weak or displays of men wanting to be seen I.e a truck (is it ever “just” a truck?) as a good way to point out how women participate willingly in demeaning sex jokes about men. When I’ve called it put, I’ve noticed how lots of women haven’t even thought about it before. Why would we use something someone can’t change about themselves as a way to insult them? It’s cruel, and it shouldn’t be so prevalent.
I guess I didn’t really answer your question, but to that, I think there’s a lot of self-righteousness (not necessarily based on nothing, but still not helpful) from women who have been deeply hurt by men in their lives, but this is where the tendency to generalize gets us stuck. Generalizations ie “men” can be useful, but sometimes they are harmful. They don’t help us in understanding each other on an individual basis, and that is where the conversation needs to change.
Maybe I didn’t really answer your question, but these are my thoughts!
Totally agree with Kari, Sarah and Lucy about why many women don't spend energy on men's patriarchy-generated pain. I would add this from my own consideration of these issues. I DO care and acknowledge men's pain. When my sons were born I spent many hours worrying for them as adults (when they were brand new) because I knew they would suffer at the hands of the patriarchy, and I work now to make sure they (as adults) know they have options other than carrying patriarchy-generated pain. AND, in my own work, I see the lopsided impact of patriarchial pain. I have devoted my life and work to supporting women in finding authentic ways to find success on their own terms within it. That takes all my energy professionally. Personally, I'm still dealing with the exhaustion and anger in my daily life. I've made a personal decision to allow my healing the time it takes, and what I find is that I am totally there for the men who acknowledge their own pain and mine. But for those who are blind to it, reject this truth, or are just uninterested, I don't have an emotional fuck to give them.
So most women are your biggest and vocal supporters, most men give you blank looks, and some women react negatively. But it's the small portion of women not reacting positively that really bothers you. I think if you just read what you wrote, this wouldn't be a big mystery. These women react negatively, you say, because men are the benefiters of the patriarchy and the concept of centering men further offends them. That's....That's it. I don't understand what the confusion actually is here. In your comments, you say that it's about wanting to know how to achieve as much mass towards political change as possible, creating universalist arguments to make the biggest tent. But, like, you do get that going "why can't EVERYONE just get along? why can't ALL women see men's pain?" isn't very helpful, right? In systems of oppression, there will always be a subset that is going to be unable to sympathize with their oppressor. Because even though oppresive systems hurt everyone, it does not hurt everyone the same.
I read a very good substack article recently about how, in the effort to recognize all forms of abuse, emotional abuse is increasingly stated to being just as bad, sometimes even worse, than physical abuse. The author, a woman who has been on the receiving end of many kinds of abuse, talked about how, as much as emotional abuse hurt, it is very much NOT the same as the primal life-and-death terror of a pair of hands strangling your throat or punching your skull. And similarly, even though men do suffer under the patriarchy, it is very much NOT the same as the life-and-death terror of not having legal bodily autonomy. There are always going to be some women who can't empathize with men being unable to fully express their emotions when they live in a much more primal state of fear for their lives and bodies. This shouldn't be a surprise, nor should it be something that confuses or dispairs you. It is an inevitable outcome of the system.
Focus on the majority of men who don't see the value in what you do. Not the minority of women. By your own admission, the majority of women are already on your side. Even if all women 100% ageed with you and no women ever said a single negative thing ever to you, how much would that really help your goal anyway? Focus on the majority of men.
I totally agree with this comment. Especially, “There are always going to be some women who can't empathize with men being unable to fully express their emotions when they live in a much more primal state of fear for their lives and bodies … It is an inevitable outcome of the system.”
I guess, reflecting on why I wrote this post, I hadn’t had this conversation in public before. I’ve had it with folks (including women) privately. I wanted to pull in more perspectives and learn from folks to clarify my understanding. I’m a little disappointment that more men are chiming in, which is really what I was hoping for.
Jeremy, I've taken some time to read more comments and more of your replies, and something keeps comming up. I think one of your biggest flaws in your arguments is a failure to properly understand intersectionality. We live in a society of many types of oppressive systems. Often, these systems overlap. Like a venn diagram, some people occupy a space where two systems overlap. Others occupy spaces where several types of oppression overlap. Where you frequently miss the mark is by acting as if intersectionality is like a point on a flat map where many roads meet up to a single issue. To you, capitalism is the seeming end point of all oppression and therefore we must defeat capitalism to fix all other types of oppression. It's not incorrect to say we must fight against capitalism. It's not incorrect that we must strive to change mass systems. The fight against capitalism (from a feminist lens) is the stage where we fight for maternity and paternity leave, universal childcare, free lunches for kids in school, ect. But sexism has existed long before capitalism, and capitalism is not the reason for ubiquitous rape, sexual assault, and intimate partner violence. There is the same amount of capitalism in states where women can obtain abortions as there are in states where women cannot. The fight against capitalism is a big fight, but it is not the only fight.
When you frame the ultimate fight as being against capitalism, you are able to put a wide gulf between yourself and men with political power. You can put a wide gulf between a handful of bad men and the rest of men. Notallmen, just the ones who are billionaires. I want to quote N S, the very same quote you used to open your writing, but I want to highlight what you left out.
"there’s something inherently unsatisfying about the idea that suffering for women happens at an individual/personal level but men get to speak about it in higher level terms as if it had nothing to do with them.
That’s the thinking that allows men to call themselves feminists and at the same time exploit their partners, family members, employees, and coworkers."
This what happens when you twist feminism into only being about capitalism. This is the problem with going "actually, most men really don't have power." Women mostly suffer at the personal level. They often suffer directly with their bodies. And it's not the nebulous construct of capitalism that harms them, it's individual men. It's a romantic partner, father, brother, uncle, cousin, doctor, teacher, religious leader, boss, coach, or someone else close and trusted. And individual men overwhelmingly harm women out of simple feelings of entitlement, not because capitalism makes them. And again, fighting capitalism IS important. I just think you fail to realize the limits of that particular argument.
Hi Lizy, I appreciate this follow-up so much. In fact, it helped me clarify my thinking about this issue and I want to write next week's post about it. I think you hit the nail on the head with my thinking. Though I have some thoughts about how, to me (and other socialist feminists), it's both/and. Men need to work on ourselves at the individual level to not cause more harm to the women in our life AND it really is capitalism that is at the core of the collective, systemic problem. I want to elaborate on that next week in a post, and I'll try to get back to this thread and share the link when it's live. I'll be curious your thoughts.
Is there a cruel, hateful, misandrist comment from a woman that you won't thank them for? How can men benefit from your practice if your message to them is "You are inherently a problematic, harmful being just for existing"?
If you want to help men, you need to treat them with respect, and your cheerleading for dehumanizing language towards men in these comments makes me think that your goal is being a good feminist boi rather than actually helping men.
Crenshaw cruelly advocated against black boys receiving targeted help for the fact that they are the least well served by the education system in the US. Intersectionality can fuck right off.
You realise this is straight from the patriarchy playbook? Blame women for not patting you on the back for the teeny tiny bit of work you're doing to unravel a system that still privileges you regardless of what you write or do. What do you expect? An award? A bunch of flowers? Sit in the discomfort, it's good for you. Feel the same way women have been feeling for centuries then move ahead with the work. But don't blame women for your pain, it's not our fault. This writing is way off the mark.
Thanks for reading and commenting, Jacqueline. If you're open to it, I'm a little confused about how what I wrote is blaming women for not patting me on the back. Could you explain that a little more? I get the concept, for sure. I just don't see how what I wrote in particular is doing that. I strove hard when writing it not to do that. I understand if this isn't something you feel like doing. And for feedback's sake, I'm not feeling discomfort reading your comment. I just want to understand better.
Thank you!
You are a heartless bigot.
YES!
I actually think that you and Celeste Davis are asking two different questions. Your question - why can’t some women see that patriarchy is life-threatening to men? - is different from the question “how do we integrate our belief that people are good with the fact that they are hurting others?” Your question is about one side: why can’t women see men’s pain? Celeste’s question is about *how* to hold both sides. Another way to put what I’m getting at is: what about women who see men’s pain more than their own, who fall off the cliff on the other side of the tension Celeste identifies? I know plenty of women who only see men’s pain; I am myself very often one of them. I’m trying to learn not to be. Are you worried about those women too? About the ones who excuse the harm because of the humanity, even to their own detriment? We’re all falling off the cliff on different sides at different times.
If I can pose a genuine question in return: why do you care that some women can’t see what you’re doing? Do you need them to care and understand? Is there something you’re afraid will happen if they don’t?
Thanks for this! I hadn’t thought about the women falling off the cliff on the other side while writing this post, so I appreciate you bringing that in. I love your question. I think part of it for me is that I definitely have a part of me that is afraid of conflict and wants everyone to get along. That comes from my family, who push everything under the rug. I get thrown off and self-critical when people criticize my writing or disagree with my arguments. I’m working standing strong in my views while also accepting and internalizing others’ perspectives. I think mostly though it has to do with my politics. I’m a socialist who believes that mass movements are the only way to make the substantial change happen that we so desperately need. So I’m also looking for universalist arguments, trying to help build the biggest tent possible to take on those with substantial political, economic, and material power. I want to be part of a socialist feminist movement for multiracial democracy, and so it feels counter to that when folks don’t give me an inch (or at least it feels that way).
Your question: why do you think some women can’t see men’s pain?
I think the responses here in the comments gave some pretty good food for thought. However, I would like to raise you another question:
WHY are you asking?
I loved Ellen’s comment: “I've found it helpful to focus on the systems rather than the people, or groups of people. Patriarchy hurts EVERYONE. White supremacy hurts EVERYONE. Colonialism hurts EVERYONE. Capitalism hurts EVERYONE.”
I appreciated the content of your article - the way you called out specific statistics, shared some of your own experience, and highlighted feminist authors. However, it wasn’t the content of your piece that left me questioning. It was the context in which you centered the piece at all.
Could those exact words have been put in a context that centered more in the system we all suffer under? Words have power and I think an article wondering why people (in general) can’t see men’s pain would have landed better with me.
After all, are women the keeper of seeing men’s pain? NO. Plenty of men don’t see men’s pain. Yet, the title of your article wasn’t about why some men don’t see men’s pain. It was women. Why?
Overall, I don’t think it matters that some women don’t see men’s pain in the context of the oppressive systems we all live under. And I don’t think that conversation is productive to have, especially when there is so much important work to do.
If you want to converse over why men’s pain isn’t seen by some groups, then let it be about that! Better yet, why are there some (I would argue most) men who don’t see men’s pain? Why aren’t men working to better the system that causes their own suffering and far greater suffering of others? We don’t need more articles blaming, or calling out women for a system’s shortcomings - and a system that isn’t of their own making to boot, especially from a man.
I feel confident you are growth oriented enough to take all the feedback in, and I genuinely hope to see more articles from you that use your own experience as a man in a patriarchal society for the betterment of all (and not calling out why some women are “doing it wrong”).
P.S. I almost never interact with men (authors or otherwise) in this way (feminist or not), as I usually find it a lost cause and a waste of my time. I think the work you do is valuable and believe you will continue to grow in your understanding of the systems that really do hurt us all, and how to not further perpetuate that hurt.
Thank you for interacting with me. To be transparent, I feel like what I've done with his newsletter for almost two years is put the writing in a context of the systems hurting everyone. With this post, I wanted to try something a little different in the framing. I think I'm realizing through reading the reactions that part of me desires so badly that those of us without power relative to the rich and powerful can see past our different lived-experiences enough to come together and take power back for everyone. It hurts me so bad that the left can't make that happen and the rich and powerful keep winning more power. And so I think that pain is where this post (or the framing of it) was coming from. I want to be having these conversations beyond the people in my day-to-day life. So, thank you again for commenting and what you said makes total sense.
I agree that the system itself destroys people. But also, the system *is* people. And not just the few rich and powerful people at the top. It's in all of us, to a greater or lesser extent.
How would you destroy the patriarchy? What would you replace it with? How would you build that?
I am not sure I have clear answers to these questions myself, but my feeling right now is that the first thing I need to do is find all the places it lives inside me and dig it out. I might not be able to do that alone, so the help of friends and family also doing this work makes it easier. This, to me, is also how we build true community. We have to learn to trust one another and listen to one another and be vulnerable with one another. I see fear as the greatest tool the patriarchy uses to keep us divided, so we need to have the courage to see through that fear to the person beneath. And when I say we, I mean each of us as individuals.
For me, in order to make space for trust and vulnerability, I first needed to let all the rage and the anger have room. It's still there, but now I see it for what it really is: anger and rage are the voice of my pain. Now when I see anger, I feel empathy instead of fear.
Mind you, I still have rage. It hasn't gone away. But it's easier for me to see around it, and to know why I'm feeling it. And that makes it easier to do something about it.
Could this be a piece in the puzzle you're working on?
P.p.s. Also, if your goal is “looking for universalist arguments, trying to help build the biggest tent possible to take on those with substantial political, economic, and material power” - then it extra means you need to be asking the question, why don’t some men in power see men’s pain? After all, it’s a majority of men who have substantial political, economic and material power. Just some more food for thought.
100% agree.
Or even, why don't men see that they are in pain, and that they are not alone in this? I think the men in power aren't really in pain. They benefit. That's why they don't see the suffering of others. It's not their problem.
Such idealism makes my heart ache. I think that you are trying very hard to be a complete emotional being and we live in a culture that doesn't recognize such a creature. The question posed is a symptom of your struggle to bridge the gap between the sexes, bring a peaceful end to the gender war, but the gap is an illusion. There is no meaningful difference between genders, only window dressing. You can't answer for all the rape and sexual assault men do every minute of every day, why would any one woman be able to answer for the dismissal of the emotional pain endured by men? I guess what I want to convey is that you are looking up the wrong skirt.
Hi Jeremy. Thanks for revealing your worldview and how it's informing your work, including, I presume this post. If you have difficulty with conflict, and are working on standing for your views and learning to integrate others' viewpoints, you picked a great topic! You are a therapist and comfortable in people's private worlds. But you want to be part of a social movement. Those two realities are two very different things and the safety you can create 1-1 is harder very different in a public forum. But I suspect the same solution applies. You create a safe space with individuals by listening and being non-judgmental. Your post is being heard by many women here as judgmental and not listening. I'm not accusing you of that, but I think that's what's happening. I think we all support on some level what you're doing and the dialog you want to have. I think you can get a whole other post out of this if you want to. Please keep exploring these topics.
Reading this comment instantly calmed my nervous system down. Thank you, Dana. This makes so much sense. I'm trying to do both: the 1-1 work and the movement work. And it's hard. And things are very different in both. I'm now thinking of writing another post about this soon, integrating what I'm learning through the conversation. Thanks again!
good! frankly i'm considering a post on this topic too!
Women are hyper vigilant now because our rights are being taken away. The solution to men's pain cannot come from women. Men like you need to help men. See the anger and pain of women and their rejection of men as incentive for men to change, not an obstacle.
I find these gender discussions very poignant. I am 71 and I dig very deep into my memory to remember what it was like before feminism was mainstream. I can tell you in 1955 that 'alpha' males were not the ones who married well and had successful personal lives. They were the men 'who wouldn't settle down', never married or had failed marriages. Society was very harsh in its negative consequences for them. Men today are being sold a past that never existed. That past was more restrictive for men, too. And the restrictions on women were ridiculous. I can't tell you how grateful I am that they were lifted in time for me.
>Women are hyper vigilant now because our rights are being taken away.
And before you were hyper vigilant for some other reason, and before it was another...
You'll always have a reason to justify your misandry, regardless of the circumstances.
Thinking in terms of hegemonic and subordinate masculinities, and engaging with global research into different styles and forms of masculinity, will take us further than a brute concept like *patriarchy*. My years of academic and cross-cultural research into men and masculinities (please - plural. There's no single form) have taken me from my 1980s use of the term *patriarchy* and the idea that all men have privilege over all women and into the idea that it's the *sex-gender* system that fucks everybody over. Intersectional and 4th wave feminism would concur. We have to be careful to keep the complexities in this very complex terrain. Here's a couple of things.
https://xyonline.net/ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0735275120960792
Thanks for commenting! I generally don't use the term "patriarchy" but did in this case because the inspiration was conversations with women who use that term. I usually use the term "traditional masculinity." I'm aware of the "masculinities" discourse and want to dig deeper into it. I'm not an academic and really try to write in the language that folks are using, while borrowing concepts from academics who are doing the deeper work. Thanks for sharing those resources!
This link is so old no one else may see this, but you've got a very serious problem with "Traditional Masculinity." However, as a deep history person, I would find that would take...a decade or more to somehow communicate to you. Today's narrative is well formed, but it's well formed to today's task, today's election or what not, and is sadly so unlike the deep, complex, historic truth it can scarcely be held in the same breath. The magic being, to explain the cartoon so it can be real, would require tenfold time, understanding, details, cultures, caveats... And who would do that?
We'll make local political hay instead.
But you can ask -- just when things are said -- flip it as the opposite and see if it holds. They say "1950 this": do we REALLY think that 99 1/2% of people were unbearably unhappy then? That's what's sold far as I can tell -- as a cartoon. ALL women were suicidal, Valium fiends. ALL were "Mad Men", ignorant, alcholoc wife beaters. Not a sane one among them! All children were miserable, never smiled, mental illness was worst in U.S. History!! And there are always people unhappy at all times. But the Mostest, worstest ever, that we should run screaming? I mean, compared to NOW? The people are referring back, pointing back, to this Oppression, great. However, THEY WEREN'T THERE. They have no idea any more than I do, (less actually) of how much of who exactly was perfectly happy or unhappy as they wanted to be. Yet that's the fulcrum of the arguments: a historic past of a generalized group, that actually, if you read a ton of ton of records, turns out to be pretty small, although I'll be hanged for it. They will just swap goalpost from "Bad thing x" once happened, so that therefore 1950 wasn't say, 70% good (while ours is 30% -- people have measurably never been more unhappy than now in history outside of war) because I dunno, crime stats in Boston were poor in 1957. If you were gay there were only like 3 bars per city for that. Know what I mean?
This, incidentally, is why *literally no man will speak*. Why bother? And I wasn't going to and in fact shouldn't since literally nothing good will happen except being set upon by flying monkeys. But some of the comments I've posted (as I'm new on Substack) were things like "Violence was always allowed and approved". Ask: Hey, um, my sense of history is that if a man killed a woman or child in almost any culture, in almost any era of the last 5,000 years, he'd be *hunted down and executed on the spot.* By other men. Joyfully. How do those two contradictions comport? It was so normal for women to be abused that men...saw it as unconscionable and stabbed them all... what? It an ONLY be rare and not done, OR it can be seen as normal, not both, you know? If they thought it was cool there's no blood vendetta to chase. But we know there was, through deep history through all the last centuries, to only 1940...up to right now.
That men have always been pigs, while the aspiration -- for men -- was chivalry, which was the DEFENDER of women, of family, of house, of honor, etc. Going back 1,000 years to 1,100AD in some form or another. That's the durn Viking Age. Men so abused women and hated the idea that it was THEIR OWN CODE, that they would gladly excommunicate, duel, die, and kill each other in defense of the wives, daughters, women of their family, women of their community, women of FRIEND'S community, women of the entire Western Catholic Church... Women you never heard of if you had time... Wait a minute, you tell yourself, hold on. Defending woman as a universal male code is the OPPOSITE of oppressing women as a universal male code. Which is it? NOT that abuse doesn't happen and people don't throw plates, they always have. But that's still a cartoon version, yet it's the dead opposite of TODAY'S cartoon version -- and barely, since that code was only erased since Feminism in 1979 or so. I bring it up because it's one I can easily transmit it and is consensus reality. Well maybe. It's being erased fast. Which cartoon would you like? Or the more nuanced reality, which will also conflict?
So an entirely false past -- delivered as a Myth to (modern) men and women alike -- is merely great fodder for a bonfire to get us all going. Not that there wouldn't be trouble without it, but I see in these comments another whole LAYER of hatred, abstraction, for things individuals never personally saw. Are not personally the victims of. ...And may not have ever happened. How can you be traumatized by something you never saw and never happened to you? Because a story?
So like any other therapy, you see one party say "They did that thing!" ...And you as a therapist, your job is to turn and say, "*DID* you do that thing?" Did that REALLY happen, and why? When they talk about 1900, 1940 -- or 1840 -- women were trapped at home. Okay, did you REALLY want the woman out in 30f weather in Liverpool, riding fishing barges, in coal mines in Cumbia, breastfeeding on one side because bottles hadn't been invented yet, or was being stuck at home actually the safe, WARM place -- not that there wasn't known and valued work there, (unlike today, it was, and desperately so) but about half the chance of being cut in two by the rigging? Then it looks like men died for centuries PROTECTING women with their very lives. ....And our forgetting that is really spitting on our fathers. Or even mens' intent now. As a Therapist, you turn, and you ask. Right? DID that happen? WHY did that person think that was the best, good thing, not "oh you pitiable, misguided, abusive fool". Right? BOTH points of view, and not just for your sake but so both parties in your office can hear it said out loud. This is my sense of history, which is a layer this thread is not directly about, IS relevant. I hear the historical grudge. But adding why men don't bother. Why bother comment to the women -- you see what happened -- nor to you either. What's the point? They'll go do something useful. As I should. You see me making only three points here, and that took a chapter's length. Being dismissive is easy and takes no time at all.
I was raised in a family that didn't acknowledge emotions, and therefore found it easy to be friends with men, since we had the same denial pattern. When I was growing up, girls and women who talked about feelings made me extremely uncomfortable. However, I wanted to be able to have women friends, and made myself become more vulnerable with my emotions.
So I have a lot of empathy for men, since they don't have the same kind of gendered peer pressure that girls and women do.
I think men who are emotionally more healthy make for a healthier society, so love that you're supporting men in this way.
Feminism can be interpreted in many ways, and the way I like best is the kind that allows all of us to be fully who we are.
Thanks for this post, and I hope you gain clarity from others about this important issue.
While I think there has been some very good insight in these comments. Jeremy, I do want to say that I'm sorry that some of them have been answering your question by doing similar to what inspired you to write the article in the first place.
While I do believe the question asked in the title does a good job of drawing people to read the article, I think it does not serve the article's point properly.
The subtitle of "Some women respond negatively when I say I'm a therapist who helps men" was the actual point of it and I believe that the title above it hits people in a way that makes them quick to gloss over that point and instead read this as yet another post accusing women as a whole of not being willing to help men at all.
I think that the comments are accurate to why many women can't or won't hear men's pain.
They simply don't have enough bandwidth for it.
They're tired and exhausted from so many other things affecting them, or from simply hearing and not being heard back. It does make me sad that this is the case, but I know from experience that what they describe is largely true, so it's also completely understandable that they feel this way. The issue I take with them is more the fact that you already very clearly covered this sentiment in what you wrote. You even point out that your issue isn't even with women as a whole, that many women support you in the work that you do, but there are also some women that are directly opposed to the idea of giving men any help, and from the way you describe it, even help from other men:
"when I tell people I’m a therapist who specializes in helping men... ...some women respond negatively to the idea that men need help. They say men have privilege and all the help we need already. They say we shouldn’t be centering men’s concerns."
So while women aren't a monolith, its a way for women in general to give you some insight on why these women in specific don't just stop at not having space for men's pain, which is reasonable, but go as far as to outright reject the idea that men need help or even suffer under the patriarchy at all.
Granted, I don't think that most of the women commenting here think this way. But I do think they misunderstand what you are asking because of the title and I can't really blame them for that either. So while I think the answers that you are getting here to this point are not actually answering your question.
On one hand they are correct, it isn't their responsibility to fix men. They have every right to center themselves and that does need to be acknowledged. While I believe that this functionally ends up with the blind trying to lead the blind. (As the men like us are only now recently starting to figure any of this stuff out) Ultimately they are correct, it's our problem to solve.
However, this doesn't mean that individual women that ARE able and willing to give space to men's pain under the patriarchy don't exist. And if they desire to help men, then why shouldn't they be allowed to should do so? In my interactions with feminist spaces online. There is a significant number of people within the space that genuinely believe that men's issues do not need any attention, not just from the women that can or can't give it to them, but from men either. And I think that like you, this saddens me greatly, because men do deserve to be free of the suffering that we experience under the patriarchy and a chance to be able to heal ourselves from the ways that it has hurt us.
As far as answering your question. I can only guess, but I tend to come to one of two conclusions. That these particular women are genuinely unaware that men's suffer under patriarchy, or are aware of men's pain, but feel that women need enough help that the goals of feminism is better accomplished by both men and women focusing on women's issues. I think that overall this is a minority within the movement. And even further there probably are a very small number that are genuine misandrists that have been jaded and hurt by men to a point that they would rather see men suffer than helped to become better.
I think we need ritual spaces for conflict -- this requires consent, preparation, and a shared ethos. As a culture we have no skillsets to ritualize conflict -- it all feels urgent and life threatening (and for many of us, it is!) When we can't ingegrate/initiate our shadows -- they come out in the real world as pathologies and violence.
I've also noticed patterns of relating that, when come from a traumatized place (both men and women) the conversation cannot continue. I wonder if for many men, it starts with deconstructing shame, because it makes it impossible on the nervous system level to listen to someone else sharing about harm. That's a whole different conversation, though. One I'm eager to have!