#mankeeping

From "mansplaining" to "manspreading" to "toxic masculinity," recent years have seen a surge of terms vilifying men and masculinity while perpetuating female victimhood. The latest, "mankeeping," introduced by Stanford postdoctoral fellow Angelica Puzio Ferrara, is the most insidious yet. It frames the emotional labor women invest in supporting their partners—through daily struggles, mental health challenges, or encouraging social connections—as an unfair drain on women. Ferrara argues this demands urgent attention, as women shouldn't be forced into the role of their partners' therapists.

This narrative grotesquely twists the male loneliness and mental health crisis into a story of women's suffering. It's not just an attack on men; it undermines the nurturing, empathetic qualities traditionally associated with femininity, recasting them as oppressive obligations.

Although not as popular as other terms, ‘mankeeping’ has now gained traction with Catherine Pearson's New York Times article, "Why Women Are Weary of the Emotional Labor of ‘Mankeeping’." This piece, from one of the world's most influential publications, risks mainstreaming the term, further entrenching narratives of female victimhood and male vilification.

The New York Times should prioritize addressing the urgent crises facing men: rising male suicide rates, deteriorating men's mental health, and widespread male loneliness. These critical issues demand our compassion and immediate action. Rather than diverting focus to their impact on women, we must dedicate our energy and resources to tackling these challenges head-on, with the support of women.

The Male Loneliness Crisis

The male loneliness epidemic has become a pressing issue in recent years, driven by the erosion of traditional male spaces. Studies highlight the severity of this crisis: a 2021 survey by the American Enterprise Institute found that 15% of men report having no close friends, compared to just 3% in 1990. A 2023 YouGov poll revealed that 20% of men feel lonely "most or all of the time," with young men aged 18–29 reporting the highest rates. These statistics underscore the urgent need to address male loneliness by fostering environments where men can build meaningful connections.

The decline of male-only spaces, such as social clubs, groups, and gatherings, has left many men without the community support they once relied on. This loss has not only limited opportunities for friendship but also contributed to a broader societal misunderstanding of the value of male spaces and societal support for men.

While female-only groups and spaces are often celebrated as empowering, male groups and spaces are frequently viewed with skepticism. Democrat women, according to recent surveys, believe the most that female-only groups benefit society, while they are also the group that believe the least that male-only groups benefit society. This double standard is striking: the same group that champion female spaces as beneficial often dismiss male spaces as unnecessary or even harmful, ignoring their role in combating loneliness and helping mental health, which they are now complaining about as being a burden on women. The hypocrisy and lack of awareness is striking.

To truly address the male loneliness epidemic, we need to start valuing male-only groups and spaces as vital for fostering connection, camaraderie, and emotional support among men. This means challenging the growing cultural suspicion toward masculinity and rejecting the idea that male spaces are inherently harmful. Women, too, must be willing to set aside victim-centric narratives and recognize that supporting men’s well-being is a necessary part of building a healthy society for everyone.

This is not a marginal issue; it’s a crisis with life-or-death consequences. Men are four times more likely to die by suicide, a heartbreaking statistic that demands compassion and proactive solutions, not blame or dismissiveness. And yet, in this environment, we’re seeing feminist narratives reframe the emotional support women offer men as an unfair burden. That’s not just unhelpful, it’s dangerous.

We should be encouraging women to lean into their empathy and offer greater care and connection to the boys and men in their lives, because it might genuinely save lives.

Men and boys need more resources, support, and understanding from our culture. But instead of directing compassion their way, outlets like The New York Times continue to suggest that women are the ones in need of more support. That narrative must shift, because if we keep ignoring one side of the story, we’re only deepening the crisis.

Men’s Mental Health

America is grappling with a mental health crisis, and our current system is not adequately equipped to meet the needs of men. To improve mental health outcomes for men, we must acknowledge that the system, as it stands, is often oriented toward women’s experiences and needs. For instance, research indicates that 44% of men who begin therapy discontinue it, suggesting a disconnect between the services offered and men’s unique needs. The most common answer to why men quit therapy is that they couldn’t connect to their therapist and setting.

Blaming men and their masculinity for these challenges is counterproductive and overlooks a critical issue: the mental health system may not be structured to effectively engage men. Rather than victim-blaming, we should explore innovative, male-led and male-centered approaches to mental health care. Men and women experience and process mental health challenges differently, and treatment options should reflect these differences.

One key area for improvement is increasing the representation of male therapists. Over the past 50 years, the proportion of male psychologists has declined significantly, with only about 20% of therapists today being men. Men often express a preference for working with male therapists who may better understand their perspectives, yet the field lacks male representation. To address this, we must invest in initiatives that encourage men to pursue careers in mental health professions, just as we have promoted diversity in other fields.

We need to allocate resources to male-focused mental health programs and leadership initiatives. These efforts can provide tailored support, creating environments where men feel understood and empowered to seek help. Women, too, can play a vital role by advocating for these changes and recognizing that men’s mental health requires different approaches, not as a replacement for women’s love, but as a complement to it.

Undermining The Feminine

Have you ever heard the tale of Lilith? In folklore, Lilith is depicted as Adam’s first wife, followed by Eve. Unlike Eve, Lilith is said to have asserted her equality with Adam, refusing to be a harmonious counterpart. According to the legend, this defiance led her to flee the Garden of Eden, after which she was transformed into a demon, associated with chaos and harm, including attacks on babies. In contrast, Eve is portrayed as Adam’s harmonious counterpart.

While such stories are often dismissed as myth or religious allegory, they may carry deeper significance—serving as cautionary tales about the consequences of imbalance and conflict between men and women, masculinity and femininity.

Today, we are living in the era of Lilith, where femininity is often sidelined for a push toward “equality” defined by masculine standards. I believe true female empowerment doesn’t come from mimicking traditional male roles, but from embracing women’s unique strengths. Ironically, those loudest about uplifting women may undermine femininity the most, equating power solely with masculine traits. We’ve turned partners into competitors. This shift is creating a world that devalues the vital essence of the feminine.

Today, it’s been taken a step further. The emotional support women provide their male partners is being framed as a burden, casting women as victims in a narrative that undermines femininity itself. This perspective risks creating a world where compassion and love for others are seen as problems, prioritizing personal happiness, individualism and materialism over connection. It’s disheartening to see feminist voices in The New York Times and elsewhere, in their supposed aim to uplift women, inadvertently diminish the nurturing, powerful qualities that define femininity. This self-serving, emotionally barren mindset will only deepen the cracks in our culture.

Now is the time to confront the challenges facing men. Women can, and should, lead the way, not by casting themselves as victims of male struggles, but by championing a culture that upholds feminine strengths like compassion, love, and support for others. Let’s build a world where these qualities are honored, not overlooked—where true femininity is seen not as a burden, but as a powerful force for healing and connection.

______________

Women are "mankeeping" to help men cope with loneliness and emotional turmoil, but many of us are struggling too.

By Stacia Datskovska Published: Jul 31, 2025

A few years ago, my mom and I had a blowout fight. I can’t recall what sparked the argument, but what I do remember is lying on the bathroom floor and sobbing as I scanned my texts for someone to reach out to who could keep me distracted from all the sadness.

In my phone were the names of dozens of girls I met during my time at college, when I was rotating through late-night clubbing, brunches, and concerts in an attempt to get closer to people I hoped would one day be bridesmaids at my wedding. But truthfully? These friendships were superficial—nothing like what I watched and coveted in the TV show Girls. I couldn’t rely on them during a panic attack. And if you can’t call a friend at 10 p.m. on a weekday when the snot coming out of your nose has made you unintelligible, are they even a friend?

I am a successful 21-year-old who is a published journalist and works a good, degree-aligned job. I live happily in New York City. I work out, love nature, and have a great boyfriend. The only thing missing? Friends. I lack them, and although this feels almost radical to confess these days, I know for a fact I’m not alone in it.

Today, lonely women like me abound, and the data backs this up. About 1 in 6 Americans say they feel lonely or isolated from those around them all or most of the time, according to the Pew Research Center. The Campaign to End Loneliness goes one step further, finding that people under 30 are the loneliest age group and that women are significantly more likely to be chronically lonely than men. I have often dreaded the end of the workday when I’d find myself faced with the prospect of an evening spent alone.

By: Lisa Britton

Published: Aug 7, 2025

Advocates argue that such language reinforces stereotypes, potentially harming the mental health and self-esteem of those who feel excluded. Replacing terms like “fireman” with “firefighter” or “mankind” with “humankind” is intended to foster a more inclusive society.

While these efforts are arguably well-intentioned, they often veer into excess—reflecting a broader cultural shift toward heightened sensitivity and linguistic equality. Yet, this focus has primarily centered on protecting women and girls, leaving a crucial question largely unaddressed: How does language impact boys and men?

The term "toxic masculinity" has become a fixture in modern discourse, often framed as a critique of negative behaviors or cultural norms associated with traditional masculinity such as aggression, dominance, or emotional repression. Originally, many who used the phrase intended to highlight harmful patterns, not to vilify men as a group. But as the term gained traction, so did its unintended consequences.

For many, “toxic masculinity” has come to imply that masculinity itself is inherently dangerous or defective. Some believe that was the intention all along. Regardless, the perception weighs heavily on boys and young men, who may internalize the message that their identity is fundamentally flawed. The phrase paints an entire gender with a broad brush, creating shame rather than encouraging growth or meaningful dialogue.

In the United Kingdom, experts have recently urged politicians and the public to abandon the term altogether, acknowledging that framing boys and men as inherently harmful can take a serious toll on mental health. Surprise, surprise. While this shift is a welcome development, it’s one many women, myself included, and outlets like Evie have been calling for over the years, often dismissed for our so-called “internalized misogyny.”

This one-sided focus on language’s impact on women and girls reveals a glaring societal blind spot. While words like “manhole” or even “amen” have been scrutinized for potentially excluding women, there’s been far less attention paid to how language harms boys and men. And it goes well beyond “toxic masculinity.”

Imagine a young girl growing up surrounded by slogans like “The future is male.” T-shirts, tote bags, commercials, curriculum. The repetition of such messaging would rightly be called out as sexist, with concern for how it might damage her sense of value and possibility.

Now flip it.

Imagine a young boy hearing “The future is female” in classrooms, in media, in everyday conversation. It sends a similar message: you are the past, not the future. One is widely condemned. The other is celebrated. Both can erode self-worth. And yet only one receives any real scrutiny.

This imbalance demands correction.

A newer term, “mankeeping,” adds insult to injury. Coined to describe the supposed “burden” placed on women who care for men struggling with loneliness or mental health issues, the phrase implies that women shouldn’t have to support their male partners; that men’s struggles are their fault, and their burden alone. It completely ignores the broader societal forces at play—cultural expectations, isolation, economic stress—and reduces the male mental health crisis to little more than an inconvenience for women.

The data speaks for itself: men are significantly more likely to die by suicide than women. In the U.S., they account for nearly 80% of suicide deaths. Shaming men instead of addressing the systems that fail them only deepens the crisis.

Give it a few years; mankeeping will be on the chopping block too, just like toxic masculinity. It should be. Words that blame and shame don’t heal. They hurt. And they create more problems than they solve.

The power of language lies in its ability to shape cultural narratives. Phrases like “toxic masculinity” and “mankeeping” don’t exist in a vacuum; they influence how we see others, and how entire generations of boys and girls see themselves. When boys hear their identity linked with toxicity or failure, they’re not being challenged, they’re being crushed. And when girls encounter exclusionary language, the impact is no less damaging.

Both are rooted in the same issue: careless language used without consideration for its psychological weight.

We know that language affects mental health. The American Psychological Association has shown that stereotyping contributes to stress, anxiety, and low self-esteem. So if the push to replace “manhole” with “maintenance hole” is rooted in concern for inclusivity, shouldn’t that concern extend to terms like mankeeping or toxic masculinity?

If we care about building a society that values mental health and inclusion, that care must apply to everyone, not just women.

Take, for example, the now-infamous moment when Nancy Pelosi closed a congressional prayer with “Amen and Awomen.” It was meant as a gesture of inclusivity, but it sparked backlash from both sides; seen as trivializing the seriousness of language reform and offending many religious Americans. It was a reminder of just how easy it is for efforts to “do better” to slip into absurdity or alienation.

We’re seeing this play out again in how language shapes perceptions of boys and men—only now, the consequences are much harder to laugh off.

Addressing this issue will require a cultural shift grounded in empathy and balance. Instead of toxic masculinity, we can say unhealthy behaviors. That keeps the conversation going, but without casting a shadow over masculinity as a whole. Instead of mankeeping, we could simply talk about the male loneliness crisis, and focus on real solutions, not resentment and blame.

Some argue that the term positive masculinity is a helpful alternative. I disagree. “Positive masculinity” still implies that masculinity has a negative side that must be offset or corrected. But masculinity, in and of itself, isn’t toxic. It never was. Let’s stop trying to rehabilitate a word that was never broken.

Instead of labeling masculinity—positive, toxic, or otherwise—let’s focus on behavior. Let's call out abuse, isolation, rage, addiction. But let’s stop tying these struggles to a gender as if they’re intrinsic to it. They’re not.

Because when we shift our language, we shift our culture.

And we need a cultural shift. Now.

Male suicide rates are soaring. Loneliness is epidemic. The World Health Organization reports that men are disproportionately affected by suicide around the globe. That isn’t just a mental health crisis; it’s a narrative crisis. A crisis of meaning, of worth, of permission to feel human. Of language.

The push to make language more inclusive for women has helped open doors, from job titles to public perception. But what if we extended that same care to the way we speak about men? What if we started to see them not as obstacles to progress, but as part of it?

That might be more transformative than any title change.

This debate isn’t about political correctness or semantic squabbling. It’s about the world we’re building, and who gets to feel like they belong in it. Words are never just words. They either build bridges or burn them. They create shame or foster healing. They divide or unify. They hurt or they help.

By moving beyond phrases that shame and stereotype, we can begin to speak in a way that actually honors everyone’s humanity. That invites boys and girls alike to see themselves as worthy, valued, and capable of contribution.

Taking on their partner’s emotional needs is putting women at risk of burnout, says Maria Lally.

by Maria Lally  Updated on 8th November 2024

When my friend's husband was made redundant last year, she spent the six months it took him to find a new role bolstering his confidence and reassuring him he’d find something soon, while holding down her own busy job. ‘His ego, confidence and sense of identity were pulled from under him over- night,’ she tells me. Now he has a demanding new job, she reassures him he’s doing great at it and calms his fears whenever he hears whispers of redundancies.

Another friend’s husband injured his back while training for a marathon, which meant he had to stop running. ‘Not exercising isn’t great for his mental health, so I spend a lot of time managing his mood and encouraging him to go for a walk or see friends,’ she says. Welcome to the world of ‘mankeeping’. In a new study published in the journal Psychology Of Men And Masculinities, experts from Stanford University argue that women are taking on the emotional needs of the men in their life, adding to their (already significant) mental load. Study author Angelica Ferrara, who coined the term mankeeping, says her research shows women are spending several hours a week on it. Mainly because men’s social networks have been dwindling (a 2019 YouGov poll found that one in five men report having no close friends).

'Women tend to be better at cultivating meaningful friendships, where they can share their worries and go to for support,’ says psychotherapist and couples counsellor Hilda Burke. ‘Men tend to rely on “legacy friendships” with those they’ve known for years but perhaps don’t feel comfortable confiding in.’

Burke says that within most relationships there is a person who does the ‘emotional dumping’ and one who supports. ‘What I see among couples is that one person tends to do the sharing, the feeling, the offloading, while the other tends to do the helping and the tiptoeing around of the feelings. It’s not always gendered, but it’s often the women supporting their partner emotionally and practically. Women tend to look after the household calendar, organise social events and remember family birthdays. We all know the woman who buys their husband’s mum a birthday card because she knows that he’ll forget. It’s a heavy, invisible load and it’s exhausting.’

Little wonder a 2023 report from Gallup found that burnout rates among women have more than doubled compared to men in recent years, largely due to taking on more unpaid and invisible household labour, childcare and eldercare.

By: Karina Schneidman and Grainger

Published: Jul 12, 2025

A bit about the writers first.

Grainger holds a B.S. in Psychology and is currently earning his Master’s in Clinical Mental Health Counseling at Liberty University. He’s an active men’s ministry leader and pastoral counselor with over 5 years of experience, currently seeing clients in both faith-based and clinical settings.

Karina holds a Master’s degree in Behavioral Science with concentrations in mental health, counseling, marriage and family therapy, career development, and child and adolescent therapy. She has a robust research background and is board-certified in brain health, ADHD, sensory processing, and wellness. She, too, actively sees clients in clinical practice.

Together, we represent both the psychological and pastoral lenses on today’s mental health landscape. We are deeply committed to truth over trend, accountability over blame, and growth over grievance. Which is exactly why we couldn’t let the recent Vice article on “Mankeeping” go unanswered. What you’re about to read isn’t just a rebuttal. It’s a reality check grounded in science, sharpened by real-world counseling experience, and unwilling to accept yet another one-sided cultural narrative that shames men while infantilizing women.

Grainger

I once had a friend of mine tell me that when he really wanted to meet a girl, he just took his dog to the park and Boom! There were beautiful girls everywhere. Then he carefully “accidentally” let his dog get too close to this gorgeous girl’s dog. Personally, I think it’s brilliant. But what if it wasn’t a dog park? What if it was women taking their boyfriends or husbands to a Man Park? Glad you asked.

Definition of Mankeeping

This concept of Mankeeping that is circulating the interweb is based on a paper1 that was dropped on us last November. I received an email from the APA Div. 51 the day the paper on Mankeeping released and read it almost immediately. I made every attempt to read it with an open mind. It is based on the Theory of Kinkeeping, which is familial division of labor. This theory posits that females basically hold the family together by ensuring everyone stays in touch. Mankeeping flowed from this theory, adding that women take on the burden of men’s lack of social networks and thus bearing the brunt of their emotional baggage, making up for losses caused by men’s isolation. Here are some of the conclusions I came to:

Observations

I could see how it would be emotionally draining for the wife to be the loading dock for every problem a man has. There are certain things a man needs a man for. There are certain problems that a man cannot address with his wife, especially if she is the problem he needs addressing. And treating your wife as an emotional garbage can doesn’t help. There’s a balance. She needs to be in on most communication, but not all. And we can all agree that men need to get better at verbally communicating.

Men understand other men better than women understand men. Of course, this is due to our brain hemispheres being at different distances. Female brain hemispheres are closer together and there is a significantly higher fire rate between the hemispheres. Whereas male brain hemispheres are further apart and there is not much firing between them. So when a woman asks what he’s thinking about, and he says nothing, he really means- Nothing! And this fries a woman’s brain-circuits. She just can’t imagine a world in which one can sit and think of nothing. Here, a man must relate to another man about this.

The recent article in Vice addressing this paper didn’t mention that in the paper they addressed the concept of men relying on their partners to find them friends. They even mentioned in the paper the SNL skit where wives took their husbands to Man Park to play with other men. I don’t rely on my wife to make friends for me, but I also don’t have many friends. Mostly because the men in my life view me as a leader, which is a divider. Leaders separate the person from who they were (or are) into who they could be. Therefore, when they see me coming, they see a divider, not a friend.

Having said all that, I polled my wife and friends and their wives. I asked them if they felt the emotional pull from their husbands’ problems. They all said absolutely not. I think I know why.

Marriage vs. Dating

For the established relationship, she has already seen most of his worst characteristics. There is an expectation that he will turn to her before he turns to the bottle, drugs, porn, or another woman. Also, by this time, she wants him to be open and emotionally available. This is because they have spent years building something on the core principles of good relationships: trust, sacrifice, love as a verb, and loyalty.

He first tried to impress her. Wore his best shirt (probably his only clean shirt). Tried out that cologne he read about. Cleaned his car out for the first time this year. He wanted her to see the best parts of him so she would want a second date. Then the second date gets here and he gets the nerve to lean over and kiss her. This is how the dating scene looked 10, 15, and 20 years ago. Not today. And this is what the Vice article was addressing. Dating.

In the new dating scene, you snap each other. You hope she sends you something sexy. But she doesn’t. You wonder why. Then you hear and see on snapchat and TikTok that girls want a sensitive man. They don’t like toxic masculinity. So you dig deep to find the innermost parts of you and become vulnerable, because feminism. But then he makes a critical mistake.

See, for the new relationship, you’re still building something. You haven’t really established much yet. And yes, she wants to know what she’s getting into before the relationship takes off. But she doesn’t want too much too soon. And this is exactly what many Gen Z males are doing. They hear women say they want an emotionally available man, so they word vomit. She then gets turned off quickly. It’s because it’s out of balance. She needs to know what positive contribution he brings to the table first. She really just wants to see that he cleaned his car out. That he wore his best shirt. That he doesn’t smell like an oil slick.

One Possible Cause

One unspoken contributor is for years, that’s what women have been asking for. They’ve been criticizing anything masculine as broken. They’ve been scoffing at the idea that cognitive empathy is better than emotional empathy. “Of course, emotional empathy is better, because it’s what women do, and that makes it better.” Men have heard the outcry and responded. And now women are realizing they don’t really like the response. But they got what they asked for. And even worse, they can’t say that they asked for a spineless crybaby that they don’t really want. Because They’ll get cancelled by their peers. So they have to blame-shift. It’s the only course of action for the regretful Karens.

I think in homeostasis terms. There is bilateral culpability, in my estimation. Boys need to grow a pair and be the man they wanted to be when they were a kid, wrecking fire trucks into the Jenga tower. They need to put their best foot forward first. Be strong. Capable of protecting her. Regardless of what the cluster B Karens say, all women want to be protected.

Girls need to stop asking for a spineless man. Allow him to be the man he was designed to be. Stop playing victim incessantly. Be satisfied with him being very different than you. Be content with him learning how to become emotionally intelligent over time, even though he’s not right now. But of course, you also have the women who just play victim because it’s the new in-thing to do. And for those, no man will make them happy. But I will stop short of covering this and let Karina say it much better than I could.

Karina

Like Grainger, I too approached both the article and the research paper with an open mind and a sensible attitude. After reading them thoroughly, I walked away with a growing sense that modern relationships have been twisted into something coldly transactional and contractual. As 

Abigail Shrier aptly puts it, “Love isn’t an accessory. It’s an adventure.” So when exactly did we decide to throw men out with the bathwater?

What’s most ironic about this so-called “research” is that it starts in the middle of the story completely skipping over how we even got here. It’s a story that’s now being told with no sense of balance, no rational breakdown, and certainly no attempt to understand or accommodate both men and women in the conversation. Instead, it seems to be another installment in a growing cultural habit of placing blame squarely on men, with zero curiosity about the other half of the equation.

The audacity of academia inserting itself into the dating discourse wouldn’t bother me if academia weren’t already so incredibly biased. Why does that matter? Because despite the thousands of courses, degrees, and certificate programs dedicated to Women’s Studies, there isn’t a single mainstream academic institution in the U.S. offering a degree in Men’s Studies. Not one. Do you understand how minimizing and manipulative this is overall? Why are we surprised that college educated women (educated by a feminized culture) are crying about masculinity?

Oversight or Intentionality?

This is more than a minor oversight it’s an intentional, built-in bias. Writing entire research papers on relationships and dating without a single academic framework or scholarly resource focused on men their psychology, biology, emotional needs, or social challenges is already disparaging. But to then use that limited perspective to justify an article like “Mankeeping,” which amounts to little more than emotional gluttony, is even worse.

The narrative of this article positions men as emotionally dependent burdens, while highlighting women as the “mothers” the ones who must carry the weight of dealing with a man. But where is the insight, accountability, critical thinking, and self-agency of these so-called Mother Teresas? What happened to holding the actual mothers of these “emotionally stunted” men accountable for how they raised their boys? Furthermore, why aren’t these women who are “expected” to be everything for their boyfriends not setting boundaries and working on building a healthier relationship or leaving?

If a man is stoic, strong, accountable, and protective, he’s labeled controlling. If he’s emotionally flexible, open, and vulnerable, he’s suddenly “too much work.” What do women want? Because even Mel Gibson couldn’t figure it out. Have we considered the possibility that today’s woman might not even be able to tolerate dating herself let alone handle compromise, challenges, and growth in a relationship?

Clinically Speaking

In my practice, I work with both women and men who are currently trying to survive the black hole of modern dating. Men are afraid to compliment women because of the #MeToo movement, which has increased fear around being misunderstood or falsely accused. Men report that many of the women they attempt to date want to see their credit report before agreeing to meet for drinks. Women, on the other hand, often report being offended if their dinner isn’t paid for. Really?

So what is it, exactly, that a woman can offer a man in a relationship today that he can’t already provide for himself? You rarely hear or read about how men are exhausted by a woman’s constant, incessant emotional needs as she moves through her hormonal monthly journey. Why is only one side of emotional fatigue ever acknowledged?

Moreover, the suggestion that men need therapy while completely ignoring the emotional immaturity, unrealistic expectations, and entitlement often present in modern women is ridiculous. Many women lack emotional intelligence arguably more than men. But shhh we can’t discuss that. We can’t criticize women, because then we’re labeled womanhaters, jealous, or sexist.

Women are constantly praised for “knowing their worth,” even when that “worth” is based on shallow standards and zero depth beyond grooming habits, social media likes, and an obsession with hydration. If we’re going to demand that men “do the work,” then we must also be honest about how many women are actively avoiding their own growth—hiding behind situational trauma to justify a lifelong narrative of victimhood.

Conclusion

In the end, modern dating is not failing because men are emotionally stunted it’s failing because the narrative has been manipulated by emotionally inflamed women. Men are judged, discarded, and shamed, while women are excused, glorified, and insulated from criticism. If women are exhausted, so are men except men are expected to suffer silently.

Dating is a mess—as it should be. It’s an actual labor of love. It requires curiosity, courage, failure, misunderstandings, and, of course, micro-stressors. As Grainger pointed out, preparing for a date is an art form. The jitters, the unknown, the act of sharing a space together leaning on each other through conversation and physiological cues. What happened to putting in the work?

Where are the parents of these so-called victimized women who “can’t handle” dating men? Where are their fathers? Have they ever even tried to understand what a man needs in a relationship how to set boundaries and bring real value to each other? Of course not. Because, well, it’s too much emotional work to act like people and adults. Cuddling with a cellphone and raging against some trending social movement is easier. It’s more comfortable.

Speaking of comfortable, I guess I got too comfortable, and my dog just got out. And I’m not even looking for a date. I’m happily married! Gotta run!

That’s our 4 cents. Stay Classy!

==

Things to remember:

Gender Studies is fake and everything that comes out of it is complete nonsense.

• You're the first one lifting him up, supporting him and comforting him while you don't receive the same emotional effort in return.

• You hold back your own feelings, your emotions and your thoughts because you're afraid to overwhelm him. You feel like his wants and needs matter more than your own wants and needs.

• You organize every single thing for him, for example reminding him about his doctor appointments, preparing his work outfits, taking care of the household and he doesn't do the same for you.

By: Helen Pluckrose

Published: Jul 18, 2025

Substack is currently abuzz with thinkpieces and notes on the issue of “mankeeping.” This concept is based on the premise that women are expected to perform excessive amounts of emotional labour to “manage men’s stress, interpret their moods & hold their hand through feelings….” This video is currently doing the rounds. Within it, a woman talks about the male loneliness problem and how it affects women. She claims that, while men may well take part in activities in the company of other men, they are socialised into not sharing their emotions, hopes and fears with their male friends. This causes them to rely excessively on women to meet their emotional needs and this is experienced by women as a burden. She concludes, “We no longer depend on men financially. They need to not depend on us emotionally.”

It seems clear to me that ‘mankeeping’ is essentially a variation on the accusation of being “high maintenance” most commonly made against women by men. This involves a complaint that women are far too emotionally expressive, have inexplicable mood swings and require excessive amounts of emotional support to cope with their everyday lives. Both concepts convey a cynical, transactional view of relationships and a sad lack of insight into genuine human connection by likening the emotional commitment of a romantic partnership to the care of a house or a car. It pathologises the other sex’s needs, makes oneself the victim, dodges mutual responsibility and is thoroughly psychologically unhealthy and counterproductive to ever forming a healthy relationship.

Let’s steelman these concepts for a moment. Isn’t it true that some people really are needy, struggle to regulate their emotions or are chronically emotionally dependent on their partners, and that this can cause exhaustion in a relationship? Yes, of course, it is, and if you end up in a relationship with someone with these problems, you should recommend them to seek psychological support and you’ll have to decide whether to stick with the relationship or whether it will be too much for you. However, this issue is not being discussed as an individual one but as a persistent problem with one sex or the other, so let’s accept that some people have personality disorders, mood disorders and attachment issues, but look at the truth and helpfulness of what is ultimately, a political stance in the Battle of the Sexes.

Perfectly well-adjusted women are, on average, more emotionally expressive, more neurotic (in the Big Five personality sense), more attuned to subtle social nuance and shifts in interpersonal dynamics, and more likely to ruminate anxiously about these things. This isn’t dysfunction. This is normal. In many primate groups, female members develop finely tuned sensitivity to the emotional and relational atmosphere of their troop as a survival mechanism. Changes in social cohesion, leadership, or alliances often put offspring at risk. In contemporary humans, this manifests in women’s overrepresentation in professions that deal with how people think and feel -education, psychology, healthcare, social work, publishing, etc. - and in our personal lives, a greater tendency to discuss and analyse emotional states and relationships, especially with other women. This does sometimes mean that women may engage in more discussion of their own feelings, their partner’s and the state of the relationship than men may typically be naturally inclined to do. Nevertheless, emotionally intelligent men typically accept this as a psychological sex difference that also comes with benefits and quite manageable within a loving relationship and do not write off women, as a whole, as ‘high maintenance.’

Perfectly well-adjusted men do, on average, spend less time probing their innermost feelings or dissecting the nuances of their romantic relationships with their same-sex friends than women do. This does not mean men lack emotional depth or don’t care about their friends. Their emotional connections often centre on shared activities and mutual support through action and advice, rather than lengthy discussions of personal psychology. This likely also has evolutionary underpinnings and isn’t purely a social construct. There clearly is a problem with the adequacy of men’s social support networks because the male loneliness problem is real and so is the disproportionate number of male suicides. Expectations of men to be self-contained emotionally and stoical are hardly new, however, and have, if anything, reduced to some extent. It also seems unlikely that this will be helped by women telling men they are a burden and speaking as though expressing interest in and concern about one’s partner’s feelings is a form of prostitution and something a financially independent partner need not do anymore. Additionally, this is not remotely a common view among women. In my observation, women generally like being told what their partner is thinking and feeling and wish they would do more of this. It’s a sign of trust, depth, and investment in the relationship. It also seems likely that men are often most emotionally open with women precisely because women invite, welcome, and encourage that openness. (See previous paragraph).

“Mankeeping,” then, seems to be largely a fabricated problem and one rooted in a belief that men should be more like women as well as a dislike of and resentment against men. This is precisely how the accusation of women being ‘high maintenance’ works too and how so much historical misogyny always has.

I would suggest there is an element of what I have called ‘reciprocal overcompensation’ in all this. We humans appear to be persistently terrible at ethical balance and consistency. We have seen this very strongly and recently in rhetoric around the Critical Social Justice (woke) movement. Becoming very aware and rightly ashamed of the historical mistreatment and denigration of black people, too many ‘anti-racists’ decided not to stand against evaluating people by their skin colour consistently but instead to pathologise and demonise white people. Instead of deploring colonialist, “orientalising” narratives that held the West to be defined by reason, science, and liberalism and thus morally and intellectually superior to the East, which was defined by primitive superstition and barbarism, the ‘decolonise’ movement decided to uphold that binary but that science, reason and liberalism are now bad. Rather than taking stock of the ways in which society had penalised and constrained the gender non-conforming and same-sex attracted people and determining that this must never happen again, ‘woke’ LGBT activists decided that ‘cis/heteronormativity’ was now the problem and that it was necessary to ‘queer’ everything.

Can we not? Can we just not demonise and pathologise great swathes of the population due to a twisted sense of retributive justice? Can we try to recognise people as individuals and that, while some of those individuals may present a problem personally, this does not define the entire demographic and the personal is not always political? Can we focus on what is actually true and what is ethically consistent and just not be horribly cynical, transactional and callously cruel to any subset of our fellow human beings?