大象传媒

Let鈥檚 look at men by numbers: The vast majority of CEOs are men (in fact, it was only this past April that .); of world leaders are men; of billionaires are men; awarded in the last 100 years went to men. And if we鈥檙e painting by numbers, it鈥檚 easy to step back and assume that men鈥攅specially those privileged across race, class, and ability鈥攁re doing well. But this is only part of the picture.

In 2017, Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy penned an , where he named loneliness a growing health epidemic. This loneliness was so dire, Dr. Murthy argued, it could shorten a lifespan by . This wasn鈥檛 the first time loneliness had been framed as a public health issue. The New Republic, for instance, published 鈥溾�� back in 2013, and the article began adding new colors to the canvas of men: loneliness, isolation, and disconnection.

Only six months later, Billy Baker鈥檚 , titled, 鈥淭he Biggest Threat Facing Middle-Age Men Isn鈥檛 Smoking or Obesity. It鈥檚 Loneliness.鈥� Since then, the men鈥檚 loneliness epidemic has become a touchstone for understanding how, and to what extent, men are struggling. 

On all levels of the loneliness epidemic, women are right there, charting the course.

But lately, much of the conversation around men鈥檚 loneliness has been spearheaded by women. Last February, in , Magdalene J. Taylor explored loneliness vis-脿-vis in men under 30. The article encouraged men to screw their way out of isolation (a prospect I imagine is exhausting for the many women pursued as a result). Then in July, by Christine Emba bravely charted generations of lost men and offered a map out of the wilderness that anyone from incel, to manfluencer, to quietly isolated, to well-intentioned young man could resonate with. On all levels of the loneliness epidemic鈥攆rom , , and life-kits teaching men 鈥攚omen are right there, charting the course.

Certainly, there are public appeals made by men. The Boston Globe columnist Billy Baker went on to about men鈥檚 loneliness and friendships, President Biden of this year, and Dr. Murthy has continued his work on the subject, this May (though both President Biden and Dr. Murthy tend to address loneliness in general rather than gendered terms).聽

But no matter who wrote what, the implicit takeaway is clear: Everyone should care! Women should care! No man left behind! But caring is a tricky word for many women, as it brims with gendered expectations of labor, open availability, and mental load. For many women鈥攅specially those who are sexually and romantically involved with men鈥攖he burden of investing in men and their problems often .

And while men鈥檚 loneliness certainly requires intervention, the real question is who, exactly, is expected to carry the load of care?

Care doesn鈥檛 mean fixing.

鈥淲omen have enough problems of their own to deal with. They don鈥檛 also have to be responsible for men鈥檚 problems,鈥� says Richard V. Reeves, author of the recent book Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do About It. 

Reeves is more or less the authority on the state of boys and men in the United States, and , which he hopes will be the first research-based, nonideological organization vested in improving the lives of men. But when addressing my suspicions鈥攖hat women are too often tasked with the emotional rescue of men, rather than invited into mutual solidarity鈥擱eeves thinks it isn鈥檛 so simple. On the one hand, he agrees that men are often emotionally dependent on women, a dynamic that arose in part from the 鈥減atriarchal economic structures [that] held women down economically, but propped men up emotionally.鈥� And now, , 鈥渁 lot of men are falling emotionally,鈥� says Reeves. But it gets more complicated when considering how institutions neglect men and create a vacuum women are left to fill. 

Take the 鈥攁 small but indicative example of a larger whole. The office was established in 1991 within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. And as there is , resources that should be aimed at men end up re-oriented toward women (like tasking women with talking about men鈥檚 mental health). The result? The lack of institutional resources for men, by convenience, is outsourced to women.

Even aside from the institutional shortcomings, there鈥檚 a cultural hesitancy to publicly address men鈥檚 needs. 鈥淎 lot of men, particularly men who might be in a position to lead in organizations on this, are very reluctant to publicly voice concerns for men. And the reason for that is because they鈥檙e afraid,鈥� says Reeves. 鈥淎 guy talking about the problems with guys is going to be looked at with suspicion. Especially by women, right?鈥� Here, I recognize myself, and remember the when he launched My Brother鈥檚 Keeper, an initiative for at-risk boys.

Part of the issue, certainly, is that there鈥檚 a conflation between the data-driven reality of the lives of many men鈥攚ho account for 鈥攁nd a culture that often writes off men鈥檚 gendered issues as just another tantrum of toxic masculinity. Even in queer communities, it鈥檚 hard to avoid obtuse, . This environment makes it challenging to persuade men to take up the mantle of men鈥檚 issues, says Reeves, because many men feel the association is dangerous. Ironically, this creates another vacuum for women to fill because, as Reeves says, it generally feels more permissible for women to talk about men and gender on the public stage. 

However, when it comes to women in positions of authority, the responsibility may feel a bit more earned. Reeves clarifies that institutions like the White House Gender Policy Council should take up the cause of men鈥攁nd as for women鈥檚 groups and advocacy networks? 鈥淚 am asking them not to oppose the cause of men, not to criticize those who are in good faith trying to address it, not to make it so risky for them that people won鈥檛,鈥� says Reeves. 鈥淚 do think there鈥檚 a role for a kind of studied neutrality on the part of women.鈥�

Of course, men are not a monolith鈥攕ome really are well-intentioned, . Still, I believe people should have a stake in the well-being, dignity, and happiness of others. But care doesn鈥檛 mean fixing, and women (even journalists) don鈥檛 have an inherent responsibility to raise the alarm or save the day.