Great topic and important work you're doing on the relationship between entitlement and anger! I can't help but question data asking men about their feelings of "anger" when most men are raised to suppress nuanced feelings (such as frustration, disappointment, irritated, annoyed, resentful, etc.) and call it "anger." People with higher EI would say "I'm disappointed" and a low EI person could feel the same but label it as "anger" because they believe that is the only socially-appropriate label.
Being raised on pornography makes a lot of men angry. There is some conspiracy to never mention that it arouses great anger, esp. millions of men with natural chauvanism, religious background, mental illness, low iq, emotional unstable, violent etc. most smile through the pain of the self betrayal many feel. For sure it is a major cause of all kinds of behaviour on the news. Conspiracy of silence. Biggest csa scandal in human history and in plain sight for 20 years
Absolutely NOT sarcasm. I was married to a man who was deeply angry nearly constantly at almost everything it seems. And he had a pretty significant pornography problem, possibly addiction
Yeah for sure. It's because he is hate-watching his worst nightmare: beautiful young women willingly surrendering themselves to the worst men on earth and loving every minute of it. That's a primal male rage trigger older then the human race. Why it's an all but mandatory rite of passage for teen boys, while all quarters of society look the other way, cheer this on or snicker baffles and horrifies me. It goes without saying not all men react like this but millions, tens of millions around the world, especially men from religious backgrounds will feel deeply conflicted about this, like profoundly disturbed. To me, the dissemination of "porn" on this scale, to the population consuming it, and its ramifications, amounts to terrorism. The big companies, not the average person or performer or whatever they're called now. Content creators. The money incentive is huge and the technology has hacked human nature, ie need for attention, lust. Like I am aghast. It is so frustrating to watch and hear all concerns laughed out of countenance.
💯 we cannot systemically address male entitlement without clearly and loudly calling out the porn industry. when you've been socialized to accept that you will always have free and nonjudgemental access to sexual content, how can you be faulted for making the logical leap to expecting the same access when it comes to sex and your partner's body? of course men express anger when they don't get sex - they've always already had access, so what can we expect!
I think we must accept that a lot of this is evolution and biology without letting that be an excuse to be bad person. Society didn't do some special thing to make men this way. Males are more aggressive throughout the whole animal kingdom.
However we can see across different cultures that culture can moderate behaviors that come from our natural biology. Aggression and expressions of it is not the same in every culture and it has changed over time. I believe my native Norway is a very good example of it. Viking culture was extremely violent and that violent culture lasted long after the Viking era. As late as 1580, the homicide rate in Bergen was 80 per 100K. In Norway today it is 0.5 per 100K. That is a 160 times reduction.
And I notice this as I travel around the world and meet people from different cultures. In some cultures anger is more prevalent. I common contributor is honor culture. Getting rid of honor culture is a good starting point anywhere I think in reducing anger and violence.
I notice some differences between Nordic culture and cultures I see as more aggressive and prone to violence:
1. Start with childhood. Nordics have zero tolerance towards spanking or other physical violence or "discipline" of children.
2. Focus on empathy and friendship. Many other cultures I see how pre-schools and schools only focus on academic achievements. Over here much more energy is put into getting children to respect each other, be friends and care about each other.
3. Reducing inequality and injustice. Great inequality tends to bring out the worse in people. I think low levels of inequality helps keep Nordic society more balanced.
Many things are of course also down to how you socialize children. If you yell and scream a lot. Show a lot of anger towards children, they will start mimicing that behavior. Focus on staying calm.
Anyway my two cents. Just subjective opinions on what I have observed.
But I specifically write that we can be shaped a lot by culture. What I am simply saying is you cannot completely undo biology. You are never going to socialize men into being identical to women.
We have screwed up enough entertaining the blank slate view. Humans are a mix of environment and genes.
I don’t think stating that is fatalistic. That isn’t saying you are nothing but your genes.
Understood. I just see far too many people taking the extreme view, where they insist we ARE in fact nothing but our genes( possibly a holdover from the mid-2000s Dawkins Mania that swept through popular consciousness). I think this idea is misplaced as well, and wanted to add my 2c to piggyback off your idea.
I am not necessarily disagreeing with your stance.
There's a lot of clearly angry men in these comments who, not incidentally, seem to feel entitled to study results that exalt the male sex. I felt often this caused the conversation to get off track preferring to ponder how many more Mozarts there might be of both genders if males had felt less entitled to behaviors that accompany anger, including those behaviors here exhibited. (One commenter said we have to accept male Jack the Rippers to get male Mozarts. Females, he instructs, are capable of neither. Note Jack killed women. Perhaps that's why we can tolerate him? Note the commenter is ignorant enough to think we don't have female Mozarts and can't identify barriers beyond lack of testosterone to why we don't have more.) Thank you for your work Ryan! It really matters!
Actually, Mozart DID have an incredibly talented and highly trained sister who performed alongside him when they toured throughout their childhoods,
in the various courts and aristocratic spaces performing for the elite and wealthy. She quit playing music entirely when she married at 18, and her husband insisted as a condition of the marriage that she never perform or play 😞
Fear and anxiety are both very similar states to anger. Physiologically, they are practically identical. In fact, one of the biggest differences is the perception of power. If you're provoked and you think you have power in the situation, you get angry. If you're provoked and you don't think you have power, you get scared.
Your point about men being taught that showing vulnerability equaling weakness is a good one. Men do learn that early. In some ways, I think that becomes a reason for them to lean so heavily on anger. It feels safer.
IMO, women don’t ‘get angry’ as often as men because society forces women to function through it and not act on it. Many of us ‘simmer’ in it—due to, guess— injustice and male entitlement.
This. I spend a lot of time educating on the physiology of emotion. I don’t think women get angry less. I think women often do t realize they’re angry because we haven’t been socially allowed to express it. Women absorb their anger and they verbalize it as “tired, stressed, overwhelmed”.
You are right. Women generally internalize it or even direct it toward themselves. “What did you do to provoke him? Why did you poke the bear? It’s your fault. You know what he’s like.”
"Men are angry → They and others are suffering as a result of that anger → a major driver of their anger is their entitlement."
Indeed.
America's men, especially those of the MAGA mindset, are in the throes of an extinction burst....just like a child throwing a tantrum or a rat hitting the food lever.
This extinction burst has been triggered, primarily, by the gains of women...though most don't admit it.... they prefer to think, or claim, that it's because of racial minorities.
This explains why trans and black women threaten them more than anything else.
I completely expect them to get louder and angrier as the burst speeds towards its grand finale...just like the toddler will scream until he can't breathe or the rat that will hit the food lever harder and faster until his paws bleed.
It begins in the cradle. We have to raise men who are allowed to have the full range of human emotions and not be penalized for it. If their only acceptable emotional tool is anger, then how else do we expect them to act? Then we have to teach them how to manage the anger.
After rereading this article a few times, this seems highly subjective and relies on comparing men's feelings to women's feelings as if the feminine response is the default baseline for people in general.
It is subjective in that it's my interpretation of a lot of data, but that doesn't make my conclusions incorrect.
People regularly push back on research findings when they don't like them, but there's a lot of evidence here to say that men feel entitled and that it leads to anger. Unless you can find evidence to the contrary, we probably shouldn't ignore this conclusion.
Conclusions based on subjective "research" are simply biased speculation. Men have more testosterone & thus more angry thoughts than women. Makes me think of Camille Paglia's quip that "There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper." But in your world, as long as men don't act more like women, men are angry & need fixed. Focus on Jack the Ripper & ignore the rest.
All research is subjective. All research has biases baked in. Discounting research because of those biases or that subjectivity is dangerous. Instead, we need to acknowledge the bias, look at the full body of research on the subject, and interpret it within the broader context. In this case, there’s quite a bit of evidence to support the notion of male entitlement and very little to suggest the contrary.
Is the entitlement really entitlement? Could it not be to a degree derived from female control/testing of men. A form of coercive control. Go and obtain this and I’m happy if you fail to obtain this then you will be shamed. Man then gets ‘angry’ as they failed and are thus looked down upon. As opposed to I want this and am entitled as I am male.
I am not a researcher and have no real skin in the game with respect to reviewing differences between the sexes. Just my life experience and observations. Just figured I’d put forward an alternative thought.
Yes I agree, I replied with something similar but much more direct, because not looking at the coercive control and active shaming of men that goes on today which is in direct correlation to the increase in anger issues won't make up for all the data in the world.
The war on men is a new thing, it's toxic, it's destroying society and unless it's acknowledged it will not go away.
How is an interpretation of data a “war on men”? Most homicides are committed by men out of anger. Most not all. Many, many men feel entitled—all religions written by men ingrain that in both men and women. Many, many men are told or are discouraged from crying when they are young or for feeling any way that would be associated with the “feminine” as if the “feminine” is bad. But for the love of GOD, please don’t infer from the article that the author is saying men have to be like women. The author is simply interpreting the data and suggesting men need to find different ways of processing anger that is hurtful to others, or do we, as a society, want angry men to ram cars into crowds or go on shooting rampages or continue to punch their wives? It seems if someone suggests that maybe men must change their reaction to feelings of anger, then somehow it’s a “war” on men. This isn’t all about testosterone. Not all men hurt others or act irrationally when they are angry. It’s about self-control. I’m not suggesting women are somehow absolved from acting out when angry; however, we aren’t reading about women committing atrocious acts of violence on a daily basis.
Qualitative research is what you're referring to & yes, it's highly subjective, to the point that the info gleaned is hardly considered actual data. I did link your article in my article today
Does it make any difference if he characterized women unusually less angry than the norm?
I don't see how it matters to the research what you choose as reference point. And in general men are used as the reference point for everything all through history. I don't see who having an article doing the opposite choice somehow is something to be worked up about. How often do you criticize writing for making men the default baseline?
Should you be surprised that I get the gut feeling that you display a certain male entitlement? Being upset that a writing is not centered on men as the default?
Anyway why do you push back at this article? We know testosterone cause more anger. We know how through the whole animal kingdom male are more aggressive than females. We know it makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. We know men are overrepresented on all sorts of crimes and violence.
In many ways this article is stating the bloody obvious, while you treat it as some kind of shocking provocative conclusion. That puzzles me. Could you articulate why you find the conclusions so non-intuitive or unbelievable?
Men are more angry than who? Women. Why is the female emotional response the default response to which men are compared to? It's a false premise assuming the female response is good & the male bad. See the Paglia quote - men's assertiveness has more good to offer than bad.
And "anger" isn't defined. A thought of irritation? Throwing something across the room? Plus it ignores that women are more neurotic & prone to anxiety, self-consciousness & depression. Meaning women have far more negative thoughts than do men.
And note that you're operating off of a gut feeling while I'm pointing out logical flaws. The article & my comment provoked a feeling & you're running with it without recognizing the obvious logical flaws because it fits with what you want to believe.
It's the presupposition of androgyny that is the problem here. And that leads to obvious bias that most people miss today. Androgyny is rooted in social construct. Whereas the differences between man and woman is rooted in biology which doesn't change. The baseevel of assumption here is deeply flawed. But then, we do research based on what we think we know for sure -our societal influences without really usually getting to the root of the problem. Ive been in the same boat, so I can't blame the author.
What absurdity. Most discourse and talk today and in the past has assumed men are the default and women are some kind of alien species. It is interesting how men flip out when they are suddenly treated in a way that reminds them of how women have been treated.
But this is absurd. When we discuss any type of problem we naturally characterize the individual with the problem as the outlier rather than characterization of the non-problematic individual as the weird outlier that needs treatment.
Women do not need to be treated and made to be more aggressive and angry when they don't get their way. Rather it is natural to see men as having the issue. But classic male entitlement preposit that male behavior, even when problematic to society has to be characterized as the norm. No it doesn't.
It’s hard to interpret that as anything other than entitlement.
I agree that there’s entitlement, but at the same time, let’s think about how much energy goes into socializing women to think that what they want doesn’t matter.
As a society we NEED to start talking about how we raise children. A core premise about this is found in the 0-2 years of childhood when children are going through major brain development through relational insecurity. That whole rage thing sounds like a small child who is a product of under care. It is literally dysregulation and survival brain that has been horribly normalized as the healthy norm for masculinity. Under care in this country is real! We learn our sense of a moral compass and emotional regulation from the community that cares for us. We learn such things based on how we are treated, held, etc. Children are not receiving the nurturing they need that is species normative for humans. And that is not some 1950s model either. We parent men into these positions and then normalize it so it becomes a self-fulfilling circle of hell for all concerned. There is a wise African proverb we would do well to acknowledge - "The child who is not embraced by the village with burn it down to feel its warmth."
OK, some of these things might be true. But others less so.
Regardless, wouldn’t you argue that men being angry and suffering more severe consequences of that anger and harming other people because of that anger is a problem?
Yes, and it appears to have worked. All FOX news and NEWSMAX talking points. Very tribal with undertones of violence against a perceived threat. Not all men work hard labor, not all men pay more in taxes, not all men lead families, mental work in toxic work environments is just as taxing as physical work, just in a different way. I Am also implies only men have had to put up with crap from society.
This is cope. You are trying to sell a victim mentality where men are somehow angry because they have been wronged, and women have gotten the more favorable deal. This is bitterness talking and not facts. Men have always been more angry.
Quite the contrary men in more feminist societies are less angry not more. I am Norwegian living in one of the most gender equal societies on the planet. The men I see here who has problems with controlling their anger, who gets into fights and crime are men from tradcon countries with traditional gender roles.
These are the men who cannot deal with gender equality and end up murdering their families when their wife makes more money and get higher status. Seriously a lot of men need to get rid of the chip on their shoulder and move into the 21s century.
The solution to most of the problems you list is more gender equality not less. With more equality women make more money and hence contribute more equal amount to the economy and the family. Here the pay gap is around 10%. That means men and women are paying roughly the same amount of taxes.
Go to tradcon country and women earn far less and contribute far less in taxes. Not exactly a good solution.
Most of people who need welfare are men and not women, so what are you angry at. Men are more often screwups. Men are the ones who get drinking problems, drug problems, get into crime etc. Society spends plenty of money putting men in prison and trying to rehabilitate them. I don't see women complaining that they pay taxes to fix men.
Of course you need data. You don't do serious research using anecdotes.
Men like you are not angry because you actually have reason to be angry but because a massive right-wing media campaign has told you that you are supposed to be angry.
Whoever makes less will most likely pay less in taxes; unless you are a Millionaire or Billionaire in the US. This does not, however, mean that the person making less doesn’t work as hard as the person making more. You make good points. The happiest societies are societies where there is more equality between men and women. However, I’m not suggesting causation because I’m not a scientist and I’m sure there are other factors like access to healthcare and a livable wage.
So, you based a whole book and website bd propaganda based on 1 study that contrdics several other studies and which I debunked in one single minut pointed out the overlap between the questions?
A study you havent presented in a peer review magazine, but in a commercial book?
Not sure, but this seems to me that is based in both a bias against men.
I willl asume for a moment that your intentions are fair: otherwise, this seems to be an intention to get cash from just doing something that is a nation sport now in the US: saying men are worst and emitionally inmature.
Please hear me out for a second... there are multiple flaws in what you just wrote and I want to share them as an example of how people develop feelings based on misunderstandings. A couple of things:
1. None of my books are based on this data. This data is brand new and my books are between two and four years old. The book I'm currently writing isn't about this.
2. The data I shared hasn't been debunked by you or anyone. Research findings are always provisional, meaning that (a) you interpret them within the context of broader research findings and (b) they may be replaced later with new or better findings. I believe these finding offer a different view of anger and gender, which is why I shared them.
3. I make very little money from my research. I get some via social media, some from book sales, and some from public speaking. That's never been my goal.
1. So, this is the first time you identified men are angrier. However, according to yourself, men were your primary target (through women) from the very first book. Im quoting you:
"When I wrote my first book, I was actually encouraged to think of my target audience as straight women who might buy the book to better understand their romantic partners, sons or even their fathers. It seemed clear that even though men could benefit from learning to manage their anger, they weren’t interested in what I had to say. Their female partners might be, so I decided to talk to them instead."
So, you "see" that men were not in your curses, and you "decided" to reach them through women.
Sorry, but this seems to me a bias and a conflict of interest that affets your research.
2. Correct. However, you dont present them as provisional, nor you mention other studies that contrdics yours. So, you present yourself as an expert, but the reality is that you are not delivering data in a scientific manner. Instead, they seems to be an aforism without contradiction.
3. Sorry to hear that. Scholars have to make more money, but perhaps, may I suggest and different approach with men?
I sincerely doubt that men come to a course to "manage their anger". Mainly, if you start by saying "males get angrier" in the front oage. Sorry, but it does not seems interesting and also seems to be the classic feminist gaze course where "men are bad". I note your first note that you do not intend so, but still seems to be that (And you probably has to analyse if your data and its interpretation is affected by your bias).
I will make if I may a little constructive suggestion:
What about rephrasing your courses as follows:
"How to use your anger to archive your goals as a CEO. A course for male managers, entrepreneurs and CEOs to get the best from their anger."
" How to improve your life using your anger. A male approach course to use the best within you."
"How enhance sport performance through anger: a way to archive better goals using your day to day frustration."
"How to enhance your sex drive through anger management"
"Free coaching for young males: using your anger to be the best you can be."
You see? This could be seen as more appealing to males, as It has little of a feminist gaze. Also, males are more goal driven, so this increases the appealing to them. Address this to the rigth people, and you will have more males than females in your courses. Someone may even called you part of the manosphere 😅
You are a man, so speak to men the same way you would have wanted to be addressed to. What do you want as a man? Answer this question, link anger to a manner to archive that, and you will have a friendly male course, instead of a feminist blaming one.
You approach seems to suggest that males have to change something inside. My approach suggest the contrary: its is a great power what you have inside, and I Will teach you how to use it in your benefit.
Giving that you are a scholar (dean at the Uni) what about spending this to your male peers:
"Improving your research outcomes with Angry Birds. A course for the best male researchers. Only 10 places availabe".
This could be awesome and you will have 100s of male colleages lining up in your door - recognise It: you would have sign up for a course like that too 😉
You can even start the course by saying "Men get angrier than women. And that could be excelent news if you use It the right way! As it could give you direction, focus and energy. But also: use the wrong way and you will end in jail or even worst... in the Dean office!"
You see:
1. Possitive message: you have a brilliant power. Use It for the good!
2. We are different from women, and thats good!
3. Some sense of humor.
Otherwise, you are the "oh no, the guy talking about males anger again"...
Having said this, good luck! And thanks, as your goal seems to genuinely be helping men - mine is too, giving the current narrative. Noting, although, that according to some studies, we may not need that help more than women 😅😉
PS: keep me posted if you use this strategy and is successful 😉
The commenter named PR proves that mansplaining is a generic issue. With no evidence of any expertise, they tell a posting author in black and white terms that the author is wrong, and that the commenters opinions are both logical and factually correct. The lengthy comments smell of male entitlement - often a precursor to anger. Funnily enough, I see few (or even no) women do the same to this post.
I think taking time to unpack any feeling we have is important. Our emotions are signals that provide us with additional information about the situations we're in. The best thing to do is to evaluate where those feelings are coming from and what they mean about us, our values, the situation we're in, etc.
Domestic violence researcher Lundy Bancroft’s found that a sense of entitlement was one of the two common denominators among all the angry and abusive men he studied. (The other common denominator was a lack of empathy.)
Great topic and important work you're doing on the relationship between entitlement and anger! I can't help but question data asking men about their feelings of "anger" when most men are raised to suppress nuanced feelings (such as frustration, disappointment, irritated, annoyed, resentful, etc.) and call it "anger." People with higher EI would say "I'm disappointed" and a low EI person could feel the same but label it as "anger" because they believe that is the only socially-appropriate label.
Being raised on pornography makes a lot of men angry. There is some conspiracy to never mention that it arouses great anger, esp. millions of men with natural chauvanism, religious background, mental illness, low iq, emotional unstable, violent etc. most smile through the pain of the self betrayal many feel. For sure it is a major cause of all kinds of behaviour on the news. Conspiracy of silence. Biggest csa scandal in human history and in plain sight for 20 years
Absolutely NOT sarcasm. I was married to a man who was deeply angry nearly constantly at almost everything it seems. And he had a pretty significant pornography problem, possibly addiction
Yeah for sure. It's because he is hate-watching his worst nightmare: beautiful young women willingly surrendering themselves to the worst men on earth and loving every minute of it. That's a primal male rage trigger older then the human race. Why it's an all but mandatory rite of passage for teen boys, while all quarters of society look the other way, cheer this on or snicker baffles and horrifies me. It goes without saying not all men react like this but millions, tens of millions around the world, especially men from religious backgrounds will feel deeply conflicted about this, like profoundly disturbed. To me, the dissemination of "porn" on this scale, to the population consuming it, and its ramifications, amounts to terrorism. The big companies, not the average person or performer or whatever they're called now. Content creators. The money incentive is huge and the technology has hacked human nature, ie need for attention, lust. Like I am aghast. It is so frustrating to watch and hear all concerns laughed out of countenance.
Not sure if this is sarcasm or not lol my viewpoint is profoundly unpopular
Really?! Share more, please!
💯 we cannot systemically address male entitlement without clearly and loudly calling out the porn industry. when you've been socialized to accept that you will always have free and nonjudgemental access to sexual content, how can you be faulted for making the logical leap to expecting the same access when it comes to sex and your partner's body? of course men express anger when they don't get sex - they've always already had access, so what can we expect!
I think we must accept that a lot of this is evolution and biology without letting that be an excuse to be bad person. Society didn't do some special thing to make men this way. Males are more aggressive throughout the whole animal kingdom.
However we can see across different cultures that culture can moderate behaviors that come from our natural biology. Aggression and expressions of it is not the same in every culture and it has changed over time. I believe my native Norway is a very good example of it. Viking culture was extremely violent and that violent culture lasted long after the Viking era. As late as 1580, the homicide rate in Bergen was 80 per 100K. In Norway today it is 0.5 per 100K. That is a 160 times reduction.
And I notice this as I travel around the world and meet people from different cultures. In some cultures anger is more prevalent. I common contributor is honor culture. Getting rid of honor culture is a good starting point anywhere I think in reducing anger and violence.
I notice some differences between Nordic culture and cultures I see as more aggressive and prone to violence:
1. Start with childhood. Nordics have zero tolerance towards spanking or other physical violence or "discipline" of children.
2. Focus on empathy and friendship. Many other cultures I see how pre-schools and schools only focus on academic achievements. Over here much more energy is put into getting children to respect each other, be friends and care about each other.
3. Reducing inequality and injustice. Great inequality tends to bring out the worse in people. I think low levels of inequality helps keep Nordic society more balanced.
Many things are of course also down to how you socialize children. If you yell and scream a lot. Show a lot of anger towards children, they will start mimicing that behavior. Focus on staying calm.
Anyway my two cents. Just subjective opinions on what I have observed.
Right.
Just because something started some way, doesn’t mean it has to stay that way. This echoes the naturalistic fallacy.
But I specifically write that we can be shaped a lot by culture. What I am simply saying is you cannot completely undo biology. You are never going to socialize men into being identical to women.
We have screwed up enough entertaining the blank slate view. Humans are a mix of environment and genes.
I don’t think stating that is fatalistic. That isn’t saying you are nothing but your genes.
Understood. I just see far too many people taking the extreme view, where they insist we ARE in fact nothing but our genes( possibly a holdover from the mid-2000s Dawkins Mania that swept through popular consciousness). I think this idea is misplaced as well, and wanted to add my 2c to piggyback off your idea.
I am not necessarily disagreeing with your stance.
There's a lot of clearly angry men in these comments who, not incidentally, seem to feel entitled to study results that exalt the male sex. I felt often this caused the conversation to get off track preferring to ponder how many more Mozarts there might be of both genders if males had felt less entitled to behaviors that accompany anger, including those behaviors here exhibited. (One commenter said we have to accept male Jack the Rippers to get male Mozarts. Females, he instructs, are capable of neither. Note Jack killed women. Perhaps that's why we can tolerate him? Note the commenter is ignorant enough to think we don't have female Mozarts and can't identify barriers beyond lack of testosterone to why we don't have more.) Thank you for your work Ryan! It really matters!
Actually, Mozart DID have an incredibly talented and highly trained sister who performed alongside him when they toured throughout their childhoods,
in the various courts and aristocratic spaces performing for the elite and wealthy. She quit playing music entirely when she married at 18, and her husband insisted as a condition of the marriage that she never perform or play 😞
Where does fear and anxiety factor in? What about men being taught that showing vulnerability equals weakness as a contributing factor?
Fear and anxiety are both very similar states to anger. Physiologically, they are practically identical. In fact, one of the biggest differences is the perception of power. If you're provoked and you think you have power in the situation, you get angry. If you're provoked and you don't think you have power, you get scared.
Your point about men being taught that showing vulnerability equaling weakness is a good one. Men do learn that early. In some ways, I think that becomes a reason for them to lean so heavily on anger. It feels safer.
Thank you for your insight.
IMO, women don’t ‘get angry’ as often as men because society forces women to function through it and not act on it. Many of us ‘simmer’ in it—due to, guess— injustice and male entitlement.
This. I spend a lot of time educating on the physiology of emotion. I don’t think women get angry less. I think women often do t realize they’re angry because we haven’t been socially allowed to express it. Women absorb their anger and they verbalize it as “tired, stressed, overwhelmed”.
You are right. Women generally internalize it or even direct it toward themselves. “What did you do to provoke him? Why did you poke the bear? It’s your fault. You know what he’s like.”
"Men are angry → They and others are suffering as a result of that anger → a major driver of their anger is their entitlement."
Indeed.
America's men, especially those of the MAGA mindset, are in the throes of an extinction burst....just like a child throwing a tantrum or a rat hitting the food lever.
This extinction burst has been triggered, primarily, by the gains of women...though most don't admit it.... they prefer to think, or claim, that it's because of racial minorities.
This explains why trans and black women threaten them more than anything else.
I completely expect them to get louder and angrier as the burst speeds towards its grand finale...just like the toddler will scream until he can't breathe or the rat that will hit the food lever harder and faster until his paws bleed.
Then 💥
It begins in the cradle. We have to raise men who are allowed to have the full range of human emotions and not be penalized for it. If their only acceptable emotional tool is anger, then how else do we expect them to act? Then we have to teach them how to manage the anger.
After rereading this article a few times, this seems highly subjective and relies on comparing men's feelings to women's feelings as if the feminine response is the default baseline for people in general.
It is subjective in that it's my interpretation of a lot of data, but that doesn't make my conclusions incorrect.
People regularly push back on research findings when they don't like them, but there's a lot of evidence here to say that men feel entitled and that it leads to anger. Unless you can find evidence to the contrary, we probably shouldn't ignore this conclusion.
Conclusions based on subjective "research" are simply biased speculation. Men have more testosterone & thus more angry thoughts than women. Makes me think of Camille Paglia's quip that "There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper." But in your world, as long as men don't act more like women, men are angry & need fixed. Focus on Jack the Ripper & ignore the rest.
All research is subjective. All research has biases baked in. Discounting research because of those biases or that subjectivity is dangerous. Instead, we need to acknowledge the bias, look at the full body of research on the subject, and interpret it within the broader context. In this case, there’s quite a bit of evidence to support the notion of male entitlement and very little to suggest the contrary.
Is the entitlement really entitlement? Could it not be to a degree derived from female control/testing of men. A form of coercive control. Go and obtain this and I’m happy if you fail to obtain this then you will be shamed. Man then gets ‘angry’ as they failed and are thus looked down upon. As opposed to I want this and am entitled as I am male.
I am not a researcher and have no real skin in the game with respect to reviewing differences between the sexes. Just my life experience and observations. Just figured I’d put forward an alternative thought.
Yes I agree, I replied with something similar but much more direct, because not looking at the coercive control and active shaming of men that goes on today which is in direct correlation to the increase in anger issues won't make up for all the data in the world.
The war on men is a new thing, it's toxic, it's destroying society and unless it's acknowledged it will not go away.
How is an interpretation of data a “war on men”? Most homicides are committed by men out of anger. Most not all. Many, many men feel entitled—all religions written by men ingrain that in both men and women. Many, many men are told or are discouraged from crying when they are young or for feeling any way that would be associated with the “feminine” as if the “feminine” is bad. But for the love of GOD, please don’t infer from the article that the author is saying men have to be like women. The author is simply interpreting the data and suggesting men need to find different ways of processing anger that is hurtful to others, or do we, as a society, want angry men to ram cars into crowds or go on shooting rampages or continue to punch their wives? It seems if someone suggests that maybe men must change their reaction to feelings of anger, then somehow it’s a “war” on men. This isn’t all about testosterone. Not all men hurt others or act irrationally when they are angry. It’s about self-control. I’m not suggesting women are somehow absolved from acting out when angry; however, we aren’t reading about women committing atrocious acts of violence on a daily basis.
Qualitative research is what you're referring to & yes, it's highly subjective, to the point that the info gleaned is hardly considered actual data. I did link your article in my article today
https://open.substack.com/pub/graybeardactual/p/bias-against-men?r=27971c&utm_medium=ios
Does it make any difference if he characterized women unusually less angry than the norm?
I don't see how it matters to the research what you choose as reference point. And in general men are used as the reference point for everything all through history. I don't see who having an article doing the opposite choice somehow is something to be worked up about. How often do you criticize writing for making men the default baseline?
Should you be surprised that I get the gut feeling that you display a certain male entitlement? Being upset that a writing is not centered on men as the default?
Anyway why do you push back at this article? We know testosterone cause more anger. We know how through the whole animal kingdom male are more aggressive than females. We know it makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. We know men are overrepresented on all sorts of crimes and violence.
In many ways this article is stating the bloody obvious, while you treat it as some kind of shocking provocative conclusion. That puzzles me. Could you articulate why you find the conclusions so non-intuitive or unbelievable?
Men are more angry than who? Women. Why is the female emotional response the default response to which men are compared to? It's a false premise assuming the female response is good & the male bad. See the Paglia quote - men's assertiveness has more good to offer than bad.
And "anger" isn't defined. A thought of irritation? Throwing something across the room? Plus it ignores that women are more neurotic & prone to anxiety, self-consciousness & depression. Meaning women have far more negative thoughts than do men.
And note that you're operating off of a gut feeling while I'm pointing out logical flaws. The article & my comment provoked a feeling & you're running with it without recognizing the obvious logical flaws because it fits with what you want to believe.
It's the presupposition of androgyny that is the problem here. And that leads to obvious bias that most people miss today. Androgyny is rooted in social construct. Whereas the differences between man and woman is rooted in biology which doesn't change. The baseevel of assumption here is deeply flawed. But then, we do research based on what we think we know for sure -our societal influences without really usually getting to the root of the problem. Ive been in the same boat, so I can't blame the author.
What absurdity. Most discourse and talk today and in the past has assumed men are the default and women are some kind of alien species. It is interesting how men flip out when they are suddenly treated in a way that reminds them of how women have been treated.
But this is absurd. When we discuss any type of problem we naturally characterize the individual with the problem as the outlier rather than characterization of the non-problematic individual as the weird outlier that needs treatment.
Women do not need to be treated and made to be more aggressive and angry when they don't get their way. Rather it is natural to see men as having the issue. But classic male entitlement preposit that male behavior, even when problematic to society has to be characterized as the norm. No it doesn't.
Even if I don’t agree with everything from this, there sure are a lot of “men” in these comments giving ammunition to your findings, Ryan.
It’s hard to interpret that as anything other than entitlement.
I agree that there’s entitlement, but at the same time, let’s think about how much energy goes into socializing women to think that what they want doesn’t matter.
As a society we NEED to start talking about how we raise children. A core premise about this is found in the 0-2 years of childhood when children are going through major brain development through relational insecurity. That whole rage thing sounds like a small child who is a product of under care. It is literally dysregulation and survival brain that has been horribly normalized as the healthy norm for masculinity. Under care in this country is real! We learn our sense of a moral compass and emotional regulation from the community that cares for us. We learn such things based on how we are treated, held, etc. Children are not receiving the nurturing they need that is species normative for humans. And that is not some 1950s model either. We parent men into these positions and then normalize it so it becomes a self-fulfilling circle of hell for all concerned. There is a wise African proverb we would do well to acknowledge - "The child who is not embraced by the village with burn it down to feel its warmth."
Compared to non modern male ?
Compared between countries ? Cultures ?
Just to say that in the last 4 years. Men are more angry than woman?
Well, in the last 4 years, men also worked hard labor more than woman,
Payed more taxes, looked up to lead the family and tribe against a world pandemic...
Are we angry ?
At people trying to tell us that men are woman because they say so ?
Are we angry ?
At people who use our hard earn money to subsidize welfare loosers?
Are we angry ?
About mass tribal overtake from other cultures ?
You didn't need 4 years of data.
Just ask around the average, working, family building, community contributing men.
OK, some of these things might be true. But others less so.
Regardless, wouldn’t you argue that men being angry and suffering more severe consequences of that anger and harming other people because of that anger is a problem?
What you call anger,
I call fighting for my tribe values.
I wouldn't let it go, just so some blue haired, spoiled kid from the other part of the world will feel safe.
Sorry.
My anger is my force against thieves coming to Rob me of my hard earned food, house, values for my children etc.
I don't want to be sedated, we are at war.
Or this is what right-wing media has manipulated you into thinking. They rely on you feeling the anger. Manufactured rage.
Yes, and it appears to have worked. All FOX news and NEWSMAX talking points. Very tribal with undertones of violence against a perceived threat. Not all men work hard labor, not all men pay more in taxes, not all men lead families, mental work in toxic work environments is just as taxing as physical work, just in a different way. I Am also implies only men have had to put up with crap from society.
This is cope. You are trying to sell a victim mentality where men are somehow angry because they have been wronged, and women have gotten the more favorable deal. This is bitterness talking and not facts. Men have always been more angry.
Quite the contrary men in more feminist societies are less angry not more. I am Norwegian living in one of the most gender equal societies on the planet. The men I see here who has problems with controlling their anger, who gets into fights and crime are men from tradcon countries with traditional gender roles.
These are the men who cannot deal with gender equality and end up murdering their families when their wife makes more money and get higher status. Seriously a lot of men need to get rid of the chip on their shoulder and move into the 21s century.
The solution to most of the problems you list is more gender equality not less. With more equality women make more money and hence contribute more equal amount to the economy and the family. Here the pay gap is around 10%. That means men and women are paying roughly the same amount of taxes.
Go to tradcon country and women earn far less and contribute far less in taxes. Not exactly a good solution.
Most of people who need welfare are men and not women, so what are you angry at. Men are more often screwups. Men are the ones who get drinking problems, drug problems, get into crime etc. Society spends plenty of money putting men in prison and trying to rehabilitate them. I don't see women complaining that they pay taxes to fix men.
Of course you need data. You don't do serious research using anecdotes.
Men like you are not angry because you actually have reason to be angry but because a massive right-wing media campaign has told you that you are supposed to be angry.
Whoever makes less will most likely pay less in taxes; unless you are a Millionaire or Billionaire in the US. This does not, however, mean that the person making less doesn’t work as hard as the person making more. You make good points. The happiest societies are societies where there is more equality between men and women. However, I’m not suggesting causation because I’m not a scientist and I’m sure there are other factors like access to healthcare and a livable wage.
Whatever. We won this round.
LOL, you “won” nothing, little buddy.
So, you based a whole book and website bd propaganda based on 1 study that contrdics several other studies and which I debunked in one single minut pointed out the overlap between the questions?
A study you havent presented in a peer review magazine, but in a commercial book?
Not sure, but this seems to me that is based in both a bias against men.
I willl asume for a moment that your intentions are fair: otherwise, this seems to be an intention to get cash from just doing something that is a nation sport now in the US: saying men are worst and emitionally inmature.
You see? I am not angry, I am just logical...
Please hear me out for a second... there are multiple flaws in what you just wrote and I want to share them as an example of how people develop feelings based on misunderstandings. A couple of things:
1. None of my books are based on this data. This data is brand new and my books are between two and four years old. The book I'm currently writing isn't about this.
2. The data I shared hasn't been debunked by you or anyone. Research findings are always provisional, meaning that (a) you interpret them within the context of broader research findings and (b) they may be replaced later with new or better findings. I believe these finding offer a different view of anger and gender, which is why I shared them.
3. I make very little money from my research. I get some via social media, some from book sales, and some from public speaking. That's never been my goal.
1. So, this is the first time you identified men are angrier. However, according to yourself, men were your primary target (through women) from the very first book. Im quoting you:
"When I wrote my first book, I was actually encouraged to think of my target audience as straight women who might buy the book to better understand their romantic partners, sons or even their fathers. It seemed clear that even though men could benefit from learning to manage their anger, they weren’t interested in what I had to say. Their female partners might be, so I decided to talk to them instead."
So, you "see" that men were not in your curses, and you "decided" to reach them through women.
Sorry, but this seems to me a bias and a conflict of interest that affets your research.
2. Correct. However, you dont present them as provisional, nor you mention other studies that contrdics yours. So, you present yourself as an expert, but the reality is that you are not delivering data in a scientific manner. Instead, they seems to be an aforism without contradiction.
3. Sorry to hear that. Scholars have to make more money, but perhaps, may I suggest and different approach with men?
I sincerely doubt that men come to a course to "manage their anger". Mainly, if you start by saying "males get angrier" in the front oage. Sorry, but it does not seems interesting and also seems to be the classic feminist gaze course where "men are bad". I note your first note that you do not intend so, but still seems to be that (And you probably has to analyse if your data and its interpretation is affected by your bias).
I will make if I may a little constructive suggestion:
What about rephrasing your courses as follows:
"How to use your anger to archive your goals as a CEO. A course for male managers, entrepreneurs and CEOs to get the best from their anger."
" How to improve your life using your anger. A male approach course to use the best within you."
"How enhance sport performance through anger: a way to archive better goals using your day to day frustration."
"How to enhance your sex drive through anger management"
"Free coaching for young males: using your anger to be the best you can be."
You see? This could be seen as more appealing to males, as It has little of a feminist gaze. Also, males are more goal driven, so this increases the appealing to them. Address this to the rigth people, and you will have more males than females in your courses. Someone may even called you part of the manosphere 😅
You are a man, so speak to men the same way you would have wanted to be addressed to. What do you want as a man? Answer this question, link anger to a manner to archive that, and you will have a friendly male course, instead of a feminist blaming one.
You approach seems to suggest that males have to change something inside. My approach suggest the contrary: its is a great power what you have inside, and I Will teach you how to use it in your benefit.
Giving that you are a scholar (dean at the Uni) what about spending this to your male peers:
"Improving your research outcomes with Angry Birds. A course for the best male researchers. Only 10 places availabe".
This could be awesome and you will have 100s of male colleages lining up in your door - recognise It: you would have sign up for a course like that too 😉
You can even start the course by saying "Men get angrier than women. And that could be excelent news if you use It the right way! As it could give you direction, focus and energy. But also: use the wrong way and you will end in jail or even worst... in the Dean office!"
You see:
1. Possitive message: you have a brilliant power. Use It for the good!
2. We are different from women, and thats good!
3. Some sense of humor.
Otherwise, you are the "oh no, the guy talking about males anger again"...
Having said this, good luck! And thanks, as your goal seems to genuinely be helping men - mine is too, giving the current narrative. Noting, although, that according to some studies, we may not need that help more than women 😅😉
PS: keep me posted if you use this strategy and is successful 😉
The commenter named PR proves that mansplaining is a generic issue. With no evidence of any expertise, they tell a posting author in black and white terms that the author is wrong, and that the commenters opinions are both logical and factually correct. The lengthy comments smell of male entitlement - often a precursor to anger. Funnily enough, I see few (or even no) women do the same to this post.
This is helpful. What do you think about unpacking anger and seeing which emotions are causing anger?
I think taking time to unpack any feeling we have is important. Our emotions are signals that provide us with additional information about the situations we're in. The best thing to do is to evaluate where those feelings are coming from and what they mean about us, our values, the situation we're in, etc.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.”
A little fictional green puppet shows more self awareness than many of our fellow men here.
Domestic violence researcher Lundy Bancroft’s found that a sense of entitlement was one of the two common denominators among all the angry and abusive men he studied. (The other common denominator was a lack of empathy.)