Repeat post, but it's a good article.

Are you kidding? It's clickbait nonsense!

It's a long form essay. You don't need to mis-categorize it because you don't agree with it.

Apparently this map is written by a woman.

It's just a headline hook, the article doesn't really offer itself as a guide, more of an overview.

Obligatory not all men!

If you a dude seeking a bit of help but are more of 'liberal' I can recommend Iron John: A Book about Men.

tl;dr:

Modern society has created a vacuum in the definition of positive masculinity, even to the extent of claiming any masculinity at all is negative. This has led to a crisis of young men and boys not knowing how to be men in modern society.

At the moment, the strongest voices attempting to define "how to be a man" range from Jordan Peterson to "BAP" to Andrew Tate. That is they range from fairly ordinary "stand up straight, make your bed, work hard" to misogynist vitriol.

Thesis: There is a need to provide a guide for how to be a good man. Biology points to characteristics that tend to be more pronounced in biological males: protectiveness of others, proactivity, sexuality as driver to achievement. Providing a positive and specific definition for what this means in our society will benefit society and should not be neglected.

There's a lot more to her article, and it's worth reading.

Maybe someone should call up "modern society" and tell them "they're doing it wrong"...

Obviously, there's this correct way to "be a man", and men are "doing it wrong".

This needs to be fixed! Someone should send "men" a text and 'splain it to them. In simple language of course...

Again, with the meme speak illiteracy 8-(

I'll go out on a limb here, and assert that there may be some men who are in fact not doing it wrong. And, at great risk to my HN social score, I would also think it's posible that some women actually are doing it wrong.

In my experience, it really boils down more to being human, rather than being any particular subdivision of the species.

This is the sad, racist, misogynistic reality of identityism.

In fact, trying to identify as anything more specific that "human" leads to massive over-generalization, and the emergence of division and conflict.

As humans, trying to view things truly objectively is impossible (since we each live in our subjective conscousness), but striving to view things objectively is essential to making any progress in understanding each other. So let's keep trying...

> In fact, trying to identify as anything more specific that "human" leads to massive over-generalization, and the emergence of division and conflict.

While I agree, in general, with your point, I think I disagree on this point.

It is entirely natural, and has been for all of human history, for people to make statements about themselves like:

- I am a woman

- I am a physician

- I am a knitting enthusiast

- I am...

In those ways, people sort themselves into categories, very naturally. Among the single most significant self-identifications people separate themselves into is the thing arising from their biology to produce common traits shared by distinctions of gender. If it is natural for us to say "I am a woman" or "I am a man" why would it not also be natural to speak of people in groups as men or women?

What we have people struggling with is "if I am a man, as I believe, what does it mean to be a good one?" And the specificity matters, because there are traits, again driven by biology that produce statistical clusters of people who will behave differently than someone in some other group. Therefore, attempting to erase gender, or pretend that these differences don't exist and treat everyone with a single standard, is also not helpful, and in many cases harmful.

The most brilliant comment in this article is:

> Men were constantly told to be “better” and less “toxic,” he said, but what that “better” might look like seemed hard to pin down. “You pretty much have to figure it out yourself. But yet society still has the expectation that, you know, you have to be a certain way.”

That rather antithetical to how men function. We like specificity and I am surprise that it's that difficult to understand that you are push young men in the wrong direction when they are being told that they are wrong, but not told what the right answer is. Imagine that behavior in any other aspect of life. Constantly being told that you're wrong, but not help along the right path. That would classify as abuse. Of course some of them are becoming depresses and social withdrawn and of course some of them are going to lash out.

It's a well written article, with a lot of great points and insights. I'm not loving the digs at stoicism or that Jordan Peterson is put in the same broad category as Andrew Tate. It's also a little sad that it doesn't actually provide "a map out", because people like Peterson provides actually tries to provide a map, something that few others attempt. Still a good read, and provides a more nuanced image than we normally see.

Maybe we should just teach everyone to treat others the way they want to be treated and leave it at that. Gender is, in many ways, outdated.

With all due respect, I think this is a bit too simplistic.

You cannot “teach” anyone anything, especially as they grow older, you can model the behaviour you desire, but even then, they have to want to ape their parents behaviour, unlikely for a lot of kids, hence the prevalence of “influencers”.

It’s also a bit flippant to say gender is outdated, boys face different pressures and drivers than girls, see risk appetite for instance.

We do need a discussion about the differences in the genders, and I especially think boys options need to be reviewed as their traditional outlets are eroded more (breadwinner, hunter, gatherer, agression etc..)

That's unfortunately overlooking the biological aspect. Our brain has evolved, but some acts still trigger the biological reactions in potential partners that are desirable and we can't do much about it

We've tried this sort of thing before. Trying to be "race blind" does not result in a post-race world, it casts a pall on the discourse that makes racism harder to acknowledge and address. Anytime you need to discuss it you have to run a gambit of people arguing that acknowledging issues related to race is the "real" racism.

Trying to be "gender blind" will result in much the same. The world is complex; we need to account for that complexity, not ignore it.

They become alt-right, incels and catgirls, and the saddest 99% become/stay entirely normal, just like every previous generation.

It’s too bad Reddit’s gone to shit because the r/menslib subreddit is full of normal guys just being cool and caring about each other without the toxic, macho, anti-women garbage. It’s quite the healthy community.

I'm so tired of these kinds of articles. Would it be okay to publish articles with the title "Women are lost"? Why then is it OK to publish articles with that title about men?

Well, because it's written by a woman of course 8-)

I agree that I'm tired of the kind of articles that massively generalize millions or billions of people into one category, and then edict how they're "doing it wrong".

This is just another example of meme speak illiteracy.

The news industry has fallen so far, there's almost nothing that qualifies as journalism in the big dailies: Wash Post, NY Times, Guardian, etc. all use the very popular "it was a dark and stormy night" literary form of the light novel as a substitute for reporting what's going on in the world.

p.s. Out of context, but I actually LIKE being in the wilderness... (the real kind, not the make believe one in someone's head)

According to the title of the article, half of all people on Earth are "lost", but not the other half. Thankfully, the author is a member of the good half, so we can be sure the article is correct /s

Had you read the article, you'd realize she's talking about men in the United States generally, and in North America slightly more broadly.

Sounds like I missed out on some quality reading material!

This is a clearly marked opinion piece.

I’m so tired of these comments where the GP just makes a vague, uninteresting, useless complaint about the fucking headline.

Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

If you read the article, I suspect you'd be pleasantly surprised at its content.

"Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead."

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

You know what, your comment the last straw for me. This is the last time I open this website. Who has time for this shit? I'm here for tech content ant not being told there is something wrong with me because of what genitals I was born with.

I promise you that HN is moderated without any consideration of your genitals. The problem is just that comments expressing generic annoyance with article titles don't lead to interesting conversation. We want interesting and (above all) curious conversation.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Behold; the bed modern society made. Enjoy.

Within male culture, what women think of us is relevant only within a romantic context. Male culture can only be created by men.

What governments think of men matters, and women participate in government. But when governments fall, its men who topple them. Only men. Sometimes the girlfriends help.

As a man, I am not wringing my hands. I have marshaled power and I’m using it to support and protect my family. My psychology is just fine. But if you disagree, good luck with that. Maybe go to war over it? First you will need to recruit some men to help you.

The greatest problem that faces humanity is angry men. Because angry men disrupt every hopeful project. Nobody is worried about angry women. Anyway, you can’t solve that with snarkiness or contempt or women writing emasculating op-eds. That problem can only be solved by offering respect, whether or not you think it is deserved.

Bottom line: men will sort it out amongst themselves. Part of that process may result in the extinction of a substantial portion of humanity.

If you didn't care what women thought of you, it wouldn't even occur to you to explain to them how powerful you are and how powerless they are. To quote the masculine icon Tyrion Lannister, "any man who must say, 'I am the King', is no true king."

You wrote this because you know it isn't true.

The poor author got betrayed by her headline writer. She's not offering a "map" (how moronic) nor is she presuming to tell men what to do. She's making a respectful attempt to understand social realities behind the rightward swing of younger men (the appeal of Peterson, Tate, etc.). But she has to wrap it in so many pieities and disclaimers for her fragile audience that her point is lost and the article is unreadable. If you're enough of a masochist to read it closely anyhow, it's clear that she's quietly undermining that ideology (e.g. "I, a heterosexual woman, cringed in recognition.") and is something of an ally to the people most likely to reject an article like this.

I think the elephant in the room is actually the fact she’s a woman. Liberals would find so many issues with it, if it was an article about models of femininity, written by a man.

Absolutely. The author's gender shouldn't matter if the writing stands well on its own. The issue is that skepticism about authority on the subject is a readily assumed knee-jerk reflex after reading the title. The actual writing doesn't meet credulity because of the cherry-picking of extreme examples used them to form hasty generalizations.

Another issue is that a large swath of modern men, in my view, are silently ignored and/or don't participate in society as much in the recent decade or take part in these sort of public debates.

Throwing around "incel" comes across as a passive-aggressive judgement tantamount to labeling people "terrorists" or "pedophiles".

If younger people, independent of gender, are moving to the right, then that signals there is a messaging and/or brand problem with the left doing or not doing something. Perhaps the mainstream left needs to preach "tolerance of all != acceptance, muzzling people == totalitarian != liberalism" to bring more undecided, swing votes, independents, and such into their camp.

Conclusion: They don't have a map their thesis purports to offer, only opinions lacking in merit, purpose, and constructive feedback.

> Absolutely. The author's gender shouldn't matter if the writing stands well on its own.

shouldn't, but we're clearly not in a post-sexism world yet. In hindsight, the same article should have been released under a male-sounding pen name.

If she came out and said, "hey incels, your problems are your own fault, now grow a spine, take a shower, and get a job" do you think the WaPo would be more offended or do you think the "manosphere" would have an aneurism?

Those are core tenants of the manosphere.

To get laid, you have to be fuckable.

The manosphere is pretty big. Black pillers might say, "getting paid is impossible," and MGTOW might say, "getting laid is a mistake."

Those are core tenants of the pickup artist and adjacent parts however.

Obligatory: "Obviously, the first place men should look to help them define 'masculinity' is an article written by a woman in the Washington Post."

More seriously... in my opinion, being a man is about taking command of yourself first and foremost. Measure yourself against the yardstick that you choose, as opposed to looking to others for validation.

I'll also point out that this doesn't apply only to males. My wife and I have two daughters, and I honestly can't think of anything I'd do drastically different if they were boys.

I think there's a lot more in this space than people may be aware of. I have seen a fair number of breadtube discussions about what positive masculinity looks like.

In particular, F.D. Signifier just talked about masculinity in anime, and what good masculinity looks like.

But honestly this exists in a lot of places. Ted Lasso in S1 of Ted Lasso is a reasonable example of more positive masculinity.

And the real question that I think is gonna make a lot of people mad is. Why do we need a separate definition of "What makes someone a good man?" vs. "What makes someone a good woman?" vs. "What makes someone a good person?"

Why is it important for people to be good while attached to a gender? I say this as a cis-het-white man who is following my best impression of how to be a good man. But the answer I'm running headlong into, is that there's nothing about my gender that means I shouldn't be striving to just be a "good person".

My theory is because we are intrinsically selfish, so even when doing a good act, we expect some sort of return, even if it's a person' smile or a good feeling (I know that's roughly the definition of selfless).

Being a good man is a statement usually seen in the context of straight couples, so when I read it my interpretation is "doing good stuff as a person in a way that attracts potential partners". Again, good person with something in return

Why is that different for men vs. women even in a heterosexual couple?

Why are the "good" things you do that attract a partner for you, different than the "good" things you're attracted to?

Also, are you saying you wouldn't do good stuff for another person of the same gender as you (assuming you're heterosexual)? I had a roommate like that, and the dude was a colossal prick. He would do things for women, but if you wanted to do something for you, he demanded something in return.

It's not really sustainable. Also, it's pretty transparently a signal that you're just not a "good" person if you only do "good things" to get something in return. IMO.

I'm saying that when it's used with a gender attached it is in reference to doing some specific things that attracts other partners. Also, the thing is not mutually exclusive, you can be a good person and a good man/woman (good person with potential to attract partners you are interested in).

Just to be clear, my talk is abstract, I'm not referring to my personal behavior.

That being said, when I do a nice thing for somebody else's sake with 0 expectations in return, I know my body will provide me with a warm feeling that will probably make me smile, thinking the other person felt good about it. I can't help but think that this is the reason why I would do that, so I feel selfish either way

I'm gonna start with your 3rd point. I think that's an okay time to feel fine about a thing. Honestly, I think that's the best time to feel good about something.

#2 Yeah, sorry, I think I made it seem like I was suggesting something about you, when in fact, I was just reminiscing about how much I didn't like that roommate. I don't know you. But I think that doing nice things for people without expecting something in return is fine regardless of your sexual inclinations. It doesn't make you a "good man" or a "good woman" it makes you a "good person". And I think that's the goal above the other 2 goals.

#1 I think I understood your original point, and I'm asking why do we think that the things that would attract a partner of a different sex than us, are necessarily different? Why are some good/bad actions necessarily gendered? I think we've been fighting a bunch of double standards that negatively impact everyone, and we're recognizing that it's good/bad behavior regardless of who it is. For example, holding the door open for someone is a fine behavior regardless of who you do it for. There's nothing inherently nicely masculine about it.

I think I agree with you. In the end is just what I'm used to hear (I do hold the door for anybody, somebody did that for me in Canada and I really appreciated it), but maybe the wait to fight this perception is to just stop using it and do nice things for everybody.

Thank you, really appreciate the exchange!

Yes, exactly. The gender-driven questions have been replaced by a general (and imho more important) question of how to be a good person. That question, however, is also much more abstract (I can measure my body fat, how do I measure “good”?) and, logically, people will struggle more to find answers. Particularly if they lack good humanitarian education which should, fundamentally, provide a deep insight into all of the accumulated thoughts on the human condition. Given men tend to gravitate towards STEM and the ideologization of humanities, the situation kinda makes sense.

> Why is it important for people to be good while attached to a gender?

Because societal roles for men and women differ? Because biology for men and women differ? These differences are so stark that the problems the others face are often not even registered as existing by the other group. While there is a large intersection between what makes each group "good", it's not a complete overlap.

The 'ground truth' is biology and genetics. Women are attracted to men with certain characteristics. Only women can have children. Men are aggressive and fight wars and impregnate women.

If you're not reproducing>2 and want to be a creature of pure intellect that's great; you get one generation to fart around. Meanwhile the traditional religious conservatives shall inherit the earth.

I think there are a lot of religious conservative women who are discovering there's more to life than having children with aggressive men. And also that they don't find themselves attracted to those men for very long.

But also, you're making it sound like we're just animals and nothing more. And while I agree we're animals, I think it's unfair to reduce us to our most animalistic traits. Why are you typing on a computer if you're just an animal and nothing more?

I'm saying that there are real differences between men and women and what they look for in a mate, and what ultimately matters over a timespan >1 generation is who is making more babies, because without that preliminary step nothing else matters.

Can you describe those differences? Specifically in terms of personality traits that I would associate as masculine or feminine?

We've belatedly changed the baity title to a more representative phrase from the article.

Man (vs. woman) is primarily symbolic. Symbols need to refer to something in order to orient. Since we live in a hyper-symbolic time, referents become overloaded and break. Men are currently attempting to navigate a sea of symbols with no referents. Many are falling back to powerful old symbols that still refer to /something/ (thus appeal of Peterson, Tate, neo-(neo?-)Christianity) in order to have /some/ orientation.