I loved reading this and it makes me want to order your book (though my kids are mostly grown now). I love your mention of “Inside Out,” too — and was reminded of something that my friend’s husband remarked, after watching the first movie: the emotional control center of Riley’s mom was managed by Sadness, for her dad, the emotion at the center was Anger.
Now I want to start psychoanalyzing Buzz and Woody.
Finding all your insights fascinating. Some reflections on what you have written -
“Conformity”
“The creation of highly hierarchical organizations…” best embodied I feel by the corporations that now span the globe and make massive, massive profits for the very few mostly male owners.
Incredible leveraging power of using all the labour of all us worker drones conforming for an our wages to pay off our endless debts. You either confirm and contribute or your cast out. Conform, obey get paid. Rinse repeat ad nauseam.
It is one of our super powers this co-ordinated conforming cooperation is very powerful and can be exceptionally destructive. See the changed climate and any war.
“Protection”
Protecting women has a connotation control and domination for me. If I was to protect someone it would be a temporary urgent need that I may be able to prevent some harm I can see in some way.
Merriam-Webster definition of protection - one that protects. Supervision or support of one that is smaller and weaker.
Protect = to cover or shield from exposure, injury, damage, or destruction.
I don’t see it my role to be a “protector” as such. I care about others, have concern for others, will help if I can. But general “protection” of women because I think they need protection, no.
‘Men are just simpler’
In some ways we are, however we are also extremely emotional.
And when a lot of deep emotional energy is serious
repressed over years and years it does explode in self destruction and violence to others. Watch the news any night.
I have ranted a few times now on SubStack about how man don’t talk about the real stuff, not really. I have seen that many men don’t share in their deep feelings in their personnel relationships. And there is literally nowhere else men can go to open up and share deep emotional pain and feelings in a non judgement safe way.
So, on we roll with men topping out all the suicide and imprisonment statistics.
I can see that you are approaching this in good faith, and with a tone of compassion that I can trust implicitly, for that you are a rare individual among the majority of your feminist cohorts, and I thank you for it. There’s no possible way that I could undertake to address every area of curiosity or critique that your essay provoked in my reading of it, but there is one specific statement you make at the end which I would regard as fundamentally indicative of the distinctly sexed ways humans experience the their human-being, you say: “We must tell them that they are worthy of love not because of what they can do, but because of who they are.” Before presuming to give my opinion on this sentiment, I would simply ask the author the following question: what is the difference between who I am and what I do? What other than what I do makes me who I am? What more than doing to become who I am is there in being a man?
Hi Lance! We are in the field of spirituality here, so I understand that each of us can have a different stance on this. In my case, I believe that what we do is incredibly important, but it's not the thing that makes us worthy of love. We can be Loved when we are too weak to stand. We can be loved when we do wrong. I believe that love is an all-encompassing force that goes way beyond the small things that we do every day. In regards to men, I believe we have been conditioned to believe that men are worthy of love as long as they serve a function. When they don't, their life ceases to have meaning. I believe that's the reason why, sadly, many men kill themselves after retirement. They feel that they have more worth to their families for the insurance prize than as human beings. This breaks my heart.
I think this has very much less to do with arbitrary social conditioning than many are lead to believe. You are correct, I think, in addressing the underlying existential cause of the observed disproportion of men (and boys) who take their lives; suicide is a course taken by those who feel they're lives no longer have a purpose. This lack of purpose occurs when one loses hope of finding, or having been once found is subsequently lost, a relational position in the world. Human beings, male and female, are never going to lack a need for that purpose, and the vast majority of people (male and female) find that purpose in relationship to others. The increasingly atomized and consumerist nature of our society is proving to be deleterious to the formation of a stable, cross-generational, social paradigm in which individuals have a role to play beyond the merely economic. This is causing immense harm to both men and women, but the outsized effect observed amongst males is clearly a result of the fact that males have even fewer quintessentially important relational roles to play in society: the paternal role has been culturally trivialized (and downright demonized) to such a degree that any boy longing to become a father (as most do eventually) perceives that his only chance of becoming worthy to participate in a family of his own is to make himself economically indispensable to the mother (whose importance to the family is self-evident and without condition). The importance of the masculine role has been undermined both in the private and the public sphere, and this has resulted in a society which is simply devoid of purpose or belonging for men and boys who are unwilling to remain stalwart and stubborn in the face of the persistent everyday attacks upon their very raison d'etre... #TheFutureIsFemale after-all, who could fault them for taking notice of the fact that their loss of purpose seems to be the goal of "progress"?
I agree with many of the things you wrote. I find particularly interesting the point you make about the impact of the “increasingly atomized and consumerist nature of our society”. In my experience that is particularly true in the US: that is, in fact, the main reason why in 2021 I decided to move back to Italy after 10 years in the US, despite the fact that I found a success in America that I could have never found in my home country. However, I felt lonely and disconnected in LA, and I didn’t want to live that way any longer. I disagree with you where you say that “the importance of the masculine has been undermined in the private and public sphere” - I think I understand where you are coming from, but men seem to be all that matters right now in the public sphere: they are calling the shots, and making a big show of it. As I wrote in one of my previous posts, I think “the future is female” framework should be dismissed because the point isn’t to replace the group in power but rather to change the way we think of power and how we choose to exercise it. I try to stay away from us vs them kind of approaches because my goal isn’t to prove anyone wrong, but rather to join those who are trying to carve a path forward from a place of compassion, and love.
The men who ascend to the top of any hierarchy are, by definition, exceptional individuals, such men cannot be said to have achieved their positions as a result of merely being male. We could, I imagine, argue ad nauseam about the extent to which, and why, men dominate the public sphere, but instead I'd like to point out two implications of the pattern which you didn't disagree with me upon: namely, that the ONLY domain in which men can be argued to be ascendant is the public sphere. Firstly, it must be recognized that only a very small percentage of individuals relative to the collective majority occupy positions of preeminent power within the public sphere; of this minority of individuals who are at the top of their respective competence hierarchy (i.e. public office, CEO, etc.) the majority are indeed male, but that leaves the remaining significant majority of men on par with, or indeed, beneath the majority of women in the public sphere. And secondly, the degradation of the masculine role in the private sphere (which you did not seem to disagree has occurred) serves to undermine the average role which 99.9% of men will play in the public sphere, because the vast majority of men will work jobs EXCLUSIVELY as a means to the end of obtaining a role within the private sphere (ergo, for the purpose of supporting a family). For any man who isn't Elon Musk (which is 99.9999999% of all men) this makes for a remarkably demoralizing set of requirements to meet in order to earn a purposeful and meaningful position in society.
I see the origin of our disagreement there. :-) I don’t believe that “men who ascend to the top are by definition (whose definition?) exceptional”. Many of those at the top were born there. And the fact that men tend to favor the ascent of other men is a proven fact. Revising history and facts that have been proven, studied and analyzed by decades of research and studies is of no interest to me and I find it intellectually dishonest. The way of thinking you outlined above can only lead to the belief that women are unfit to be in the public sphere or in any other position they are not already occupying, and I find that position so disheartening and false that I have no interest in arguing against it.
Additionally, it might behoove you to know that women demonstrate a significantly greater in-group bias for women than men do for men; in other words, women like women far more than men like men. Men do not favor the ascent of other men, they merely favor the ascent of the individual who has proven him or her self to be most competent. This is a well-researched pattern if you're interested in looking into it.
By definition of the fact that those positions are haughtily and persistently contested for by, at the very least, other men (but most certainly other women as well); additionally, the capacity of those men, within said hierarchies, to perform the function of their position is judged by the society for whose benefit they exist to serve. For example, a CEO who creates a business will fail if his business does not provide a product or service that is deemed valuable by the market; thus, the success of any one CEO is predicated upon the collective evaluation of, not only those operating within his own hierarchy competing for his position, but everyone outside his hierarchy among whom the value of his product/service will be judged by it's willingness to purchase the product of his business. It is, as a matter of fact, not true that "many of those at the top were born there", and none of those who can be said to have inherited their positions of extraordinary wealth can be observed to have an inordinate degree of power because of their inheritance.
I did my part… no Barbies, And absolutely no Disney stories! Now my children, who are all females by the way, will give the world literal hell when standing up for women’s rights.
Thanks a lot for your interest, Olivia! There is no pre-order right now, I am a bit of a pirate in the world of publishing! I'm self-publishing this book just like I did with Rebel Girls. But if you subscribe to this newsletter, you'll be the first to know if this changes or when the book becomes available! Thanks a lot.
Well, in the Disney movie, one stepsister is ginger, but it also says something about gingers!! I think the king on Snow White was manipulated into marrying the woman who became the evil queen. He can’t divorce her either, because, you know, royal rules. At least that’s how I look at it with 2025 eyes. Dude needs therapy, if you ask me. And notice how many Disney movies feature single parents? Until 2000 or so, Mulan was the only major movie character with two living parents!
I loved reading this and it makes me want to order your book (though my kids are mostly grown now). I love your mention of “Inside Out,” too — and was reminded of something that my friend’s husband remarked, after watching the first movie: the emotional control center of Riley’s mom was managed by Sadness, for her dad, the emotion at the center was Anger.
Now I want to start psychoanalyzing Buzz and Woody.
Hahahaah 😅 yes, I think we’d find some interesting material in both!
So glad you’re taking this on
Finding all your insights fascinating. Some reflections on what you have written -
“Conformity”
“The creation of highly hierarchical organizations…” best embodied I feel by the corporations that now span the globe and make massive, massive profits for the very few mostly male owners.
Incredible leveraging power of using all the labour of all us worker drones conforming for an our wages to pay off our endless debts. You either confirm and contribute or your cast out. Conform, obey get paid. Rinse repeat ad nauseam.
It is one of our super powers this co-ordinated conforming cooperation is very powerful and can be exceptionally destructive. See the changed climate and any war.
“Protection”
Protecting women has a connotation control and domination for me. If I was to protect someone it would be a temporary urgent need that I may be able to prevent some harm I can see in some way.
Merriam-Webster definition of protection - one that protects. Supervision or support of one that is smaller and weaker.
Protect = to cover or shield from exposure, injury, damage, or destruction.
I don’t see it my role to be a “protector” as such. I care about others, have concern for others, will help if I can. But general “protection” of women because I think they need protection, no.
‘Men are just simpler’
In some ways we are, however we are also extremely emotional.
And when a lot of deep emotional energy is serious
repressed over years and years it does explode in self destruction and violence to others. Watch the news any night.
I have ranted a few times now on SubStack about how man don’t talk about the real stuff, not really. I have seen that many men don’t share in their deep feelings in their personnel relationships. And there is literally nowhere else men can go to open up and share deep emotional pain and feelings in a non judgement safe way.
So, on we roll with men topping out all the suicide and imprisonment statistics.
Thanks.
Can’t wait for its launch in the UK too!
When and how will I be able to order the book?
Hello Mary, the book will be published on March 20th! Thanks for your interest!
I can see that you are approaching this in good faith, and with a tone of compassion that I can trust implicitly, for that you are a rare individual among the majority of your feminist cohorts, and I thank you for it. There’s no possible way that I could undertake to address every area of curiosity or critique that your essay provoked in my reading of it, but there is one specific statement you make at the end which I would regard as fundamentally indicative of the distinctly sexed ways humans experience the their human-being, you say: “We must tell them that they are worthy of love not because of what they can do, but because of who they are.” Before presuming to give my opinion on this sentiment, I would simply ask the author the following question: what is the difference between who I am and what I do? What other than what I do makes me who I am? What more than doing to become who I am is there in being a man?
Hi Lance! We are in the field of spirituality here, so I understand that each of us can have a different stance on this. In my case, I believe that what we do is incredibly important, but it's not the thing that makes us worthy of love. We can be Loved when we are too weak to stand. We can be loved when we do wrong. I believe that love is an all-encompassing force that goes way beyond the small things that we do every day. In regards to men, I believe we have been conditioned to believe that men are worthy of love as long as they serve a function. When they don't, their life ceases to have meaning. I believe that's the reason why, sadly, many men kill themselves after retirement. They feel that they have more worth to their families for the insurance prize than as human beings. This breaks my heart.
I think this has very much less to do with arbitrary social conditioning than many are lead to believe. You are correct, I think, in addressing the underlying existential cause of the observed disproportion of men (and boys) who take their lives; suicide is a course taken by those who feel they're lives no longer have a purpose. This lack of purpose occurs when one loses hope of finding, or having been once found is subsequently lost, a relational position in the world. Human beings, male and female, are never going to lack a need for that purpose, and the vast majority of people (male and female) find that purpose in relationship to others. The increasingly atomized and consumerist nature of our society is proving to be deleterious to the formation of a stable, cross-generational, social paradigm in which individuals have a role to play beyond the merely economic. This is causing immense harm to both men and women, but the outsized effect observed amongst males is clearly a result of the fact that males have even fewer quintessentially important relational roles to play in society: the paternal role has been culturally trivialized (and downright demonized) to such a degree that any boy longing to become a father (as most do eventually) perceives that his only chance of becoming worthy to participate in a family of his own is to make himself economically indispensable to the mother (whose importance to the family is self-evident and without condition). The importance of the masculine role has been undermined both in the private and the public sphere, and this has resulted in a society which is simply devoid of purpose or belonging for men and boys who are unwilling to remain stalwart and stubborn in the face of the persistent everyday attacks upon their very raison d'etre... #TheFutureIsFemale after-all, who could fault them for taking notice of the fact that their loss of purpose seems to be the goal of "progress"?
I agree with many of the things you wrote. I find particularly interesting the point you make about the impact of the “increasingly atomized and consumerist nature of our society”. In my experience that is particularly true in the US: that is, in fact, the main reason why in 2021 I decided to move back to Italy after 10 years in the US, despite the fact that I found a success in America that I could have never found in my home country. However, I felt lonely and disconnected in LA, and I didn’t want to live that way any longer. I disagree with you where you say that “the importance of the masculine has been undermined in the private and public sphere” - I think I understand where you are coming from, but men seem to be all that matters right now in the public sphere: they are calling the shots, and making a big show of it. As I wrote in one of my previous posts, I think “the future is female” framework should be dismissed because the point isn’t to replace the group in power but rather to change the way we think of power and how we choose to exercise it. I try to stay away from us vs them kind of approaches because my goal isn’t to prove anyone wrong, but rather to join those who are trying to carve a path forward from a place of compassion, and love.
The men who ascend to the top of any hierarchy are, by definition, exceptional individuals, such men cannot be said to have achieved their positions as a result of merely being male. We could, I imagine, argue ad nauseam about the extent to which, and why, men dominate the public sphere, but instead I'd like to point out two implications of the pattern which you didn't disagree with me upon: namely, that the ONLY domain in which men can be argued to be ascendant is the public sphere. Firstly, it must be recognized that only a very small percentage of individuals relative to the collective majority occupy positions of preeminent power within the public sphere; of this minority of individuals who are at the top of their respective competence hierarchy (i.e. public office, CEO, etc.) the majority are indeed male, but that leaves the remaining significant majority of men on par with, or indeed, beneath the majority of women in the public sphere. And secondly, the degradation of the masculine role in the private sphere (which you did not seem to disagree has occurred) serves to undermine the average role which 99.9% of men will play in the public sphere, because the vast majority of men will work jobs EXCLUSIVELY as a means to the end of obtaining a role within the private sphere (ergo, for the purpose of supporting a family). For any man who isn't Elon Musk (which is 99.9999999% of all men) this makes for a remarkably demoralizing set of requirements to meet in order to earn a purposeful and meaningful position in society.
I see the origin of our disagreement there. :-) I don’t believe that “men who ascend to the top are by definition (whose definition?) exceptional”. Many of those at the top were born there. And the fact that men tend to favor the ascent of other men is a proven fact. Revising history and facts that have been proven, studied and analyzed by decades of research and studies is of no interest to me and I find it intellectually dishonest. The way of thinking you outlined above can only lead to the belief that women are unfit to be in the public sphere or in any other position they are not already occupying, and I find that position so disheartening and false that I have no interest in arguing against it.
Additionally, it might behoove you to know that women demonstrate a significantly greater in-group bias for women than men do for men; in other words, women like women far more than men like men. Men do not favor the ascent of other men, they merely favor the ascent of the individual who has proven him or her self to be most competent. This is a well-researched pattern if you're interested in looking into it.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8226295_Gender_Differences_in_Automatic_In-Group_Bias_Why_Do_Women_Like_Women_More_Than_Men_Like_Men
By definition of the fact that those positions are haughtily and persistently contested for by, at the very least, other men (but most certainly other women as well); additionally, the capacity of those men, within said hierarchies, to perform the function of their position is judged by the society for whose benefit they exist to serve. For example, a CEO who creates a business will fail if his business does not provide a product or service that is deemed valuable by the market; thus, the success of any one CEO is predicated upon the collective evaluation of, not only those operating within his own hierarchy competing for his position, but everyone outside his hierarchy among whom the value of his product/service will be judged by it's willingness to purchase the product of his business. It is, as a matter of fact, not true that "many of those at the top were born there", and none of those who can be said to have inherited their positions of extraordinary wealth can be observed to have an inordinate degree of power because of their inheritance.
I did my part… no Barbies, And absolutely no Disney stories! Now my children, who are all females by the way, will give the world literal hell when standing up for women’s rights.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately as well. Is your book available for preorder anywhere?
Thanks a lot for your interest, Olivia! There is no pre-order right now, I am a bit of a pirate in the world of publishing! I'm self-publishing this book just like I did with Rebel Girls. But if you subscribe to this newsletter, you'll be the first to know if this changes or when the book becomes available! Thanks a lot.
Well, in the Disney movie, one stepsister is ginger, but it also says something about gingers!! I think the king on Snow White was manipulated into marrying the woman who became the evil queen. He can’t divorce her either, because, you know, royal rules. At least that’s how I look at it with 2025 eyes. Dude needs therapy, if you ask me. And notice how many Disney movies feature single parents? Until 2000 or so, Mulan was the only major movie character with two living parents!
I shall analyze gingers better in my upcoming posts :-D