Two recent pieces, “Save young men” and “Young men need to save themselves,” penned by Joshua Danziger ’28 and Ariq Rahman ’29 respectively, promoted unacceptable solutions to the growing issues modern men face.

I admit that Danziger does an adequate job portraying the sorry state of men. It’s true, they are struggling in education, mental health, and employment. However, his call on society to bail men out is unearned, especially as it has been men that have dominated Western society for centuries.

When it comes to reversing negative trends, I largely agree with Rahman that it is not on society, but on men, to dig themselves out of this hole. But even then, I was left deeply unsatisfied by Rahman’s directives, which boil down to: You’re a man. Just try harder.

Granted, Rahman also calls on society to “craft a generation of independent, emotionally and intellectually intelligent, and hopeful men” and “[r]emind men that they should strive to be strong, determined, but also kind.” But even then, it feels as if he, alongside Danziger, has misunderstood the fundamental issue causing the decline of men: traditional masculinity, and society’s rejection of it.

The conventional view of masculinity sees strength as its ultimate ideal. It requires men to be providers — the breadwinner of the family, the emotional rock. It edifies rugged individualism and unwaning perseverance. To reach out for help, to be vulnerable, is made shameful. Those uncomfortable with these traditional beliefs are told to “man up.” 

This is the masculinity that has been taught to men by men for generations. Facing modern challenges without the shield of patriarchal advantage, these internalized ideas now push men who fail to withdraw from society. Men are crushed by the weight of self-imposed expectations they can likely never meet. In a slowing job market, Danziger notes that women are more willing to accept any available job. What he doesn’t understand is that the men he references would rather rot in their parents’ basement than take inadequate jobs because their self-worth is tied to how much they can provide. 

Though both men and women have historically provided, men’s responsibilities have lain largely external to the domestic sphere, in production through wage labor. Now, with increased equality and a decline in the manual jobs that men have dominated, it is becoming harder for men to provide in the same way.

Under the regime of traditional masculinity, there is no winning. Taking a job where a man might earn significantly less than, god forbid, their future partner means emasculation. Being unemployed is shameful, too. As such, many men withdraw, turning to drugs, violence, and suicide.

This trend is compounded by broader societal rejection of traditional masculinity, leaving many men feeling purposeless. A disconnect has emerged between those who believe men shouldn’t have to be dominant providers and those that still subscribe to the traditional ideal. Men who identify with the latter still believe they are entitled to the power, deference, and control that comes from providing. Forget about having the means to provide. These men now have nobody to provide for. Nowhere is this more apparent than in dating, where traditionally masculine beliefs have become increasingly ostracized. 

Danziger’s proposals to restore “chivalry as an admired virtue” and “remind young men that love, sex and marriage are still worth fighting for” are fallacious attempts to mend this divide. It’s not that society ever stopped believing in courteous values — most people still appreciate men that cover dinner or walk them home — but that men, including Danziger, conflate society’s rejection of traditional masculinity with a devaluing of chivalry. They miss that most potential partners, aside from participants in the reactionary tradwife movement, are no longer willing to accept traditional masculinity masquerading as gallantry or family values.

This is also where Rahman’s call for men to just try a little harder falls flat. His suggestions that men get better haircuts or develop a skincare routine will not mend foundational misalignments in values between partners. Misguided effort, in fact, can be worse than no effort at all. If men follow Rahman’s advice blindly, they will have little to show for it but confusion and resentment, fueling the rise of the very podcasters he denounces.

Something must give, and it will not be society. Instead, we — all who wish to bridge the untenable divide between men and society — should promote a more nuanced redefinition of masculinity. One that values strength, but accommodates compromise. One that emphasizes self-sufficiency, but also recognizes the benefits of community. Yes, masculinity may be about “doing the hard thing,” but it shouldn’t mean self-destruction. Providing should come without strings, without entailing others’ subservience. Masculinity should involve emotional regulation without suppression, which oftentimes requires vulnerability. Adopting this paradigm will do far more to solve the ails of men than implementing the solutions of writers, like Danziger and Rahman, who fail to recognize the underlying role masculinity plays.

While we all have a duty to promote this healthier version of masculinity, the burden lies most on men. Whether it be podcasters or fathers, men must continuously and unequivocally hold other men accountable. Men must challenge their friends, family, co-workers. Men must stand up to each other because it is men who have the best chance to break through. Only then, can we achieve a world where male ambition is “reignited,” and young men are saved.

YENJAY HU is a sophomore in Silliman College studying Political Science. He can be reached at yenjay.hu@yale.edu.