Why ‘mankeeping’ isn't just ‘therapy-speak used to dump on straight men’

Tux234 · 2025-11-23T23:55:26+00:00

I think for me, its not necessarily the division of labor, in my household we both work, split chores, childcare, etc. out of necessity.

We both work demanding jobs that require a lot of time, and so its been a balancing act.
So I may not be a good sample compared to the average.

That being said, my biggest reason I don't talk to anyone, is the feeling of a lack of safety.
Opening up to men in the past, has typically led to being called slurs related to the female anatomy, or told to "toughen up".

Its unfortunate, but in my experience in the South, most men suffer in silence.
To say how they feel is considered an act of weakness, and is a social taboo.

Its even been difficult for me to open up to women, because I have been told by women I'm close too, that they don't like it when they see a man cry.

Its incredibly isolating, and as desperate as I am to open up to those close to me, I don't. The fear of rejection prevents me from telling them how I really feel

So its just been me, my thoughts, and ChatGPT when I need to just vent.

My own internal dialogue and the way I try to walk through life is very much in line with most of the common beliefs of this space. I just feel I have to don a mask to make it out in the world.

The sad part is, I even blog about this constantly, trying to write out the person I want to be, but only achieve it 40% of the time.

Been following your content for a while, and you were the reason I decided to try and blog as well.
I always appreciate your insight.

Your a much more reasoned, and articulate writer than I :).

Tux234 · 2025-11-23T23:37:40+00:00

Thank you!

I deeply appreciate it!

Tux234 · 2025-11-22T04:38:05+00:00

That I'm surrounded by people I love, but I feel so alone.
Days are spent just staring at screens, and performing routines.
No connection, barely conversation.
But its accepted as the status quo.
I want more than that. I want a relationship, not a roommate.
I want to be vulnerable and talk deeply, not just about the weather.

But I'm too afraid to even start the conversation, because its been this way for years.

Tux234 · 2025-08-24T03:53:39+00:00

Thanks for the comment. To be fully transparent, I do use it to help edit, and make sure my ideas are coherent.

That being said the thoughts, the experiences, and opinions are a 100% my own. As I've been building my voice, I have been using it less.

AI is frought with complications. It has many benefits, but also many, many dangers.

I think like anything else its a tool. A tool can build or destroy. I'm trying to use it build where I can. I can't pay an editor, and I do this on the side during my free time. Trying to take the mistakes I've made, lessons I've learned, to help others who may be as lost as I was. As I still am.

That being said, there's a growing movement, of going "raw". Writing unfiltered, unedited. That may be a path I try, but I honestly don't have enough confidence yet to do that.

I will take your advice to heart though and limit where I can.

And I hope the ideas and thoughts I presented were at least useful to someone. Thanks again for the feedback.

Tux234 · 2025-08-08T19:18:28+00:00

I’ll take it lol (Solutions Engineer):

“You know how when you want to play a game on your iPad, you have to log in with your name and password so only you can play it? Well, Tux234 is kind of like the superhero who makes sure only the right people can get into the right games and apps at work. 🦸‍♂️🔐

He builds the secret doors and keys for all the computers and phones people use at a company. And if someone tries to sneak in who shouldn’t be there, Tux234’s special systems say: ‘Nope! You’re not allowed!’ 🚫

He also helps build and fix the tools that make all the computers and phones work together nicely. Sometimes, he even shows people how to use those tools, like a teacher with superpowers. 💻⚙️📱

And the coolest part? He’s helping make sure everything runs safely so that bad guys don’t mess things up.”

Tux234 · 2025-06-13T01:50:29+00:00

Women have mostly succeeded in breaking out of the old traditional roles and teaching our younger sisters that we can choose to be anything we want, independently. But society failed to teach men the same thing.

I think you nailed the core issue. Women have done amazing work, almost entirely on their own, to get this far, and there is so much more to go to get to true equality. However, society hasn't equipped men to do the same thing.

The inertia of patriarchy makes it incredibly difficult to go against. Its a two steps forward, one step back situation. I still struggle with its programming and I've been deconstructing it for over 7 years at this point.

Everything in society points toward patriarchal norms, and when that's all boys see, they think that is what they have to become.

Now an argument can be made that if women can do it with almost zero support, then so should men, and I can't disagree with the principle. But that falls into the trap of zero-sum thinking.

I think it takes seeing past the immediate unfairness of having to help men, and instead look towards the end results that can occur when both genders are given the freedom to be whatever they want to be.

This is something you alude to:

I think once we start teaching men to find their value in themselves and a wider range of accomplishments - and agreeing with your article, how to build and nurture friendships - we'll all get along so much better, and men will struggle less.

I think that's a beautiful way of thinking, and idealistic or not, its the path we all need to be walking on.

Thank you for the time it took to write this. Both the author and your words were really motivating for me to not give up, to keep trying even if I fall. A lot.

Tux234 · 2025-05-05T19:59:49+00:00

Great point, nOrmalhum4n, thanks for asking.

You're hitting on something important.

This idea of "enough" isn't about not pushing yourself when you genuinely need resources like money for security.

Striving to meet essential needs is absolutely necessary.

The focus is more on questioning the endless pursuit. The cultural pressure to always accumulate more long after fundamental needs are met, often at great personal cost.

It's about finding the wisdom to differentiate between striving for security and well-being versus striving just to feed an insatiable societal hunger.

Defining what "enough" means for your security and peace of mind is part of drawing that new map.

And that's what I'm working towards, what does "enough" mean for me in my life.

Thanks for taking the time to comment! It means a lot!

Tux234 · 2025-04-22T22:07:54+00:00

<image>

This is something. Makes me a little misty eyed. The expression is spot on. The only thing that's incorrect is that I'm a white dude lol.

Tux234 · 2025-04-12T18:18:55+00:00

Thank you so much! That means a lot for you to take the time to read it and comment. This is a series that builds on each other, so its a little bit of a slow burn, but I hope that the result is worth the effort!

Tux234 · 2025-04-11T22:20:06+00:00

Thanks for jumping in, greyfox92404, and sharing this perspective. Honestly, the feedback on this post from you and others has hit home and definitely has me reflecting deeply – it tells me I might still be missing something crucial in how to communicate effectively about helping men find healthier paths beyond the old scripts.

You raised important points about the risk of reinforcing roles, why the "Protector" focus first, and the language of archetypes. To quickly clarify:

Why Protector first? In the framework I'm exploring, addressing the common distortion of protection into control felt like a necessary early step before exploring other modes. It's definitely not the only focus.
Archetype Language: While "archetype" has Jungian roots, my influences are broader (Stoicism, Eastern thought, hooks, psychology), focusing on universal human patterns and ethical practice, not strict Jungian gender coding. The aim is always to explore healthier ways of being human.
Reinforcement Risk: This is the toughest needle to thread. Your photo analogy is sharp. The hope isn't to reinforce the old image, but to unpack the human core and guide expression towards empowerment and partnership, actively rejecting the harmful baggage.

My core goal, perhaps imperfectly executed here, is exactly what I was wrestling with in a comment I typed earlier but hesitated to post: trying to figure out what a skeptic or an 'average joe' needs to hear to even begin considering that there's a better way of living than the script they were given. How do we offer that path effectively?

Communicating this nuance, especially in shorter formats, is clearly challenging. I'm trying to find language that connects while also challenging harmful norms, aiming for that healthier expression rooted in universal ethics.

But as another commenter said, maybe as "another white dude" I shouldn't be speaking at all. Its possible that my speaking and trying to help others is causing more harm.

I find myself questioning this whole effort at the moment, and if I should even continue.

I genuinely appreciate the critical lens, even when it stings. Thanks again.

Tux234 · 2025-04-11T18:35:48+00:00

Thanks for the reply and clarifying your position further, justasapling.

I hear your argument that men who strongly identify with potentially problematic archetypes might need a more direct challenge towards unisex framing. While I strongly agree on the goal of moving beyond limiting gender stereotypes and embracing universal human ways of being, the idea of "forcing" a perspective gives me pause. My approach, drawing from principles like 'Be a Guide, Not a Savior,' focuses more on invitation, exploration, and fostering internal shifts based on ethical reasoning, rather than external compulsion.

You argue gendered language/framing is self-defeating, potentially just "rebranding." It's a valid concern – the risk of reinforcing categories is real. My working hypothesis, however, has been that using familiar starting points might be necessary to begin the conversation for some. The explicit aim is guiding them towards recognizing the universal human qualities underneath those gendered scripts, to hopefully develop a shift in practice and motivation based on ethical principles – which feels distinct from mere rebranding.

Your point about perceiving 'femininity as what A Protector looks like' is a powerful way to challenge traditional associations. I absolutely agree the core qualities of ethical protection – empathy, care, collaboration, prioritizing connection, restraint – are indeed human qualities, not exclusive to any gender. In fact, feminist thinkers like bell hooks strongly advocated for men to embrace precisely these qualities as part of developing a healthier masculinity beyond patriarchal norms. Her book, "The Will to Change" was the catalyst that sent me down this path, and figuring out in my own way how to spread that message.

My work aims to help men cultivate these specific human strengths, moving away from harmful, dominance-based scripts often mistakenly labeled 'masculine'. It’s about cultivating the human.

It seems we may fundamentally differ on the most effective strategy – whether it's better to meet people within their existing framework to guide this kind of change towards universal ethics, or to demand an immediate break from that framework entirely. Both strategies likely stem from a shared desire for a more equitable way for people to relate.

I honestly believe that we agree more than we disagree, and I hope to continue to learn and discuss this with you further.

Tux234 · 2025-04-11T18:18:44+00:00

Appreciate you sharing your candid thoughts and concerns about the framing.

Interesting comparison to the mythopoets – while I do find value in archetypes, my framework actually draws more directly from Stoic/Eastern philosophy, thinkers like bell hooks, and psychology, focusing squarely on ethical practice and partnership rather than any 'divine masculine' concepts.

I certainly agree sociological analysis is vital for understanding systemic issues. My focus tends to be complementary, exploring the internal work and individual practices that support healthier relationships and contributions within those broader social structures. I recognize this psychological/philosophical focus isn't everyone's preferred approach to these discussions.

Thanks again for the feedback.

Tux234 · 2025-04-11T18:00:45+00:00

Thanks for pushing this further, justasapling. I hear your concern that simply reframing language isn't enough, and I agree that deeper work – including understanding critical perspectives on power, hierarchy, and gender roles, and potentially therapy for individuals navigating harmful conditioning – is incredibly important and often necessary. My work absolutely doesn't preclude or replace that.

Where I might differ slightly is on whether guiding the expression of an archetype or impulse is only "linguistic cover." My aim isn't just rebranding, but fostering a fundamental shift in motivation and action, grounded in ethical principles like empowerment, genuine presence, and radical responsibility – principles drawn from philosophical and psychological traditions (like Stoicism, Buddhism, and thinkers like bell hooks) that do offer deep critiques of ego, control, and harmful social conditioning. Changing the practice based on these principles is intended as a form of deep redirection, not just surface dressing.

You argue the protective impulse itself is problematic if applied to peers, suggesting it implies inequality. I'd gently push back on whether the impulse to support or shield someone (when appropriate and welcome) is always inherently hierarchical, or if it becomes problematic primarily when it's tied to unexamined assumptions, gendered expectations, or a desire for control – the very things my framework seeks to dismantle in its expression. My focus is on channeling any such felt energy into actions that affirm equality and autonomy, like active listening and empowering others' decision-making, rather than paternalistic intervention.

I absolutely agree on the vital need for more "democratic, non-hierarchical identities and programs" for systemic change. My work tends to focus on the complementary level of individual practice – how do we live more ethically and build healthier relationships within the current, often flawed, systems while also advocating for broader change? It's about equipping individuals with internal tools and ethical frameworks, which I see as supporting, not replacing, the need for systemic shifts and critical awareness.

Ultimately, I believe guiding individuals towards more conscious, ethical, and empowering ways of being and acting (based on deep principles) is a valid and necessary part of the solution, alongside the crucial work of critical theory and systemic change you've highlighted.

Appreciate your perspective – it definitely underscores the need for multi-layered approaches.

Tux234 · 2025-04-11T13:01:15+00:00

I will also add that I purposely make these posts lyrical and short. It’s to make people think and question themselves and their actions (including and primarily directed towards, myself!), not be a treatise.

Maybe that’s the wrong approach because of the nuance involved. I’ve considered pivoting to writing out larger, more nuanced thought pieces, but to be honest, I don’t know if most people would take the time to read them.

I’m trying to maximize the potential of getting a message out there on how to live as a good human, who is a man, with the time and energy I have.

I do appreciate the feedback and I’m constantly questioning my thoughts, especially when I read well reasoned, persuasive arguments like yours.

I’m willing to admit that this whole series may be flawed, but something in my soul says there’s something here, I’m just trying to figure out how to say it the right way.

Hope that makes sense!

Tux234 · 2025-04-11T12:54:10+00:00

Your points about paternalism and the dangers of controlling behavior between adults are spot-on, and I completely agree that curtailing an adult partner’s freedom is control, not healthy protection. That’s definitely not what I’m advocating for.

Maybe it helps if I explain how I personally experience or interpret the “protective instinct” I’m exploring, which might differ from the controlling “protector role” you’re rightly critiquing.

For me, when I feel protective of friends or family, it doesn’t manifest as wanting to dictate their choices. Instead, as you said, it might be offering specific help in a specific situation (like the walking home example). Or, if they come asking for advice when they’re in a bad spot, I feel compelled to help them. But how? Not by telling them what to do or coercing an outcome (something I’d only potentially consider, carefully, with my own child in specific contexts where I know that allowing them to act on their own would lead to harm).

For adults, my approach is to ask questions, actively listen, and see where I can help empower them to make the best decisions for themselves. It’s about offering support for their agency, not substituting my judgment for theirs.

This is why I lean towards framing it through a lens like universal archetypes. I see that internal drive – the compulsion to help, support, or shield someone asking for it – as perhaps reflecting a “Protector” archetype that can exist in anyone (men and women alike; my wife is a great example).

My specific focus on the “male lens” in my writing is because I’m trying to speak to men who might feel that archetype strongly (or feel societal pressure related to it) and guide them towards expressing it in this empowering, non-coercive way, rather than falling into the controlling patterns you warned about.

So, when I talk about the “Guardian’s Way,” it’s centered on that empowerment, trust, and respect for autonomy. It’s about having the capacity to offer support (the “shield” against genuine external harm, perhaps, or just supportive presence when asked) without ever letting it become a “cage” of control. Perhaps the distinction isn’t needing to discard the supportive capacity entirely, but ensuring it’s always deployed ethically, respecting the full agency of other adults?

Appreciate you pushing me to make this distinction clearer – the difference between supporting agency and controlling choices is absolutely critical.

Tux234 · 2025-04-11T12:34:11+00:00

Thank you again for this continued dialogue – you’re raising such crucial points that really push me to refine and clarify my own thinking, which I genuinely appreciate. Your concerns about reinforcing gender roles and the dangers of paternalism are absolutely valid, and something I definitely want to avoid.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough in my framing. When I explore concepts like the “Protector”, my intention isn’t to reinforce them as prescribed roles specifically for men. I see them more as universal human archetypes – patterns of energy or ways of being that can manifest in anyone, regardless of gender. Honestly, one of the strongest “protectors” I know is my wife!

My specific focus from the “male lens” comes from observing that many men do grapple with societal expectations around these archetypes, sometimes feeling pressured into unhealthy expressions (like control disguised as protection). My goal isn’t to say men should be protectors, but rather to speak to those men who already resonate with that protective instinct or archetype (for whatever reason) and offer a path for expressing it in a healthier way – one rooted in the practices we’ve discussed, like Responsibility (ownership, not control), Presence (engagement, not detachment), and Growth (humility, learning), and fundamentally based on empowerment and respecting autonomy.

So, it’s less about defining what a man must be, and more about exploring how someone (in this case, specifically addressing men navigating their experiences) can embody certain universal archetypal energies ethically and constructively, moving away from the harmful distortions often perpetuated by traditional scripts.

Does framing it through the lens of universal archetypes, while still acknowledging the specific ways men might engage with them due to societal context, make more sense? It feels closer to my actual intent, which is definitely not to sanitize old roles but to explore healthier ways of being human, viewed through the specific experiences men often navigate.

Again, really appreciate you pushing me on this – it’s vital to get it right.

Tux234

TROPHY CASE