Modern WisdomWhy Do The Left Not Care About Men’s Problems? - George TheTinMen
CHAPTERS
- 0:00 – 2:55
Why George created TheTinMen: turning research into accessible advocacy
George explains how his background in the creative industries and his time in progressive spaces pushed him to start an account focused on men’s issues. He describes discovering data that shocked him and realizing men’s advocacy had a “brand problem” that better communication could fix.
- •Creative background in film/content helped him translate complex data into shareable formats
- •Frustration with progressive spaces refusing to engage men’s issues in good faith
- •Early motivation: build a private reference library for debates (suicide, DV, homelessness, crime)
- •Men’s advocacy suffering a “brand identity crisis” (loud, aggressive presentation)
- •Account grew organically and became more personalized/entertaining over time
- 2:55 – 9:53
Can you be left-wing and advocate for men? The ‘kiss the ring’ dynamic
Chris and George unpack why “pro-men” is treated as suspicious in left-leaning circles. George argues that men and boys deserve attention in their own right, without needing constant disclaimers or framing it only as a benefit to women.
- •The social expectation to pre-apologize before discussing men’s issues (“kiss the ring”)
- •Belief that men’s problems deserve direct focus, not only instrumental value
- •Left-leaning spaces often default to blaming men for their disadvantages
- •Language like “patriarchy” and “toxic masculinity” can be divisive and blame-loading
- •Many ‘left’ causes (homelessness, war, policing) are also overwhelmingly male-impacting
- 9:53 – 14:43
Men’s issues hidden inside other causes: policing, fearmongering, and intersectionality
George argues that major public conversations (like BLM and police violence) often omit the gender skew: the vast majority of victims are male. He extends this to an intersectional lens—claiming that ignoring maleness particularly harms minority men.
- •Police killings: gender disparity often larger than racial disparity, yet rarely discussed
- •Cognitive dissonance when people explain male disparities with ‘men are more violent’
- •Claim that cultural fearmongering about men can intensify harms—especially for Black men
- •Intersectionality can reveal the biggest victims of many issues are minority men
- •Examples: historical criminalization and persecution centered heavily on gay men
- 14:43 – 21:31
Family courts, sentencing bias, and how institutional blind spots affect men
Chris asks for an evidence-based overview of family courts and separations. George emphasizes secrecy and lack of oversight in family courts, then widens the lens to criminal sentencing disparities and how gender bias compounds with race.
- •Family court opacity: limited public/press access and oversight
- •Child custody battles and relationship breakdown linked to a meaningful share of male suicides
- •Criminal justice: cited research showing women more likely to avoid prison and men receive longer sentences
- •Comparisons: male sentencing gap vs. racial sentencing gap, and how they compound for Black men
- •Argument that an intersectional approach should include sex as a major risk factor
- 21:31 – 34:14
The problem with ‘Just do better’: blaming men instead of fixing systems
Chris reads a passage based on George’s writing about the double standard in how society responds to group disadvantage. George connects it to suicide research, arguing that “men should just talk” is too shallow and often avoids politically uncomfortable causes.
- •Double standard: women’s issues prompt systemic solutions; men’s issues prompt self-fixing demands
- •Male suicide framed as societal/external stress accumulation, not just ‘men don’t talk’
- •APPG Boys and Men report: suicide as outcome of relationship breakdown, work, debt, isolation, lack of empathy
- •“Listen, ask, act” as a practical alternative to performative encouragement to ‘open up’
- •Critique of gatekeeping: men encouraged to talk, but only within approved narratives
- 34:14 – 42:47
Why the right became the default home for male role models
Chris and George discuss how the left’s avoidance of men’s issues leaves a vacuum filled by right-leaning or manosphere figures. They explore the difficulty of offering aspirational masculinity without demonizing men or defaulting to blame-based frameworks.
- •Left ‘evacuating’ men’s conversation cedes cultural space to the right
- •Challenge question: “If not Peterson/Tate, who instead?” often yields silence
- •Idea that masculinity traits are celebrated in women but condemned in men
- •Toxic masculinity framed as modern ‘pathologizing’ akin to outdated diagnoses like “female hysteria”
- •Critique of expensive ‘new masculinity workshops’ and shallow corrective approaches
- 42:47 – 57:50
How to improve the masculinity conversation: stories, empathy gaps, and ‘gamma bias’
George explains what persuades people (human stories more than spreadsheets) and why denial persists even with strong data. He introduces concepts like empathy gaps and gamma bias to show how media language highlights male privilege and female victimhood while erasing male victimization and male heroism.
- •Data alone rarely changes minds; personal narratives carry disproportionate persuasive power
- •Domestic violence research: meta-analyses suggesting bidirectional abuse patterns are resisted culturally
- •Empathy gap / ‘male gender blindness’ as barriers to reform
- •Gamma bias: highlighting men in privilege/perpetration while highlighting women in victimhood
- •Examples: reporting on knife crime, strip-searching children, 9/11 firefighters, and selective framing of “male violence”
- 57:50 – 1:08:00
What people misunderstand about the gender pay gap: motherhood, choices, and behavior
George reframes the pay gap as largely a motherhood/parenthood gap and argues policy should focus on parental leave and shared caregiving. He also discusses behavioral and occupational differences and uses the Uber study to illustrate how gaps can persist without direct pay discrimination.
- •Pay gap often best described as a ‘child penalty’ paid by mothers vs. fathers
- •Proposed lever: equalized/expanded parental leave for fathers to reduce career interruption asymmetry
- •Other contributors: hours worked, job risk, commuting, industry selection, and preferences
- •Uber study: differences explained by time-of-day, tenure/experience, and speed—rather than discrimination
- •Useful distinction: not just ‘why’ women earn less, but ‘when’ (around childbirth)
- 1:08:00 – 1:10:43
What men want women to understand: social suspicion, compliment scarcity, and listening
George describes the everyday male experience as frequently being treated with suspicion or fear—likening it to the social atmosphere of pandemic lockdowns. He argues that men want fewer ideological “boxes” and more good-faith listening about what their lives actually feel like.
- •Analogy: men’s experience can resemble the social distance and distrust of lockdown-era interactions
- •Men often report going long periods without compliments or positive social regard
- •Women may experience constant social attention (including unwanted attention), creating opposite pressures
- •Critique of replacing old ‘man box’ expectations with new boxes like “privilege” and “violence” labels
- •Core request: listen without pre-judging men through ideological templates
- 1:10:43 – 1:21:32
Fragile masculinity and the double standard of gendered marketing
George explains ‘fragile masculinity’ through how society reacts differently to gendered products. When products are gendered for women, companies are mocked; when gendered for men, men themselves are mocked—illustrating a broader tendency to blame men rather than systems.
- •Example: mocking “Bic for Her” vs. blaming men for wanting ‘for men’ products
- •Insight drawn from a trans woman’s perspective of experiencing both gendered expectations
- •Cultural pattern: interpret women’s gendered consumerism as imposed; men’s as personal weakness
- •Fragile masculinity as a lens for how contempt is socially distributed
- •Call for more consistent critique of marketers/capitalism rather than moralizing consumers
- 1:21:32 – 1:31:24
The left’s inability to listen: suicide gatekeeping, misreading male distress, and ‘original sin’ framing
They explore how male suicide is often interpreted through “toxic masculinity,” which George argues becomes a blame narrative that blocks effective help. George cites findings that most men who die by suicide did seek help, suggesting the issue may be how institutions assess and respond to male distress.
- •Claim: male suicide is frequently reduced to ‘men won’t talk’ and ‘toxic masculinity’
- •Cited research: high proportion of men who died by suicide had sought help; many deemed low/no risk
- •Argument that mental health systems may misread male distress and risk signals
- •Psychology workforce gender imbalance may shape dominant therapeutic models and assumptions
- •Reeves/Chris analogy: “toxic masculinity” as ‘original sin’ framing that makes men disengage
- 1:31:24 – 1:33:41
Building a ‘third-wave manosphere’: healthier role models, less internet distortion, better nuance
Chris proposes a “third wave” masculinity space that is non-adversarial toward women and grounded in self-improvement, emotional integration, and practical action. They also discuss how internet incentives amplify extreme stories and create recursive misinformation loops that distort reality.
- •Three waves framing: pickup-artist era → red pill era → potential pro-social ‘third wave’
- •Goal: positive-sum masculinity advice without scapegoating women
- •Need for nuance: overlapping distributions, avoiding broad generalizations about either sex
- •Internet incentives: extreme anecdotes rise, shaping beliefs via ‘recursive’ feedback loops
- •Concepts: apex fallacy, self-reinforcing antagonism, and the value of “touching grass”
