Adolescence

[BlueHammer85]

Finished it yesterday and thought it was blisteringly powerful. The final scene with Stephen Graham, blimey, I've literally said some of those words verbatim, to the people I love, about the man who made me. So yeah it resonated with me big time.

‘I’m sorry I let you down’ broke my heart.

 

[Always Ali]

Binged it last night, it was excellent. The scene where it's just him and the lady phycologist was incredible, brilliant acting from both (although I think he genuinely made her jump at one point).

 

[Bigga]

Agreed people have always been impressionable to some degree. And you're right, some can take in advice, filter it, and apply what works, while others fall hard into the extremes. That’s exactly why we need to be careful about what messages are being amplified.

Toxic masculinity gets called out more, not because men are being unfairly targeted, but because the consequences have historically had bigger ripple effects—violence, emotional suppression, unhealthy relationships. Misandry exists, but it hasn’t shaped our systems or social norms in the same deep, widespread way misogyny has

The goal shouldn’t be to pit ‘toxic masculinity’ against ‘toxic femininity,’ but to call out harmful behaviours wherever they show up—and make sure the advice to young people is genuinely helping them grow, not dragging them into power games and resentment

There’s plenty of self-confidence content aimed at men it’s just presented differently because we often engage with it in different ways. A lot of it focuses on growth, purpose, and character. There are entire podcasts and platforms dedicated to things like discipline, fatherhood, emotional intelligence, and practical life skills. Some dive into topics like how to communicate better, how to dress better, eat better, and how to manage stress.

You don’t see many TV shows built around this kind of personal development for men because as a demographic, we are less likely to sit down and watch that kind of content in a traditional format. Instead, we're more likely to absorb it through podcasts, YouTube, or other online content.

Unfortunately, that vacuum of positive, engaging content often gets filled by the more sensational stuff because outrage and ego are more entertaining, even if they’re not helpful. But it doesn’t mean the good stuff isn’t there it just doesn’t shout as loud.

I agree,friendships where you challenge each other, encourage growth, and have honest conversations (even through banter) are part of healthy male relationships. That kind of support matters, and it can be incredibly positive. But when you’re young and your friendships are still maturing, it’s easy to look elsewhere for advice, which is why it’s so important that the voices out there are constructive, not harmful.

I disagree with your view that men are frowned upon for seeking advice, opening up, or trying to better understand relationships. If anything, it’s more encouraged now than ever before. The real concern is where that advice is coming from, because when it’s rooted in resentment or outdated thinking, it can set them up with unrealistic expectations or lead them into habits that actually make relationships harder, not easier.

So...

Toxic masculinity gets called out more, not because men are being unfairly targeted, but because the consequences have historically had bigger ripple effects—violence, emotional suppression, unhealthy relationships. Misandry exists, but it hasn’t shaped our systems or social norms in the same deep, widespread way misogyny has

Dominance is a male trait. I'm not so sure trying to level out natural hierarchy is a good thing. It's needed for natural leadership and defence. Is 'emotional suppression' a bad thing?Isn't this how most men get through the toughest of adversities? 'Unhealthy relationships' come in many forms and isn't a one-way street directed through men alone. There's plenty of women that goad men or play along in the toxicity of the 'relationship'.

This is a world where not all societies believe the same thing as feminism and equality to the levels we see in the West. Currently speaking laws are skewed very much in favour of women for the same offences made. Women can have a bad day, have a kid to look after, say sorry and sentences become a fraction of what it is for men. How's that fair?

There’s plenty of self-confidence content aimed at men it’s just presented differently because we often engage with it in different ways. A lot of it focuses on growth, purpose, and character. There are entire podcasts and platforms dedicated to things like discipline, fatherhood, emotional intelligence, and practical life skills. Some dive into topics like how to communicate better, how to dress better, eat better, and how to manage stress.
You don’t see many TV shows built around this kind of personal development for men because as a demographic, we are less likely to sit down and watch that kind of content in a traditional format. Instead, we're more likely to absorb it through podcasts, YouTube, or other online content.

Unfortunately, that vacuum of positive, engaging content often gets filled by the more sensational stuff because outrage and ego are more entertaining, even if they’re not helpful. But it doesn’t mean the good stuff isn’t there it just doesn’t shout as loud.

I agree there's plenty out there but, obviously, if young and older men are tuning into relation understanding podcasts, then that is uppermost in their want for learning, being confused about women's behaviour. Those podcasts become popular because it resonates the most, so it just can't be with 'incels'.

I disagree with your view that men are frowned upon for seeking advice, opening up, or trying to better understand relationships. If anything, it’s more encouraged now than ever before. The real concern is where that advice is coming from, because when it’s rooted in resentment or outdated thinking, it can set them up with unrealistic expectations or lead them into habits that actually make relationships harder, not easier.

It's fine to disagree. My evidence is not anecdotal, it's in the thread itself. That person didn't like the form of understanding the current states of modern relationship took in the content I posted. The video was about understanding how both and women, generally think. That men are, generally speaking, simplistic in terms of needs and goals, whereas women, again generally speaking, have a vast array of things they strive for, that can change on the smallest deficiency. Men are more likely to accept 70% of someone they want than women are, in my view.

Young men have a lot to navigate growing up like like young women, some like peer pressure, body changes, odour, height and attractiveness. But, like as in 'Adolescence' they also have to navigate muscle growth, respect for women, hierarchy and, separately, career directions from a male PoV (women don't have to have this kind of pressure if 'successful' men pick them as a 'partner').

 

[Bigga]

No, I would say it's something that affects everyone. One thing is certainly allows is more introverted types to avoid socialising and actually have to go through effort to socialise. My wife is from Vietnam and this new year we spent it in her hometown. It was basically like going back to the UK in the 90s. People constantly going around each others' houses, getting the tea out, everyone knowing their neighbours, people spending time with each other, kids playing out together on their bikes, multi-generational households, etc. There's no epidemic of loneliness there even though everyone still has social media and their own phone. There are lots of other problems, of course.

But I'm not denying an epidemic of loneliness, I'm denying that it's the fault of women, feminism, etc. That video you posted, he didn't outright blame feminism, but at several points he strongly hints that women going out to work and earn money was the reason for the problems in modern dating, and implied, again without explicitly stating it, that women getting 'equal' pay was undeserved.

A few things; in paragraph one, how does someone who genuinely feels disconnected connect without being made to connect? There are times when cajoling is a must. This is what men are good at. A man, sometimes, must be made to feel they can do better for themselves and that's not an attack on women, it's an attack of self defeatism.

Then there's the aspect of an excellent snapshot of Vietnamese life being different than Western life. Family and neighbour is a cultural norm there. It's not so much in the West. In the West, generally speaking, work is paramount. How many times can you say you heard of literal doors being open (like in the 70s/ early 80s for me) in the West, where you can walk into your neighbour's house to have a chat and vice versa?

We are in different worlds to even compare.

In paragraph two, it's one way to look at it, but for me, what he's saying is only what's been said for a short while, that 'equal pay' should be relative for the job you do and hours worked. We've seen the battle in sports for equal pay like men and women in tennis getting the same amount when men can play up to an average of 90-120mins more for the same game. It's fairly odd to agree to for me.

Nothing wrong with things to boost boys' self-confidence. The problem is all of the positive versions of that (youth clubs, facilities for teens, etc) have been cut so we're left with dickheads online telling them that it's all women's fault. 'Go to the gym' is terrible advice. 'Find some exercise you love and do it' is much better advice, because the reality is if you don't enjoy doing something, you're not going to keep it up and you're going to feel like even more of a loser, like the person who failed their 7th diet in a row and is now fatter than when they started. Personally, I would be bored in about 30 seconds doing weight lifting. But I love rock climbing, which is to a large extent achieving the same thing. But these messages also it's playing into the narrative that being muscular, good at sports, outgoing, etc, is the path to a happy, healthy relationship, and the only way that someone will want you, when in reality, a lot of these boys have plenty of other positive qualities, like intelligence and academic prowess (which unfortunately may not be valued in their social circle). I think perhaps here in Asia, things are a bit better because they do still attach a huge amount of social status to academic performance (which causes its own problems, but let's not get into that).

For the record, I think a lot of the same shit aimed at women is pretty toxic too. This 'all body types are beautiful' stuff is just marketing guff designed to sell to women and it quickly hits the real world when you don't get approached in the club for the 20th night in a row. The key is that these are cosmetic companies spreading this message, so even though they're trying to be positive (and no doubt some people working for them think they are), they are still reinforcing the message that a woman's entire self-worth is based on how she looks, in the same way they do with men (although at least with men, this is expanded to include wealth and confidence too).

First paragraph; everyone is different in how to intake information to drive themselves forward. me? I'd rather look at someone else's results and find a way to want to do the same. 'Find something you like to do' is time consuming trying different things. Work gets in the way? What if what you like the look of takes time to implement? So men just want someone to tell them the 'right direction', unfortunately, because it's a fatherly/ role model mentality one seeks to emulate.

It's in peers, not just on podcasts.

Your second paragraph echoes what 'red pill' mentality is. Men would rather be punched in the face with the truth, than be molly-cuddled to feel 'included'. It's a way of earning that right to feel equal with our peers whether we like it or not.

 

[ROCKET80]

So...

Dominance is a male trait. I'm not so sure trying to level out natural hierarchy is a good thing. It's needed for natural leadership and defence. Is 'emotional suppression' a bad thing?Isn't this how most men get through the toughest of adversities? 'Unhealthy relationships' come in many forms and isn't a one-way street directed through men alone. There's plenty of women that goad men or play along in the toxicity of the 'relationship'.

This is a world where not all societies believe the same thing as feminism and equality to the levels we see in the West. Currently speaking laws are skewed very much in favour of women for the same offences made. Women can have a bad day, have a kid to look after, say sorry and sentences become a fraction of what it is for men. How's that fair?

Dominance is more common in men on average, but dominance isn’t the same as leadership. Real leadership comes from emotional intelligence, collaboration, and vision. Hierarchies can be natural, but dominance without empathy can easily become coercion.

Many men rely on emotional suppression to get through tough times, the “suck it up” mindset has carried generations through crisis. But suppression isn’t the same as resilience and over time, it can lead to anxiety, depression, or suicide. Here in NZ 73% of all suicides are men, and globally, men die by suicide 3 to 4 times more often than women. One reason? They're less likely to seek help or talk about what they’re going through. A study in America found that men who adhered strongly to traditional masculine norms, particularly emotional control and self-reliance, had significantly higher rates of depression and suicidal thoughts. True resilience means facing emotions, not burying them.

Yes, not all cultures see gender roles the same way, and I'd argue religion plays a major part in that. What we call "equality" in the West doesn’t always translate elsewhere, but the idea that both men and women deserve respect and dignity isn’t just a western concept it’s shown up in different cultures across history.

Totally agree that toxic relationships aren’t a one-way street, there are plenty of women who contribute to unhealthy dynamics too. That said, I think we have to acknowledge that, historically and statistically, men have been responsible for most cases of serious violence, especially in the context of domestic and sexual abuse. That history has shaped a lot of the protections and social narratives we see today, sometimes to the point of overcorrection. That doesn’t mean men’s experiences don’t matter, they absolutely do, and more men than people realise are affected by abuse, manipulation, or emotional harm.

I agree there's plenty out there but, obviously, if young and older men are tuning into relation understanding podcasts, then that is uppermost in their want for learning, being confused about women's behaviour. Those podcasts become popular because it resonates the most, so it just can't be with 'incels'.

I think there’s a genuine interest in better understanding ourselves, and modern relationships be it with our partners, children, and friends.

It’s not disillusionment with women driving that shift, but a broader change in how society views relationships, gender roles, and emotional intelligence. What's worth noting is the tone, much of the content focuses on self-awareness, emotional growth, and healthy communication. That’s a big contrast to the likes of Andrew Tate, who push a version of uber masculinity based on dominance, control, and status. The question si why are some young men drawn to this or parts of the incel movement?

It often comes down to belonging, identity, and a need for guidance. A lot feel lost, they’re growing up in a world where what it is to be a man is being questioned, but there’s not always something clear or positive being offered. They hear “don’t be toxic,” but not always what to be instead. Tate, offers a simple and extreme message: be strong, be dominant, don’t get walked over. It’s seductive because it gives certainty, status, and a sense of purpose to guys who feel powerless, invisible, or rejected. The incel stuff adds resentment and blame into the mix.

It's fine to disagree. My evidence is not anecdotal, it's in the thread itself. That person didn't like the form of understanding the current states of modern relationship took in the content I posted. The video was about understanding how both and women, generally think. That men are, generally speaking, simplistic in terms of needs and goals, whereas women, again generally speaking, have a vast array of things they strive for, that can change on the smallest deficiency. Men are more likely to accept 70% of someone they want than women are, in my view.

Young men have a lot to navigate growing up like like young women, some like peer pressure, body changes, odour, height and attractiveness. But, like as in 'Adolescence' they also have to navigate muscle growth, respect for women, hierarchy and, separately, career directions from a male PoV (women don't have to have this kind of pressure if 'successful' men pick them as a 'partner').

I agree both men and women face different pressures growing up, and young men are navigating new pressures.

That said, I don't think we should oversimplify how men and women think or what they want. There are general patterns, but there's also huge variation within each gender. Some men are highly emotionally driven, and some women are very goal focused or pragmatic. Reducing it to "men are simple, women are complex" can lead to resentment or a sense of unfairness, when relationships are just human, messy, and influenced by a lot more than biology.

Some men & women are drawn to partners for superficial reasons. But that’s not the norm, and framing it as "women don't have to have the pressure if picked by successful men" doesn’t reflect the reality for most modern relationships. If anything, the dating landscape today is more complex and demanding for everyone.

I’ll push back on the idea that women don’t face pressure around careers, modern society increasingly expects women to "do it all" career, motherhood, appearance etc. the pressure is just different. Here's where we need a female voice to share their experiences.

We definitely need more honest conversations about the unique struggles young men face. But I think the way forward is less about comparing burdens, and more about recognising that both genders are under strain in different ways.

 

[Bigga]

Dominance is more common in men on average, but dominance isn’t the same as leadership. Real leadership comes from emotional intelligence, collaboration, and vision. Hierarchies can be natural, but dominance without empathy can easily become coercion.

Many men rely on emotional suppression to get through tough times, the “suck it up” mindset has carried generations through crisis. But suppression isn’t the same as resilience and over time, it can lead to anxiety, depression, or suicide. Here in NZ 73% of all suicides are men, and globally, men die by suicide 3 to 4 times more often than women. One reason? They're less likely to seek help or talk about what they’re going through. A study in America found that men who adhered strongly to traditional masculine norms, particularly emotional control and self-reliance, had significantly higher rates of depression and suicidal thoughts. True resilience means facing emotions, not burying them.

"Dominance" is a tricky subject. It's not a physically forceful action. That's rare, but that's how people think of 'dominance'. For me, 'dominance' is confidence in the ability to lead. This term 'emotional intelligence' really bugs me. Men, in fact, are more in tune with their emotions than women. That's why they tend to repress them. Good decisions cannot be made emotionally. It needs clarity.

I've worked with male management and female management and only two female have done things as a man would. The others? Even female colleagues of mine have called them 'bitches' when things got tough. Anecdotal, of course, but it's my own experience to draw from.

The "suck it up" mentality IS resilience, though. The only thing that can said here, is the ability to have shared experiences with fellow men because men have a sense of relation for suppression. It's unique to men, generally speaking. There's a difference in the outlet being male or female in this regard. I mean how do men speak about postnatal blues to women as we need common experiences, right? The mental fight is not the same.

So it SHOULD be encouraged for young men to seek help from other men to talk through the depression troughs and cycles. As you say 'facing emotions'.

I don't mean to dismiss women going through depression, but I think men seeing other men battling through is a bit more relatable. Seeing someone like yourself climbing up is fortifying and empowering.

Just my opinion and I appreciate others might not share the view.

Yes, not all cultures see gender roles the same way, and I'd argue religion plays a major part in that. What we call "equality" in the West doesn’t always translate elsewhere, but the idea that both men and women deserve respect and dignity isn’t just a western concept it’s shown up in different cultures across history.

Religion is easy to blame. Hasn't the term 'Hunter-Gatherer' been related to pre-religion which signifies a hierarchy in leadership and gender roles? I suppose this is not a constant family dynamics, but the 'tradition' is male led hunters and female gatherers, no?

Totally agree that toxic relationships aren’t a one-way street, there are plenty of women who contribute to unhealthy dynamics too. That said, I think we have to acknowledge that, historically and statistically, men have been responsible for most cases of serious violence, especially in the context of domestic and sexual abuse. That history has shaped a lot of the protections and social narratives we see today, sometimes to the point of overcorrection. That doesn’t mean men’s experiences don’t matter, they absolutely do, and more men than people realise are affected by abuse, manipulation, or emotional harm.

Agreed.

I think there’s a genuine interest in better understanding ourselves, and modern relationships be it with our partners, children, and friends.

It’s not disillusionment with women driving that shift, but a broader change in how society views relationships, gender roles, and emotional intelligence. What's worth noting is the tone, much of the content focuses on self-awareness, emotional growth, and healthy communication. That’s a big contrast to the likes of Andrew Tate, who push a version of uber masculinity based on dominance, control, and status. The question is why are some young men drawn to this or parts of the incel movement?

It often comes down to belonging, identity, and a need for guidance. A lot feel lost, they’re growing up in a world where what it is to be a man is being questioned, but there’s not always something clear or positive being offered. They hear “don’t be toxic,” but not always what to be instead. Tate, offers a simple and extreme message: be strong, be dominant, don’t get walked over. It’s seductive because it gives certainty, status, and a sense of purpose to guys who feel powerless, invisible, or rejected. The incel stuff adds resentment and blame into the mix.

You mention how "society" views relationships and whatever, but I think we can safely swap this word out for "feminism". I think guys like Tate are a response to crazy things like transgender men being in female sports. In amongst all the questionable opinions 'red pill' content has, there are legitimate concerns raised. So, it's not so simple to dismiss the likes of the Tates etc. I've watched the dynamic shift over time, that some podcasts have joined that viewpoint and others than were in that viewpoint take a step out of it. With new derivative views such as "black pill" ( a view of unchangeable factors that decide your fate) coming in, the "Red Pill" is, actually, getting slightly better as a source of positivity.

At least the likes of Tate say men can change their life outcome should they want to.

I agree both men and women face different pressures growing up, and young men are navigating new pressures.

That said, I don't think we should oversimplify how men and women think or what they want. There are general patterns, but there's also huge variation within each gender. Some men are highly emotionally driven, and some women are very goal focused or pragmatic. Reducing it to "men are simple, women are complex" can lead to resentment or a sense of unfairness, when relationships are just human, messy, and influenced by a lot more than biology.

Some men & women are drawn to partners for superficial reasons. But that’s not the norm, and framing it as "women don't have to have the pressure if picked by successful men" doesn’t reflect the reality for most modern relationships. If anything, the dating landscape today is more complex and demanding for everyone.

Well, to get the data point across we have to generalise accurate points, otherwise we can't talk about anything at all.

The "successful men" comment was meant to show that a successful man can take any woman that's open to him and not have to work. A successful woman tends to want someone just as successful for their relationship. Of course there are exceptions (I know of one in my own family dynamics), but that's quite rare at the moment.

I’ll push back on the idea that women don’t face pressure around careers, modern society increasingly expects women to "do it all" career, motherhood, appearance etc. the pressure is just different. Here's where we need a female voice to share their experiences.

We definitely need more honest conversations about the unique struggles young men face. But I think the way forward is less about comparing burdens, and more about recognising that both genders are under strain in different ways.

Again, we need to swap out "society" for 'feminism'. I don't recall men demanding women 'do it all'. But, yeah, I'd love a female voice here.

At the moment comparing burdens is all we have. After all, what's the likelihood young women would be drafted into potential wars as their male counterparts would? They ARE under strain at the moment, but that's down to confusing and,, sometimes, conflicting messaging from the Gov and companies pushing their agendas.

 

[Asa's Heart]

Haven’t seen this yet it’s in my watch list but my 12 year old daughter came home for school today and said one of the kids in her year has been suspended after having a knife on him! Tbh he should just be expelled, I don’t give a fuck, it sends a message to all the other kids, they shoukd get them all in the hall and tell them in no uncertain terms what happens. If you scare them from it even better I’m sick to death of people saying oh you might damage their mental health, better than them been dead.

That is a daily occurrence in some schools. Not even a blip on the schools daily schedule. What do you do with all the kids that are expelled? Who then deals with them? How do we manage them? How do they get an education? Kids that become isolated with no hope are very dangerous. I work in this field and can tell you that the services aren’t there. We are heading towards a really bad place and lots of issues that affect kids are converging into a scary mess that will impact on us all. That’s without the rest of the shite going on in the world at the moment.

 

[pride in battle]

So have many years do you think the lad would have got in a real life trial ? He definitely had anger issues...

 

[ROCKET80]

"Dominance" is a tricky subject. It's not a physically forceful action. That's rare, but that's how people think of 'dominance'. For me, 'dominance' is confidence in the ability to lead.

Just by way of context, I work in social services, and one of the teams that reports through to me is a group of qualified counsellors and psychologists. I took the opportunity to put some of your points to them and it sparked a great conversation. I thought I'd share some of their responses here.

First off the said dominance isn’t leadership, it’s often insecurity in disguise (here they referred to the likes of Trump). And no, dominance isn’t inherently male, that’s a social script, not biology.

This term 'emotional intelligence' really bugs me. Men, in fact, are more in tune with their emotions than women. That's why they tend to repress them. Good decisions cannot be made emotionally. It needs clarity.

The idea that men are “more in tune” with their emotions because they repress them is a bit of a paradox. Repression is usually a signal that the emotions feel unsafe to face. As one of our counsellors put it, repressing emotions is a red flag, it’s the subconscious saying, ‘this is dangerous to deal with,’ but that can only be avoided for so long.

Asking them about emotional intelligence they said emotional intelligence is about being able to recognise, name, and manage emotions effectively. That’s what brings clarity not suppressing or ignoring what we feel.

And resilience? It’s not just sucking it up. True resilience means being able to process, adapt, and recover, not just endure. Suppression might feel like strength in the moment, but over time it often leads to burnout, depression, disconnection, and as we find in NZ much worse.

I've worked with male management and female management and only two female have done things as a man would. The others? Even female colleagues of mine have called them 'bitches' when things got tough. Anecdotal, of course, but it's my own experience to draw from.

I can only draw from my experiences on this too, which is the two best bosses I've ever worked with have been women. Of course I've worked with some poor female managers too, but I'd add that every male manager I've reported to has been, to put it plainly, a dick.

The "suck it up" mentality IS resilience, though. The only thing that can said here, is the ability to have shared experiences with fellow men because men have a sense of relation for suppression. It's unique to men, generally speaking. There's a difference in the outlet being male or female in this regard. I mean how do men speak about postnatal blues to women as we need common experiences, right? The mental fight is not the same.
So it SHOULD be encouraged for young men to seek help from other men to talk through the depression troughs and cycles. As you say 'facing emotions'.

I don't mean to dismiss women going through depression, but I think men seeing other men battling through is a bit more relatable. Seeing someone like yourself climbing up is fortifying and empowering.

Just my opinion and I appreciate others might not share the view.

back to the team responses and here they reiterated that "suck it up” isn’t resilience, it’s avoidance.

The team were with you on this, more men engaging with each other in open, honest ways is exactly what’s needed, and it’s something we know works. Shared experiences between men is incredibly powerful, especially when it comes to opening up emotionally. Seeing other men work through mental health challenges can be both grounding and empowering. Here in NZ there are campaigns specifically promoting this, targeting rural, mostly farming communities where male suicide rates are high. A demographic that often "sucks it up".

Religion is easy to blame. Hasn't the term 'Hunter-Gatherer' been related to pre-religion which signifies a hierarchy in leadership and gender roles? I suppose this is not a constant family dynamics, but the 'tradition' is male led hunters and female gatherers, no?

Here is where the psychologists weighed in on their current informed opinion:

The idea that early hunter-gatherer societies were strictly male-led isn’t backed by evidence. Many were far more equal and cooperative than the “men hunt, women gather” stereotype suggests. Women often hunted too, and leadership roles weren’t always dominated by men. Tradition oversimplifies what was a diverse range of social structures.

The conversation then segued into the male instinct to protect women and children. This being more about survival and reproduction than any belief in women being weaker. These behaviours likely evolved to support group survival, but how we express them today is shaped by society, not biology. The idea that women need protection because they’re the “fairer sex” being a social construct, not a scientific truth.

You mention how "society" views relationships and whatever, but I think we can safely swap this word out for "feminism". I think guys like Tate are a response to crazy things like transgender men being in female sports. In amongst all the questionable opinions 'red pill' content has, there are legitimate concerns raised. So, it's not so simple to dismiss the likes of the Tates etc. I've watched the dynamic shift over time, that some podcasts have joined that viewpoint and others than were in that viewpoint take a step out of it. With new derivative views such as "black pill" ( a view of unchangeable factors that decide your fate) coming in, the "Red Pill" is, actually, getting slightly better as a source of positivity.

At least the likes of Tate say men can change their life outcome should they want to.


The "successful men" comment was meant to show that a successful man can take any woman that's open to him and not have to work. A successful woman tends to want someone just as successful for their relationship. Of course there are exceptions (I know of one in my own family dynamics), but that's quite rare at the moment.

Again, we need to swap out "society" for 'feminism'. I don't recall men demanding women 'do it all'. But, yeah, I'd love a female voice here.

At the moment comparing burdens is all we have. After all, what's the likelihood young women would be drafted into potential wars as their male counterparts would? They ARE under strain at the moment, but that's down to confusing and,, sometimes, conflicting messaging from the Gov and companies pushing their agendas.

All disagreed with swapping out society for feminism. The discussion was that the feminist movement has been instrumental in challenging outdated norms and expanding opportunities. It’s society, not feminism, that said men can’t show emotion, that fathers can’t be primary caregivers, or that men must find their value in wealth or dominance.

That said, just like toxic masculinity, toxic feminism exists too and it shuts down healthy conversations when it turns into man-blaming or exclusion. Neither extreme helps move us forward.

As for Andrew Tate, most hadn't heard of him, those that have, said yes he tells men/boys they can change their lives, but it comes with misogyny, aggression, and deeply harmful ideas about women and relationships. We can acknowledge his motivational angle but you can't ignore the damage that comes with him.

On the topic of successful men picking women, a few members of our team felt strongly about how this dynamic often plays out. Here's their professional take: They’ve worked with many women who sought out relationships with wealthy or high-status men, believing it would offer security or a better lifestyle. These women are often young and from working-class backgrounds, at first they’re willing to accept the “trophy partner” role often thinking it’s a fair trade.

What tends to unfold is far more complicated. They quickly realise they have little to no financial independence, and there’s often a lack of emotional or intellectual connection in the relationship. The power imbalance makes it hard to leave, especially when infidelity or emotional disengagement becomes part of the picture. In these cases, what seemed like a 'way out' can become another kind of trap, one that reinforces dependency and limits their ability to build a life on their own terms. Relationship dynamics shaped by power and status, rather than mutual respect and shared values, often carry long-term consequences that aren’t obvious at the outset.

Comparing burdens rarely leads to understanding, just more division. Different groups face different challenges, and they’re all valid in context.

At the end of the day, our views on men and women are shaped most by our lived experiences and the role models we’ve had, for better or worse. Whether those experiences were empowering, limiting, or damaging, they shape how we see gender, relationships, and ourselves. That’s why open, respectful conversations like the one we're having (and hopefully enjoying), give us a chance to widen the lens.

 

[idahoblues]

Is it worth watching?

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

One of our best actors IMO.

He's a bit type cast though. Always plays a Scouser..... He's the new Bobby Grant / Jim Royle

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

He's a bit type cast though. Always plays a Scouser..... He's the new Bobby Grant / Jim Royle

He doesn’t always play a scouser at all. And even if he did I’m not sure that adequately fits the description of typecast, as much as always playing the role of English characters would.

Would playing a Scouse priest in one role, a Scouse gangster in another and a Scouse drag queen in a third mean he was typecast? Surely if he all played was priests/gangsters/drag queens then that would far better meet the description of being typecast.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Is it worth watching?

id say its a must see for everyone.

 

[Bigga]

Just by way of context, I work in social services, and one of the teams that reports through to me is a group of qualified counsellors and psychologists. I took the opportunity to put some of your points to them and it sparked a great conversation. I thought I'd share some of their responses here.

First off the said dominance isn’t leadership, it’s often insecurity in disguise (here they referred to the likes of Trump). And no, dominance isn’t inherently male, that’s a social script, not biology.

The idea that men are “more in tune” with their emotions because they repress them is a bit of a paradox. Repression is usually a signal that the emotions feel unsafe to face. As one of our counsellors put it, repressing emotions is a red flag, it’s the subconscious saying, ‘this is dangerous to deal with,’ but that can only be avoided for so long.

Asking them about emotional intelligence they said emotional intelligence is about being able to recognise, name, and manage emotions effectively. That’s what brings clarity not suppressing or ignoring what we feel.

And resilience? It’s not just sucking it up. True resilience means being able to process, adapt, and recover, not just endure. Suppression might feel like strength in the moment, but over time it often leads to burnout, depression, disconnection, and as we find in NZ much worse.

I can only draw from my experiences on this too, which is the two best bosses I've ever worked with have been women. Of course I've worked with some poor female managers too, but I'd add that every male manager I've reported to has been, to put it plainly, a dick.

back to the team responses and here they reiterated that "suck it up” isn’t resilience, it’s avoidance.

The team were with you on this, more men engaging with each other in open, honest ways is exactly what’s needed, and it’s something we know works. Shared experiences between men is incredibly powerful, especially when it comes to opening up emotionally. Seeing other men work through mental health challenges can be both grounding and empowering. Here in NZ there are campaigns specifically promoting this, targeting rural, mostly farming communities where male suicide rates are high. A demographic that often "sucks it up".

Here is where the psychologists weighed in on their current informed opinion:

The idea that early hunter-gatherer societies were strictly male-led isn’t backed by evidence. Many were far more equal and cooperative than the “men hunt, women gather” stereotype suggests. Women often hunted too, and leadership roles weren’t always dominated by men. Tradition oversimplifies what was a diverse range of social structures.

The conversation then segued into the male instinct to protect women and children. This being more about survival and reproduction than any belief in women being weaker. These behaviours likely evolved to support group survival, but how we express them today is shaped by society, not biology. The idea that women need protection because they’re the “fairer sex” being a social construct, not a scientific truth.


All disagreed with swapping out society for feminism. The discussion was that the feminist movement has been instrumental in challenging outdated norms and expanding opportunities. It’s society, not feminism, that said men can’t show emotion, that fathers can’t be primary caregivers, or that men must find their value in wealth or dominance.

That said, just like toxic masculinity, toxic feminism exists too and it shuts down healthy conversations when it turns into man-blaming or exclusion. Neither extreme helps move us forward.

As for Andrew Tate, most hadn't heard of him, those that have, said yes he tells men/boys they can change their lives, but it comes with misogyny, aggression, and deeply harmful ideas about women and relationships. We can acknowledge his motivational angle but you can't ignore the damage that comes with him.

On the topic of successful men picking women, a few members of our team felt strongly about how this dynamic often plays out. Here's their professional take: They’ve worked with many women who sought out relationships with wealthy or high-status men, believing it would offer security or a better lifestyle. These women are often young and from working-class backgrounds, at first they’re willing to accept the “trophy partner” role often thinking it’s a fair trade.

What tends to unfold is far more complicated. They quickly realise they have little to no financial independence, and there’s often a lack of emotional or intellectual connection in the relationship. The power imbalance makes it hard to leave, especially when infidelity or emotional disengagement becomes part of the picture. In these cases, what seemed like a 'way out' can become another kind of trap, one that reinforces dependency and limits their ability to build a life on their own terms. Relationship dynamics shaped by power and status, rather than mutual respect and shared values, often carry long-term consequences that aren’t obvious at the outset.

Comparing burdens rarely leads to understanding, just more division. Different groups face different challenges, and they’re all valid in context.

At the end of the day, our views on men and women are shaped most by our lived experiences and the role models we’ve had, for better or worse. Whether those experiences were empowering, limiting, or damaging, they shape how we see gender, relationships, and ourselves. That’s why open, respectful conversations like the one we're having (and hopefully enjoying), give us a chance to widen the lens.

Oh my gosh, there is soooo much to go through!!

Firstly, let me thank you for having dialogue on a very interesting subject. I've loved it and I'm loving it! It's firing my synapses on how to present my thinking and to not curb my thoughts into quickfire soundbites (it's a necessary habit on here).

Secondly, I think your team has some very interesting things to say, but I wonder what position they come from as they say it, experience-wise. It makes a difference.

I want to respond, but I don't have the time, whilst I'm at work right now and I fear I might make things long-winded.

But I will try and offer a little push back on some things with how they're presented, although I do agree on some things. Thanks @ROCKET80.

BM is at its finest when frustration is held at bay and respectful dialogue can be had. It's a shame it doesn't happen too often.

 

[Toffee in peace]

Episode 3 was a quite brilliant bit of acting by the principle actors imo.

 

[Bobby the blue]

He's a bit type cast though. Always plays a Scouser..... He's the new Bobby Grant / Jim Royle

To me he will always be Tommy (the tit)

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

He's a bit type cast though. Always plays a Scouser..... He's the new Bobby Grant / Jim Royle

His Scouse twist on Al Capone in Boardwalk Empire, was an absolute joy.

 

[Two Gun Bob]

Is it worth watching?

Only if there's no Elk or Moose on the horizon.

 

[MCFC_ Phil]

He's a bit type cast though. Always plays a Scouser..... He's the new Bobby Grant / Jim Royle

type cast, seriously? Not seen 1000 blows?

 

[idahoblues]

Only if there's no Elk or Moose on the horizon.

Saw this nice mum and baby on the river yesterday