The Silent Crisis of Manhood

by Todd B. Kashdan & Chris Frueh

Shortly after returning from a highly kinetic overseas combat deployment a few years ago, a U.S. military special operator (well known to one of us), with one of the nation’s most storied Tier One units, began working toward a master’s degree in counseling psychology at a prestigious northeastern university. His goal at the time was to earn credentials to become a psychotherapist after retiring from the military. To his surprise and disappointment, his classes included a heavy dose of readings, lectures, and class discussions on “microaggressions,” “toxic masculinity,” and the “trauma” inherent in the lives of females, racial minorities, and people from the LGBTQIA community—to the exclusion of adversity experienced by heterosexual males.

This highly decorated soldier had recently completed a deployment marked by numerous violent deaths on a weekly, if not daily, basis. Yet he was told—explicitly or implicitly—that his traumas were insignificant compared to those of the other students. Moreover, he was aggressively informed that he—and men like him—were largely to blame for society’s problems. He realized he was expected to sit quietly and allow the anguished voices of the other students to be elevated.

---

The Mental Health of Men

It is time to sound the alarm on the mental health of men. Men are less likely to seek help for mental health issues than women, particularly in young adulthood. In the 16- to 24-year-old age group, only 13% of young men with a mental health problem seek professional help, compared to 31% of young women.

These statistics represent real people—our sons, brothers, friends, coworkers—who are not getting the support they need. This is only the tip of the iceberg in the silent crisis of manhood. Boys and men face a difficult path to live up to their evolutionary sex roles and societal expectations—a path made more precarious by modern cultural forces.

Despite this, the American Psychological Association has established guidelines asserting that “traditional masculinity”—a byproduct of the “patriarchy,” they claim—is a primary cause of psychiatric disorders among boys and men. The guidelines encourage psychotherapists to help men understand their “greater degree of social and economic power than girls and women in a patriarchal society.” The implication is that men possess inherent “toxicity” by virtue of being born male.

This perspective is riddled with overly critical labels and categorizations that are anti-scientific, denying biological and evolutionary realities for both sexes. A better approach starts with care and concern for the individual—who is sometimes just a child.

---

The Precarious Path

Imagine masculinity as a three-legged stool, with each leg representing a core masculine ideal:

1. The Protector
2. The Provider
3. The Procreator

As a Protector, a man is expected to defend the physical and mental well-being of others. This role often demands stoicism—suppressing emotions and maintaining a strong, unflappable exterior. Men are expected to take on dangerous jobs and sacrifice their lives for others.

The Provider is responsible for generating resources, which often brings financial pressure and professional demands. Assertiveness and competitiveness are expected—traits that can be mentally and emotionally exhausting. Women consistently demonstrate a strong preference for male partners who fall within the top 5–10% of income earners.

The Procreator role is perhaps the most complex. It’s not merely about reproduction—it’s about being socially desirable, initiating romantic pursuits, and maintaining relationships. Men must risk rejection and, especially post-#MeToo, fear being labeled as a “creep” or “harasser.” Once in a relationship, the expectations grow to include emotional intelligence, communication, and adaptability.

Attempting to fulfill these roles creates overwhelming pressure. Men are expected to balance on this unstable stool—never falter as a Protector, never fall short as a Provider, never disappoint as a Procreator. Even if successful, their masculinity is constantly under scrutiny.

Manhood is not conferred by age alone. It is a status that must be earned and re-earned. Yet modern society has stripped away most rites of passage. Few young men today face the crucible experiences once seen as essential to achieving manhood.

---

Problems with the “Toxic” Label

The term “toxic masculinity” has gained traction in recent years, attempting to define certain male behaviors—aggressiveness, emotional suppression, dominance—as dangerous. This framing is grounded in three ideological assumptions:

1. Masculinity is inherently problematic, bordering on pathological.
2. Men don’t require support because society already favors them.
3. Masculinity is oppressive and unhealthy.

But does this fairly reflect the male experience? Or does it risk reinforcing the very gender stereotypes it claims to reject?

Labeling masculinity as “toxic” assigns blame to individuals without considering the evolutionary, cultural, and social dynamics that shape behavior. It stigmatizes men seeking strength, healing, and connection by conflating the worst behaviors of a few with the essence of masculinity.

---

The Real Peril

As we rush past our evolutionary sex-role truths, life becomes more difficult for boys and men. The most dangerous individuals are not those who feel invincible—but those who feel impotent.

Consider the following emerging concerns:

• Family courts are biased against fathers, and a third of all children grow up without a father in the home.
• Male teachers are nearly absent in public schools, depriving boys of same-sex role models.
• Sedentary lifestyles and obesity have led to plummeting testosterone levels, impairing boys’ ability to become Protectors.
• Young men are falling behind academically compared to women and to men of past generations.
• Undergraduate enrollment now skews 60/40 female, yet universities maintain “women’s centers” without offering male equivalents.
• Many young men are not in school, working, or even looking for work.
• The U.S. Armed Forces are failing to meet recruitment targets—due in large part to obesity, academic failure, and mental health issues among young men.

Perhaps most telling, young men and women are now deeply divided in their voting patterns. Women tend to vote progressive, while men lean conservative. What happens when political ideology aligns with sex, and those with conservative leanings are labeled “mean-spirited,” “fascist,” or “oppressive”?

---

Provocations

To understand the pressures of masculinity, consider these three scenarios:

1. You need to show physical strength. Do you:
   • Show off and enjoy admiration?
   • Feel pressured to prove yourself?
   • Feel inadequate if you fall short?
2. Your partner wants to talk about feelings. Do you:
   • Open up?
   • Change the subject?
   • Shut down?
3. A friend asks if you’re okay. Do you:
   • Share honestly?
   • Say “I’m fine”?
   • Avoid the question?

These situations reflect the constant societal pressure to conform to the masculine ideal—stoic, strong, dominant. But flourishing societies build emotional capacity, not by labeling boys and men as inherently toxic.

---

A Call for Change

We must rethink masculinity—its pressures and its potential. A healthier understanding can dissolve harmful stereotypes and empower men to seek help when needed.

We should reframe masculinity to promote vulnerability, emotional openness, and self-growth. This shift will allow men to view emotional expression as strength—not weakness.

We need to step away from the precarious stool model and embrace broader definitions of manhood. There’s no one-size-fits-all masculinity. We gain nothing by trapping men in narrow roles.

We must highlight positive male role models who blend strength with sensitivity—men who are ambitious, collaborative, nurturing, and emotionally aware. Remember: history’s greatest warriors were often also poets, philosophers, and romantics.

Creating environments where men can express emotion without judgment is essential. Mental health practitioners are learning to support men in ways that respect both their vulnerabilities and their unique challenges.

Let’s recognize that masculinity is not a fixed identity. It’s a spectrum—of experiences, strengths, and roles. As C.S. Lewis warned in The Abolition of Man (1943):

“We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.”

---

Todd B. Kashdan, Ph.D. is the author of The Art of Insubordination: How to Dissent and Defy Effectively and Professor of Psychology and Leader of The Well-Being Laboratory at George Mason University.

Chris Frueh, Ph.D. is the author of Operator Syndrome and Professor of Psychology at the University of Hawaii.

As the Voice of the Veteran Community, The Havok Journal seeks to publish a variety of perspectives on a number of sensitive subjects. Unless specifically noted otherwise, nothing we publish is an official point of view of The Havok Journal or any part of the U.S. government.