I think encouraging healthy emotional relationships among men is probably a better idea for society than the "the world is harsh and unpleasant so you must be strong" sort of rhetoric that I hear men tell each other on this website a lot.

What if that's the truth? It's useful to know what to expect and what not to, even if you'd be much happier if you only expect good things ... at least until your expectations don't match reality and you're swept off your feet because you never knew that might happen.

I don't understand how men operate among themselves to be honest but I do know that my ability to share my feelings and struggles with my friends and family has helped me grow and survive a lot of hardships in my life. My husband has me for that now, but he only has me for that and didn't have that with anyone in the past and I think it hurt him and he is still recovering. I go out of my way to talk to his family when he is hurting about something for instance because he is too proud to do it himself, and we all don't tell him that we've been worried about him and instead just try to lift him up. It works, but only because he has a woman in his life. When he was single he says he would just sink into depression and engross himself in work and hobbies alone all day. That's so unhealthy to be that lonely and disconnected from others. I think my husband is a pretty typical guy and I wonder what he would be like now 7 years since we met if he had remained single. What kind of dark place would he have found himself in? It makes me worried for a lot of young guys. It's like they live in a self enforced solitary confinement.... Solitary confinement drives people nuts.

Should male culture become a copy of female culture? That wouldn't work I don't think because I think men have different personality types and tastes on average but it doesn't mean that they can't learn to express their emotions and build friendships with people where they feel comfortable confiding their hurts and fears to each other. Just a basic support network really....

And speaking of friendship, that's another area where me and my girlfriends have noticed that pretty much every man in our lives struggles. It seems like once a guy leaves college his ability to make close friends drops to almost zero. Meanwhile I've made some of my best friendships in my 30s at women's meetups.

I believe your husband is lucky and it's certainly a good approach that you're using, but for many/most men, that's not the experience they are having, whether they're married or not. They'll hunger for attention and won't find it, they'll need help but will not get any. What else could you say to them but some version of "winter is coming, be prepared"?

The best you can do for the vast majority is handing out winter coats and hope they'll find ways to deal with what life offers them besides drugs and suicide. It is what it is, their suffering usually is damaging only to themselves and thus society at large has no interest in changing it.

My wife was the first person I shared my feelings with. Since then I have learned and grown to share those feelings with my family and friends as well.

I honestly don’t know why I didn’t grow up sharing my feelings, but I believe it has something to do with culture as well as the way paternal figures in my life behaved.

> Jordan Peterson spews a bunch of nonsense about fighting dragons and embracing suffering

Fighting dragons - Buy into the hero's journey / have big aspirations / reject inertia.

Embrace suffering - delayed gratification / you're entitled to nothing / hedonism doesn't work.

Really, at its very core it drives home ideas of male expendability. You will be loved if you can provide, so 'clean up your room', start providing and if still no women want to be with you, then we can talk about it.

I don't see why you'd call it a "bunch of nonsense" when his messages are merely digestible morsels of the most prevalent traditional thought. The metaphors are obvious enough really. It is adult versions of Aesop's fables & Panchatantra. It is the exact opposite of 'a bunch of nonsense'. They are the most well understood civilizational cliches of humanity.

> Really, at its very core it drives home ideas of male expendability.

Do you think it's healthy for boys to be taught that they are expendable and that their lives only have conditional value that can go away at any time if they are unable to work?

Or do you just think "that's the way things have always been so we should embrace it?"

I think probably most manosphere guys think the former which is why I say that there's no positive vision of a future for men. Just this very dreary outlook that life is some sort of hopeless struggle. No wonder so many men are violent and angry if that's the message they get their whole lives. :(

I actually love the men in my life and I want better for them and this slaying dragons stuff doesn't help them as far as I can see. They need to feel like they are valued and loved so that they can open themselves up to more possibilities beyond trying to act tough by building walls around them.

> Do you think it's healthy for boys to be taught that they are expendable and that their lives only have conditional value that can go away at any time if they are unable to work?

I do see your point, however this is an issue with all self-help advice. As a person who looks for such advice, you're looking for something you can fix about yourself. Whether it is a good thing on a society level is not the question.

> Do you think it's healthy

    "All models are wrong; some models are useful."

Yes. It is essential & useful for struggling boys to internalize the values of male expendability. If anything, Peterson's "go on a hero's journey & prioritize self-improvement" way of phrasing it is fairly optimistic and hopeful.

The question isn't "how should men with already healthy co-ed social circles structure their lives?". Those men don't need Peterson. They already have a functioning model of the world. The question is "how do chronically unsuccessful men with zero potential partners avoid spiralling into a cycle of depression, nihilism & misogyny?".

Peterson's "Women behave in ways that perfectly align with their constraints and incentives." message implies that "There is a light at the end of the tunnel if you can grow in ways that align with women, they may reward you with attention and intimacy." Now this might not be a correct view of the world, but it is a useful model for pulling people out of a bad spot into something productive. The more nuanced views of the world will come later, but at least these people are out of their rut for now. It also humanizes women in that "Just like men, women are greedily looking for interactions that enrich their lives". It preemptively dismantles the 'nice guy attack pattern' which places blame on women.

I am not entirely sure women fully realize the extent to which the societal behaviors of single-straight men revolve around finding a romantic partner. The degree of desired promiscuity varies, but it is foundational to male-female interactions for men in their 20s. This is especially true the more starved the men are. "Starved" is the perfect word for it too, because just like food, those living in abundance of it can forget just how desperate a famine can feel.

> men are violent and angry

I'd say it is the opposite. The inability to make peace with male expendability is exactly what leads to the male entitlement, which in turn leads to violence and anger. The old 'patriarchal' image of man was progressively mocked and dismantled, but it was replaced with nothing. Certain toxic parts of the manosphere prey on these empty men, but the real question is why that emptiness has suddenly arisen in the 21st century.

> beyond trying to act tough by building walls around them.

It makes me wonder if you've only ever experienced the meme version of Peterson. He is among the most emotionally intune and vulnerable men I've seen. I mean, just read the the 12 rules he has come up with in his proverbial bible.

    "Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street."
 
    "Make friends with people who want the best for you."

    "Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today."

    "Pursue what is meaningful"

It is literally timeless ideas rephrased for a modern person. There is nothing offensive about them. If anything, the one valid criticism I can think of is "duh, aren't these super obvious"? To which I'd say, not for the target audience.

> I actually love the men in my life and I want better for them

Advice for 'Persons' and advice for 'People' are different things. These books are written for 'People'. You are talking about 'Persons' in your life. Advice for People must by definition be generic. Advice for Persons can often contrast 'generic People advice' because you know specifics about what works for them and their circumstances. Then, it is okay for them to be in conflict. It does not invalidate either.

> They need to feel like they are valued and loved so that they can open themselves up to more possibilities

I would genuinely appreciate if you could elaborate on what you mean here. Vague platitudes are one thing. But, universal specific advice is incredibly hard to phrase. If you could phrase a new positive counter-model for these 'disenfranchised men' to follow, then I am all ears.

>> They need to feel like they are valued and loved so that they can open themselves up to more possibilities

> I would genuinely appreciate if you could elaborate on what you mean here. Vague platitudes are one thing. But, universal specific advice is incredibly hard to phrase. If you could phrase a new positive counter-model for these 'disenfranchised men' to follow, then I am all ears.

I was just thinking about my own life and the people in it and about how socially cloistered and risk averse some of the less [socially] successful men, and women, I've known have been and how that closed off stance toward the world preceded their lack of success. Feeling like you have intrinsic value gives a person a foundation to stand on so that they can branch out socially. Does that make sense?

It's like how coming from a wealthy family allows you to take more career risks like accepting unpaid internships. Showing your personality to strangers and acquaintances is like taking an unpaid internship. You're putting yourself out there with no immediate reward and no guarantee that it will work out. You could get rejected, but you could also make a genuine connection.... If you're "poor" you might decide that the risk is too much.

Somebody here said something like: "men make society and women are society. Men have to buy their way in to society or die protecting it." I think that message is toxic because while a few guys might hear it and feel gassed up about their "heroes journey" toward "buying" their way into being seen as an actual member of society [human], many others will probably find it paralyzing and be pushed into choosing life strategies which are overly conservative as a result.

Part of having a conservative life strategy would be to close yourself off emotionally right? Showing vulnerability is risky because it can open you up to criticism or lower your perceived value; but at the same time people who are vulnerable tend to build stronger relationships and those relationships have a compounding effect on their well being as having more friends and friends of friends etc.... exponentially increases your chances of finding romantic partners, job opportunities and many other of the things that make for what most people would call a successful life.

Another sad thing about it is that the idea of needing to "buy your way in" to society is that it pits men in a competition against one another for value. Seems worth investigating if this has something to do with the way that men don't support each other the way that women often do. Instead men seem to pile onto other men who show signs of weakness and try to totally destroy them as if life were a last-man-standing video game where taking out the competition leaves more loot for you.

Like, have you read much about female autism? One reason girls are better at "masking" their autism is that neurotypical girls will help autistic girls to fit in. They nurture them essentially. Isn't that interesting? How do neurotypical boys treat autistic boys by contrast?

I'm sort of rambling here, but hopefully this makes sense.

Males can't grow babies inside their bodies. Fish can't run marathons. Whatever. Being able to grow a baby inside you is really cool and important but we don't live in a hunter gatherer tribe that is in danger of going extinct due to lack of babies. Feels like we ought to send boys the message that they are intrinsically valuable and lovable too so that they can feel safe to express themselves and build social networks without worrying constantly about falling out the bottom of society.

Thank you for that article, it was a thought-provoking read.