Notes on “Why the Patriarchy is Killing Men”
In March of 2025, I was contacted by a journalist who asked me to comment on a 2019 Washington Post article titled, “Why the Patriarchy is Killing Men.” The notes below are my response to the journalist verbatim, other than minor changes in format and grammar. These notes were intended to give the journalist alternate views to consider regarding the content of the Washington Post article. These notes do not necessarily reflect my complete analysis of the article.
Hi [Name],
I’ve read through the article “Why the patriarchy is killing men” and drafted some critiques of it. I may formulate the critiques into an essay at some point. Here they are:
World Economic Forum (WEF) Gender Equality Index
· The author leads with reference to the WEF Gender Equality Index. This index is invalid. It blatantly discriminates against boys and men. An alternative index of gender equality was proposed here because of how bad the WEF index is. Here is a relevant quote from one of my essays at Substack:
“Feminism has also led to blatant discrimination against boys and men. One of the most egregious examples comes from the World Economic Forum and its Global Gender Gap Index. This index, which purports to measure gender equality, penalizes a country’s index score only when girls and women fall behind on various domains. It does not penalize a country’s score when boys and men fall behind.”
· Also, at a surface level, it is unclear what inequalities exist for women in the U.S. but not in Iceland. For example, sex discrimination is illegal in the U.S. (e.g., Title IX), women make up 60% of university graduates in the U.S., women can enter whatever career they like in the U.S., and women receive a significant amount of attention and money from the government in the U.S. (e.g., various women’s health offices in the U.S. government).
“If the number of years spent on Earth is one of the strongest predictors of well-being, Icelandic men are doing pretty well.”
· The reason I am highlighting this quote is because usually feminist authors ignore or downplay life expectancy. The reason they do this is because men have shorter life expectancies than women. Thus, feminist authors typically refer to quality of life or disability years, as this allows them to switch the attention to women’s health rather than men’s health. However, the reason that author chooses to focus on life expectancy here is because it is what allows her to talk about her grander theory about how important feminism is, all the while knowing that women stand more to benefit from a feminist agenda than do men.
The gynocentric vs androcentric approach to men’s health
· To the extent that the author supports men’s health, it is what I call the gynocentric approach to men’s health. In the gynocentric approach to men’s health, the primary goal is to help women not men. Sometimes men might benefit from this. However, helping men is not the primary aim of this approach; it’s more about helping women. The issue with the gynocentric approach to men’s health is that it is unable to recognize male suffering, disadvantage, or victimization independent of a greater concern for female wellbeing. I give some examples here. An androcentric approach to men’s health views male wellbeing as an end in itself, and direct action is taken on men’s health (as opposed to using women as a mediator to improved male wellbeing). Importantly, the androcentric approach is not devoid of consideration of the impact of a man’s life on others. Instead, the androcentric approach sees that a man’s relationships with others will be best for that man and for others when that man is in a state of good mental and physical health.
· The argument that “feminism” or “gender equality” is a solution to men’s health is the most fundament of all gynocentric approaches to men’s health. Consequently, you will notice that the author does not mention solutions to men’s health like opening up new men’s health centres or more funding into men’s health research. The reason that the author does not mention solutions like this is because opening up a men’s health center or funding more men’s health research is direct action on men’s health (i.e., the androcentric approach to men’s health). The author is unable to argue for such things for improved male wellbeing because her ideology has determined a priori that men are already privileged, powerful, and advantaged and therefore should not have more funds invested into their health.
Correlation versus causation and many differences between Iceland and the U.S.
· The author’s main conclusion is that feminism (gender equality) causes increased male life expectancy. However, culture and people in Iceland and the U.S. differ in many ways which might also help to explain lower life expectancy.
· One of the most glaring omissions is that the racial demography of the two countries differs significantly, and racial differences in health outcomes exist. The U.S. is much more racially diverse:
White (57.84%)
Hispanic/Latino (18.73%)
Black (12.05%)
Asian (5.92%), etc.
Icelandic (78.7%)
Polish (5.8%)
Danish (1%)
Ukrainian (1%)
Other (13.5%)
USA male life expectancy in 2021 (*more current numbers are available):
-Asian: 85.6 (F), 81.2 (M), 4.4-yr difference
-White: 79.5 (F), 74.0 (M), 5.5-yr difference
-Hispanic: 81.1 (F), 74.6 (M), 6.6-yr difference
-Black: 75.0 (F), 67.6 (M), 7.4-yr difference
-American Indian: 69.2 (F), 62.2 (M), 7.0-yr difference
· Another big difference between the two countries is the rate of obesity. The author could argue that patriarchy causes obesity but that is a difficult sell to make for anyone who has spent significant time in the U.S., because there are many factors about life in U.S. that contribute to obesity that have nothing to do with feminism or gender equality.
· I suspect another difference between the two countries is the number of vacation or annual leave days, with the U.S. offering fewer such days.
WHO reasons for why men don’t live as long as women
The article highlights three sociocultural reasons that the WHO states why men don’t live as long as women: (1) the way men work (e.g., exposure to physical and chemical hazards); (2) men’s willingness to take risks (e.g., “male norms of risk-taking and adventure”); (3) men’s discomfort with doctors.
1) The way men work
· Notice the wording here, “The way men work,” as opposed to something like “The type of work men do.” The author’s wording here has some degree of victim blaming baked into it, because not all occupational accidents will be fully a man’s fault (e.g., weather conditions, a falling object). Also, if the feminist thinks that she can do this work better and in a safer way, then why doesn’t she sign up for the job? The reality is that men taking on these occupational roles for spares women from having to do inherently dangerous work and thus increases female life expectancy in the process. Fatal occupational injuries data available here.
2) Men’s willingness to take risks
· Notice here that the author suggests that the cause of male risk taking is social (i.e., “male norms of risk taking). The author does not mention the likely biological contributions to risk taking (i.e., testosterone).
· Another issue is that the author does not mention the many ways that women benefit from male risk taking. Where do feminists think that the wood that makes up their kitchen table came from? It came from loggers, who are overwhelmingly male, and who have some of the highest occupational death rates. And what about that skydiving and bungee jumping adventure that her and the girlfriends went on over the weekend? Who do they think mastered all those activities and then how to make them safe for public consumption?
3) Men’s discomfort with doctors
· There are numerous other interacting factors that prevent men from going to see a doctor (e.g., costs, insurance coverage, availability of services, lack of time due to work, rapport with doctor, health literacy, being scared of receiving a diagnosis).
· Also, when it comes to mental health, there is now increased recognition that the entire model by which psychotherapy operates (i.e., come into an office and reveal your feelings to a stranger) might not suit many men.
The author mentions male “privilege” at the end of the article
· The author is so ideologically driven that she is unable to see that the vast majority of men have very little privilege or power – some are just average blokes and some would have been underprivileged, disadvantaged, or victimized as boys (e.g., the boy who was physically or sexually abused).
· The majority of homeless persons are men. Homeless persons have no privilege.
Men’s education
· The author conveniently ignored that education level correlates positively with health, and men have lower education levels than women. Interestingly, the author does not advocate for “gender equality” or “gender equity” in education.
· Similarly, the author said: “women’s empowerment may protect men from economic shocks. If women are educated and can work, it lessens the financial responsibility that rests on men’s shoulders.” Here, a more straightforward solution would be to simply enhance a man’s educational attainment so that he can withstand such economic shocks irrespective of whether he has a female partner or not. This would be an example of the androcentric approach to men’s health, which is why author does not mention it.
· The author also did not mention that most of the individuals who educate boys in schools are women. Thus, if boys are adopting risky or poor health behaviors, then the female educators of these boys must be partly responsible for the boys’ behaviors.
Cheers,
James L. Nuzzo, PhD, CSCS
Related Content at The Nuzzo Letter
SUPPORT THE NUZZO LETTER
If you appreciated this content, please consider supporting The Nuzzo Letter with a one-time or recurring donation. Your support is greatly appreciated. It helps me to continue to work on independent research projects and fight for my evidence-based discourse. To donate, click the DonorBox logo. In two simple steps, you can donate using ApplePay, PayPal, or another service. Thank you!
Great work James but I think you overlooked the obvious problem with her diatribe.
The patriarchy doesn't exist so any beliefs along the lines of "The patriarchy is..." are nonsense.
Even if the premise of the article were true, it would mean that we could live 80 years as traditional masculine men, or 84 years as feminized men in a feminist utopia. I'm pretty sure most men would happily forfeit the extra four years.