In reading, I was reminded of Dostoyevsky’s story, Dream of an Odd Fellow, and the theme that the world is very boring when everything seems the same as everything else.
The idea that you can reduce conscious experience and behavior so sharply so as to conform all perception and action into a gender box described by just a few words: receptive, nurturing, dominating etc is beyond lame. It creates a shallow fiction of the world, of experience and of behavior.
There are some common attributes that emerge as someone becomes more and more well. One is that they stop seeing the world from a closed mental framework. They stop putting people into boxes they value. And they stop seeing themselves everywhere. Instead, they become sensitive to and interested in the unknown and the complex. As a result, the world becomes mysterious and open and a place that invites the unknown aspects of self and other to be recognized.
Thanks again for helping to liberate the mind from these thought cages!
Yes Amy!!!! Yes! The world and our experience in it is so much richer when we leave human nature open to be the mysterious unfolding of each individual we meet.
Absolutely. And it's not to say that patterns don't emerge - as a mom of a 1 year old boy and 3 year old girl, I'm enjoying observing some of these differences. There are also interesting biological differences with social implications like the reality that females have their eggs when born and their nutrition status in youth matters more from an evolutionary standpoint. But to your point, the emerging psychosocial qualities are extremely diverse and yet only hold a minuscule role in the complex human psyche. Allowing curiosity to contextualize attention instead of a rigid model makes space for active presence and all its beauty
This is something I’ve thought a lot about myself. Work like Deida’s is useful in helping us adapt to an inherently unhealthy situation.
My issue with a lot of these people like Jake Woodard is that there is a lot of talk that boils down to “men are this way,” and “women are that way,” as if these people are authorities on the inner lives of the entire human race, since the beginning of time. I am a man, and Jake Woodard does not speak for me.
By focusing on masculinity and femininity, we promote the idea that someone should fit into a mold that ultimately encourages them to be different than the way they are.
About fifteen years ago, I had a conversation with a colleague and mentor about what it means to be a man. He told me we first need to understand what it means to be a human being. I knew he was right, but I didn’t get it yet. Now I do. Obviously you do, too.
Thanks, Tom! I really like that: “…helping us adapt to an inherently unhealthy situation.” I wanted to spend some time adding that angle to the post. It was helpful for fitting into the socialized gender role us men are forced into. But my relationships and life have gotten way better once I started breaking out of that role. Appreciate you reading and commenting!
I read Way of the Superior Man recently after dozens of men told me it was “life changing.”
I have to be honest. It was garbage. Ambiguous. Cringey (guys will be sexually attracted to teenage girls? WTF? If you’re completely incapable of being an adult.)
Every time I ask men “Tell me something specific about this book that you have kept as knowledge about life,” every single man who praised this book could not choose a single thing. They answered in vague “it changed the way I think” sentences.
I think Deida and his ilk are grifters. They sprinkle in a handful of truthful, obvious and unoriginal notions, but spend the bulk of their time spewing pablum — or worse; telling men things like “your partner and children should come second to your purpose.” That’s the kind of crap that destroys impressionable children and leaves adult men estranged and lonely.
The emperor has no clothes. Can we all just be honest about this?
It is all disguised as men getting their dick serviced. They don't actually care about women. Women aren't studied at all. Something as basic as seat belts have never been tested on female crash dummies so, no surprise, women suffer internal injuries since their pelvic structure is different than a man's. Women want to LIVE not just have someone helping with the dishes more often.
also -- the idea of polarity is real (its physics) but the misdefinition of masculine/feminine as a sole polarity is so so destructive. attraction and eroticism plays with the possiblity of infinite polarities...we miss so much fun, pleasure, and connection when we try to fit into a tiny cultural box.
How do we “know” polarity is real by the laws of physics versus the laws of socialization? Seems like a stretch to bring science into the space of the human brain, which is highly formed by how we are raised.
Thank you for writing this! I’m not even sure how I feel…lots to think about. What really made sense to me, as a woman, is the importance of vulnerability. My relationship with my husband has become exponentially stronger over the years as he has learned to be more open and honest with his feelings in a loving and calm and non-defensive way.
Great post Jeremy, thank you for calling out Zuckerberg’s nonsense. The idea that corporate culture is lacking in aggression as they amass more power and money year after year is absurd. I think you’re right that the whole thing about masculine and feminine energy is a bit of a smoke screen for capitalist exploitation. I too found myself drawn into the mens movement in my 20’s and was introduced to the concept of essential masculine/feminine polarity. What pulled me out was being introduced to bell hooks and visionary feminism which rang so much more true/vibrant/helpful/life giving.
While not being the worst ideas I’ve been introduced to as a man, the mens movement sure does miss/leave a lot out and ultimately it fell flat for me. Looking back I now view the ideals of gender essentialism as limiting my full relational capacity; the communication skills, socially engaged awareness and flexible ways of being that I continue to nurture.
My parents were so, so, so “backwards” on this that it’s only through the culture that this mode of thinking has been filtered down to me. (They fit the physical archetypes of their genders. It was just how they were. My mom was much more rational and my father more emotional.)
I DO have a lot of experience living in a world where I was different from other boys and men in that respect and… it wasn’t awful, I guess, and though it caused difficulty I didn’t identify it “a problem,” or try to identify its source. But I was just thinking today about how much better the world would be if there were more men like my father.
He brought the same compassion he had in our household to his teaching career, where, unlike the large majority of teachers, he didn’t treat students who performed poorly academically or had behavioral problems as “lesser” than the “good kids.” He treated them with the same respect, and in the process communicated to them that the problems they were having at that point in their lives didn’t mean they were bad people, or destined to have a bad life. (Besides teaching high school science, he also spent many years in special education which deserves its own variety of sainthood.)
He taught kids to never quit. Thar’s the kind of masculine energy I can f—-in’ get behind.
The Rogan/Zuckerberg model seems to be more like, “never struggle.” An unattainable idea.
I can only make a short comment, but I feel that Zuckerberg wants an aggressive corporate presence to overplay his weakness of character. They want less stipulations of responsibility towards their employees and society as a whole. They project this into gender behaviour.
I moved, at 40, from a male dominated work environment into nursing, where my masculinity was needed but in a different way. I recognised that my ability to nurture and care wasn't reduced to my family, but I could be a defender for my patients and staff.
It was my character rather than my gender identification that was challenged. People mix this up.
I find Zuckerberg’s rather superficial musings about masculinity a reflection of the shallowness of bro culture in general. These are people who sit at a desk all day, struggling with computer code and how to “optimize” searches. They aren’t busting their knuckles with wrenches or digging holes. At the end of a work day they don’t have dirt under their nails or crusted dry sweat lining their temples. They make millions or billions a year, not thousands or tens of thousands. Their lack of real callouses has been replaced by callousness. Instead of a quick couple of beers at the local hangout before going home, they enjoy green tea and energy drinks fortified with plant protein. In their world, masculinity takes the form of aggressive dealmaking, callousness toward others and the feelings of others. Dominance is what they seek above all else. Yet they can’t dominate physically, so they dominate virtually. What they don’t get is that all their intellectual and virtual masturbatory masculinity is no substitute for real masculinity. Real masculinity understands that the strength to dominate (physically or virtually) comes with the responsibility to use that strength to lift up those whose strength comes from empathy, compassion and mercy. These tech bros just don’t get that the “masculinity” they crave is only available if they give up the need to dominate.
Essentially your premise is that humans are entirely blank hard drives, a Tabula Rasa anybody can write anything into. There is no essential nature. In fact, there are no scientific biological realities at all.
Nevertheless, every culture for the last 100,000 years, or at least the last 5,000, everywhere on earth, perceived the same thing, an essential Yin and Yang, completely on statistical accident. We alone, being the first culture in human history to have noticed this, are correct and accurate. And that's why human being have never been more unhappy since records were kept, dropping a straight line down since 1960, somehow while also being the safest and most affluent. You alone in 2025 are correct. Every other human ever born is wrong. A bold thesis.
Since from an even keel, human unhappiness is now rising at an almost parabolic rate, especially in the West, who do you think is correct?
Do you want to address what he said and maybe provide some proof to your assertion or do you want to keep making unfounded assertions about human history?
Absolutely write that book, this is singularly the most accurate representation of feminism I’ve seen written by a man. This is exactly what is needed to counter all the worrying ultra masculine, misogynistic bullshit that our young men and women are internalising!
This was really enjoyable to read, thank you.
In reading, I was reminded of Dostoyevsky’s story, Dream of an Odd Fellow, and the theme that the world is very boring when everything seems the same as everything else.
The idea that you can reduce conscious experience and behavior so sharply so as to conform all perception and action into a gender box described by just a few words: receptive, nurturing, dominating etc is beyond lame. It creates a shallow fiction of the world, of experience and of behavior.
There are some common attributes that emerge as someone becomes more and more well. One is that they stop seeing the world from a closed mental framework. They stop putting people into boxes they value. And they stop seeing themselves everywhere. Instead, they become sensitive to and interested in the unknown and the complex. As a result, the world becomes mysterious and open and a place that invites the unknown aspects of self and other to be recognized.
Thanks again for helping to liberate the mind from these thought cages!
I love this! Thank you for sharing. May we all become more and more well.
Yes Amy!!!! Yes! The world and our experience in it is so much richer when we leave human nature open to be the mysterious unfolding of each individual we meet.
Absolutely. And it's not to say that patterns don't emerge - as a mom of a 1 year old boy and 3 year old girl, I'm enjoying observing some of these differences. There are also interesting biological differences with social implications like the reality that females have their eggs when born and their nutrition status in youth matters more from an evolutionary standpoint. But to your point, the emerging psychosocial qualities are extremely diverse and yet only hold a minuscule role in the complex human psyche. Allowing curiosity to contextualize attention instead of a rigid model makes space for active presence and all its beauty
This is something I’ve thought a lot about myself. Work like Deida’s is useful in helping us adapt to an inherently unhealthy situation.
My issue with a lot of these people like Jake Woodard is that there is a lot of talk that boils down to “men are this way,” and “women are that way,” as if these people are authorities on the inner lives of the entire human race, since the beginning of time. I am a man, and Jake Woodard does not speak for me.
By focusing on masculinity and femininity, we promote the idea that someone should fit into a mold that ultimately encourages them to be different than the way they are.
About fifteen years ago, I had a conversation with a colleague and mentor about what it means to be a man. He told me we first need to understand what it means to be a human being. I knew he was right, but I didn’t get it yet. Now I do. Obviously you do, too.
Fantastic piece. I look forward to reading more.
Thanks, Tom! I really like that: “…helping us adapt to an inherently unhealthy situation.” I wanted to spend some time adding that angle to the post. It was helpful for fitting into the socialized gender role us men are forced into. But my relationships and life have gotten way better once I started breaking out of that role. Appreciate you reading and commenting!
So well said Tom. From your first word to the last. Maybe men who purchase these books need to think about what it means to be human first.
I read Way of the Superior Man recently after dozens of men told me it was “life changing.”
I have to be honest. It was garbage. Ambiguous. Cringey (guys will be sexually attracted to teenage girls? WTF? If you’re completely incapable of being an adult.)
Every time I ask men “Tell me something specific about this book that you have kept as knowledge about life,” every single man who praised this book could not choose a single thing. They answered in vague “it changed the way I think” sentences.
I think Deida and his ilk are grifters. They sprinkle in a handful of truthful, obvious and unoriginal notions, but spend the bulk of their time spewing pablum — or worse; telling men things like “your partner and children should come second to your purpose.” That’s the kind of crap that destroys impressionable children and leaves adult men estranged and lonely.
The emperor has no clothes. Can we all just be honest about this?
It is all disguised as men getting their dick serviced. They don't actually care about women. Women aren't studied at all. Something as basic as seat belts have never been tested on female crash dummies so, no surprise, women suffer internal injuries since their pelvic structure is different than a man's. Women want to LIVE not just have someone helping with the dishes more often.
also -- the idea of polarity is real (its physics) but the misdefinition of masculine/feminine as a sole polarity is so so destructive. attraction and eroticism plays with the possiblity of infinite polarities...we miss so much fun, pleasure, and connection when we try to fit into a tiny cultural box.
How do we “know” polarity is real by the laws of physics versus the laws of socialization? Seems like a stretch to bring science into the space of the human brain, which is highly formed by how we are raised.
Let's just connect. Men and women, whatever. We have to open up and do the things. I hate this polarization bs.
I’d disagree on the point that biological differences don’t impact how relationships work and the most common dynamics
However I agree that the polarity model is a poor representation of the differences
You should write that book, Jeremy.
Aw thanks, Christopher. If I can just make some time!
Studying the work being done to combat male violence is essential right now.
https://xyonline.net/sites/xyonline.net/files/Flood%2C%20Men%20Speak%20Up%202011.pdf
Sweetheart, you are not going to understand masculine and feminine energies until you learn to divorce these concepts from gender.
Thank you for writing this! I’m not even sure how I feel…lots to think about. What really made sense to me, as a woman, is the importance of vulnerability. My relationship with my husband has become exponentially stronger over the years as he has learned to be more open and honest with his feelings in a loving and calm and non-defensive way.
Great post Jeremy, thank you for calling out Zuckerberg’s nonsense. The idea that corporate culture is lacking in aggression as they amass more power and money year after year is absurd. I think you’re right that the whole thing about masculine and feminine energy is a bit of a smoke screen for capitalist exploitation. I too found myself drawn into the mens movement in my 20’s and was introduced to the concept of essential masculine/feminine polarity. What pulled me out was being introduced to bell hooks and visionary feminism which rang so much more true/vibrant/helpful/life giving.
While not being the worst ideas I’ve been introduced to as a man, the mens movement sure does miss/leave a lot out and ultimately it fell flat for me. Looking back I now view the ideals of gender essentialism as limiting my full relational capacity; the communication skills, socially engaged awareness and flexible ways of being that I continue to nurture.
My parents were so, so, so “backwards” on this that it’s only through the culture that this mode of thinking has been filtered down to me. (They fit the physical archetypes of their genders. It was just how they were. My mom was much more rational and my father more emotional.)
I DO have a lot of experience living in a world where I was different from other boys and men in that respect and… it wasn’t awful, I guess, and though it caused difficulty I didn’t identify it “a problem,” or try to identify its source. But I was just thinking today about how much better the world would be if there were more men like my father.
He brought the same compassion he had in our household to his teaching career, where, unlike the large majority of teachers, he didn’t treat students who performed poorly academically or had behavioral problems as “lesser” than the “good kids.” He treated them with the same respect, and in the process communicated to them that the problems they were having at that point in their lives didn’t mean they were bad people, or destined to have a bad life. (Besides teaching high school science, he also spent many years in special education which deserves its own variety of sainthood.)
He taught kids to never quit. Thar’s the kind of masculine energy I can f—-in’ get behind.
The Rogan/Zuckerberg model seems to be more like, “never struggle.” An unattainable idea.
I can only make a short comment, but I feel that Zuckerberg wants an aggressive corporate presence to overplay his weakness of character. They want less stipulations of responsibility towards their employees and society as a whole. They project this into gender behaviour.
I moved, at 40, from a male dominated work environment into nursing, where my masculinity was needed but in a different way. I recognised that my ability to nurture and care wasn't reduced to my family, but I could be a defender for my patients and staff.
It was my character rather than my gender identification that was challenged. People mix this up.
This is beautiful, thank you.
I find Zuckerberg’s rather superficial musings about masculinity a reflection of the shallowness of bro culture in general. These are people who sit at a desk all day, struggling with computer code and how to “optimize” searches. They aren’t busting their knuckles with wrenches or digging holes. At the end of a work day they don’t have dirt under their nails or crusted dry sweat lining their temples. They make millions or billions a year, not thousands or tens of thousands. Their lack of real callouses has been replaced by callousness. Instead of a quick couple of beers at the local hangout before going home, they enjoy green tea and energy drinks fortified with plant protein. In their world, masculinity takes the form of aggressive dealmaking, callousness toward others and the feelings of others. Dominance is what they seek above all else. Yet they can’t dominate physically, so they dominate virtually. What they don’t get is that all their intellectual and virtual masturbatory masculinity is no substitute for real masculinity. Real masculinity understands that the strength to dominate (physically or virtually) comes with the responsibility to use that strength to lift up those whose strength comes from empathy, compassion and mercy. These tech bros just don’t get that the “masculinity” they crave is only available if they give up the need to dominate.
Essentially your premise is that humans are entirely blank hard drives, a Tabula Rasa anybody can write anything into. There is no essential nature. In fact, there are no scientific biological realities at all.
Nevertheless, every culture for the last 100,000 years, or at least the last 5,000, everywhere on earth, perceived the same thing, an essential Yin and Yang, completely on statistical accident. We alone, being the first culture in human history to have noticed this, are correct and accurate. And that's why human being have never been more unhappy since records were kept, dropping a straight line down since 1960, somehow while also being the safest and most affluent. You alone in 2025 are correct. Every other human ever born is wrong. A bold thesis.
Since from an even keel, human unhappiness is now rising at an almost parabolic rate, especially in the West, who do you think is correct?
Do you want to address what he said and maybe provide some proof to your assertion or do you want to keep making unfounded assertions about human history?
Absolutely write that book, this is singularly the most accurate representation of feminism I’ve seen written by a man. This is exactly what is needed to counter all the worrying ultra masculine, misogynistic bullshit that our young men and women are internalising!