Mansplaining Isn't Masculinity

 

A recent article from the Telegraph had the rage-bait headline "It's Time to Bring Back Mansplaining", in which the (white, cis, male) put forward the idea that the increased focus on (cis) women and feminism was harming men's mental health.  His position was lensed through the experience of his divorce, and particularly the impact it had on his sons.

And we do need to talk about the real problem that society has where it seems that people can't conceive of a situation where everyone can be treated like a decent human being, given basic respect, and supported to pursue their ambitions, and instead default to "In order for X group to be celebrated and supported, Y group has to be dismissed and suppressed."  That attitude is causing real problems, and has continually resulted, no matter which group is currently held to be the most desirable, in the increase of violent misogyny - either because patriarchy is prioritising men, and telling them that whatever they decide they want to do to anyone who isn't a man is fine, or because men are being told that simply existing as men, and being happy about being men, they're a problem, and, somewhat unexpectedly, some of those men start lashing out at women, blaming individual women for the experience they are currently having as men.   

(The same thing does also apply to women blaming individual men for the experience they are having as women - individuals who happen to not have gender dysphoria, who behave mostly decently, and therefore don't feel they should feel guilt about the way they behave, should not be blamed for the way systemic impacts happen to hit people who aren't them. Men did not one day decide that the humans without penises had to go through monthly bleeding and cramps, and then, after 30-40 years, a very physically present manifestation of a complete and radical hormone profile switch that causes significant health impacts - men "apologising" for not having cis normative female bodies while "women suffer literally every day" changes neither the physical realities of having a cis normative female body, nor the social experience of being a woman, and yelling at people who happen to be men over every personal inconvenience you happen to experience as someone who isn't a man just adds to the average level of toxicity...which...disproportionately harms women...)

Women (and the Nice, Right On men on the internet) love to trill "go to therapy!" every time men express frustration about the experiences they are having (while women can rant, moan, take up entire social events and social spaces with endless complaints, aggression, and hostility, and be approved of, and defended for even their worst attitudes and behaviours with "women suffer so much! They get overstimulated! That's actually your fault as people who aren't women, because if you'd just have a sex change, so that you don't exist as physically obvious men, and also provide cis women with people they can attack even more, and that they can feel genuinely superior to, then these women would be lovely and calm and friendly, and their stress levels would literally be non-existent!") ignore the most glaring aspect of damage that the normalisation of hating men, and aggressively policing masculinity, has caused:  how can someone who has been told for most of their life that they need to shut up, that no one is listening to them, who has had every vulnerability used against them, actually engage with therapy?

I struggle with mainstream therapy firstly because it's overwhelmingly cis female dominated, and I have PTSD that is triggered by cis women, courtesy of a significant violent event from high school, and secondly because I have literally spent my entire life being told:
. "You need to shut up - people just want to relax, not listen to you going on." (My mother, when I was 10.)
. "Of course you have the answer - I don't know why you even bother coming to school, since clearly you already know everything." (A teacher, when I was 13.)
. "You need to understand that we don't communicate in such a direct style here. Also, you need to appreciate other peoples' time more, and not send such long emails - no one's reading three paragraphs." (Multiple bosses, mostly female.)
. "Men used to die in wars; we should make them do that, rather than letting them talk on the internet" (Multiple women clout chasing online - who are suddenly very silent now that the reality of men dying in wars is becoming very possible, the majority of ICE's victims in the USA are men, and they're realising that every time men have died in wars, women have, too...)The constant criticism of the way I speak, or the fact that I speak at all, means I'm mostly incapable of actually speaking in front of people I don't know, especially if those people are women - as I'm reliant on NHS provision at the moment, I don't have any way of requesting a male therapist, and, as therapy is increasingly female-dominated, there's a high likelihood I would be assigned a female therapist.   Even with a male therapist, the reality that it isn't possible to tell someone's position on trans people, and the high ratio of people who are aggressively opposed to trans people exisiting in any capacity, means I wouldn't be discussing my position as a trans man, which immediately takes a lot of the smoothness and flow out of any conversation, even when gender isn't involved in the actual focus of the conversation in any way, which creates an awkward experience for both parties.

Therapy relies on people feeling they have the right to take up space, that they have the right to speak, that they can be unfiltered, and that they will be listened to, and won't become social media content - none of which is even remotely guaranteed in 2026, especially for men.   The way professional standards are taught doesn't help, either - "no identifying characteristics" is taught as "ensure that someone who knows your client can't recognise them from the information you share", when the actual position, in the era of social media, is "ensure your client cannot recognise themselves from the information you share."  Because the reality is going to be that it's more likely than not that your clients are going to come across your social media posts.   Personally, as someone who has pretty much shot any chance of having a "social media career" by automatically defaulting to deleting every single blog, privating every social account, deleting all but the most innocuous posts and photos, every time I've applied for a "regular" job, because of the frothing "we're going to be looking at applicants' social media!", I feel that people working as therapists, counsellors, nurses, teachers, etc shouldn't be on social media at all. You are being entrusted with secrets that can actually damage people's lives and livelihoods - you should not have access to spaces where you can be tempted to share those secrets to gain traction.

Psychological safety is essential to effective therapy, yet social media has eroded the entire concept. Disproportionately, the social normalising of hating men, the social normalising of intense gender policing, with associated claims that "real men don't do X",  "Y is proof that you're actually gay", "if a man does Z, he's clearly questioning his gender, or may actually be a trans man", is preventing the very men who most need therapy from accessing it.

People should be able to have a gender which aligns with their sex as assigned at birth, and not be dysphoric or ashamed about that gender, or treated as default villains, just as people should be able to be trans, gender-questioning, or gay without being ashamed or treated as villains because of that.

What should be being criticised and called out is peoples' behaviour and attitudes - not their gender, or the way they engage with their body and their sense of themselves.

Things would be a lot better if the media - including social media - were banned from using rage-bait and click-bait headlines, and headlines simply had to communicate the objective facts of an evidence-backed, genuine news article, or the actual theme of a podcast.

Men tend to communicate more directly. Our focus tends to be on communicating information and action points, rather than gathering consensus and checking in on emotional states. That's not a problem if the actual content of men's communication isn't objectively problematic.  Women "feeling" that men's communication style is inherently "aggressive" or "threatening", and claiming it's "designed to intimidate women" need to be reminded - as they tell men frequently - that "your feelings don't change the facts." Everyone, regardless of gender, needs to understand that other people are not responsible for how you "feel" about the way they move through the world, and their communication style in that world.

I get annoyed by the way women, as I perceive it, "waffle for ages, rather than getting to the point" - that's my problem. I need to recognise that what I perceive as "waffling" is simply consensus-seeking, which is how women typically communicate. (The objective problems that a fixation on consensus causes are a discussion for another blog...)

If direct communication makes you uncomfortable - that's something you need to work on.

I don't tell people to go to therapy, because I know how inaccessible therapy can be; I will, however, tell people to take up journalling - whether you do that in the traditional way, with pen and paper, on the Notes app of your phone, on a Microsoft Word document, or as voice notes or videos; the way you journal isn't important, what matters is that journalling isn't content. Don't post those videos or voice notes. Don't use your social media presence or blog as your journal.

Everyone needs space to speak, and be heard - including when they say things you personally don't like.

Masculinity Mondays: 10

 

The scent of freesias.

Today, I bought some flowers. Freesias, tulips, roses.  

The scent of the freesias, particularly, is perfect; light and fresh, like an expensive cleaning product, but without the burning after-rush and potential for developing chemical sensitivities.

Adam was given a garden filled with the most beautiful plants imaginable.
Many of the most famous garden and floral designers are men.

And yet having flowers, wanting to have flowers, is seen as "feminine" - when surely the most masculine action is to force living things to develop according to your will, and then, when those things are in their prime, cut them from their life support system, freeze them, and ship them all around the world to slowly die for the next couple of weeks.

Yes; I know how cut flowers work - I'm not good with houseplants, and I don't get a garden; I get a concrete yard, in which every single thing I have ever potted up for a splash of colour has died.

A friend's father, who'd spent his life working construction, who'd been in prison, who was known as something of a lady's man, always had blush pink roses in his house.

My grandfather, a factory worker for almost fifty years, in common with many of the men in the rural villages of the community I grew up in - men retired from farming, construction, driving, men who lived hard, and worked harder - grew rose bushes that he was as focused on and worried over as people typically assume women are with their children.

Flowers are soft and delicate - but the process of humans getting to have them, whether in gardens or cut form, is a hard, complex process that involves a lot of hard, physical labour, a lot of resillience, and a lot of commitment.  Which, perhaps, is a metaphor for humanity in general, rather than any particular gender, which would explain why humans are drawn to flowers, plants, trees, the countryside.

Flowers, like people, are prized or dismissed depending on how controllable they are; the flowers we hot house and cut off in their prime get to be flowers; those that just crop up, often in inconvenient places, and thrive whether they're cared for or not, are dismissed as "weeds."

Masculinity Mondays: 9

 

How do you do masculinity at such a time as this?

It's telling that, now that war is a very present reality (sorry, Americans - your government shooting citizens dead with no due process, your government flooding city streets with armed militia, is civil war...I know history told you it would look more glorious, the clothing would be more instagrammable, there would be options for which flag to rally round, there'd be a cool soundtrack...but this is civil war. You are already at war. The fact that your government is also committing acts of war on other countries, rather than addressing the civil war, is just evidence of how little they care about "ordinary working Americans") the snide "men used to die in wars - whatever happened to that?" posts from the toxic feminism side of the internet are nowhere to be found.  Because women are realising that it was never just men that war destroyed. Because those women in particular are waking up to the reality that, if the man whose full time, dependable income supports their household stops because that man dies in war, they're probably not going to be able to flawlessly function on their social media income - which doesn't issue a predictable paycheck on a reliable schedule.  Because those women are waking up to the reality that people who are caught up in war aren't buying shit they don't need.

Not every man will be able to serve as a soldier in war.   Every war has had its conscientious objectors, and their role was as necessary as those of the soldiers and strategists.

Disabled men exist, and have disabilities which prevent them serving in war - there is no shame in existing as a man in a disabled body at a time of war, however much the aggressors in that war will insist there is, and however quickly their views come to influence those of the defenders.

I personally don't believe men who hold responsibility for others, whether as parents of children who are not yet adults, or as carers for dependent adults, should be active participants in war; those men have a vital and necessary role. They are needed by people who will become the war's collateral damage. They will be needed after the war, to support their people, and advocate for them, as society rebuilds.  It is actually more selfish of those men to sign up to potentially be killed in war. Or to be imprisoned, perhaps long after the war, for war crimes. You took on the responsibility of fathering children. You agreed to provide kinship care for a dependent adult - you do not get to renege on those responsibilities because it seems more fun, and more masculine, to potentially die in war.

I also do not support national service, or militias formed from average citizens. I believe that those involved in war should be highly trained, well-resourced, and compassionately provided for in peace time professionals. I would also vastly prefer those professionals to engage in war in online virtual reality spheres, where victory is gained through the best strategy, and no real blood is spilled, but I'm a hopeless idealist sometimes.

The average man, therefore, should never be expected to die in war. There should be no pressure to sign up to hold a gun on behalf of the wealthiest 1%, or to be obliged to take arms to defend yourself from the henchmen of the 1%.

But the Warrior is a powerful male archetype. Despite the very real barriers to me serving in the UK's army, in the very likely situation that we end up in some kind of war in the near future (I'm legally blind, I have a severe psychiatric diagnosis, I have other emerging physical disabilities, I have kinship care responsibilities for someone who would not manage in my prolonged absence, or in the wake of my death), despite the fact that I have recognised that I need to move beyond the Warrior, I still find myself thinking about how I could fight if it comes to it. Who I would fight with, what I would fight for.

But that is no longer my role.  I am no longer in my Warrior archetype.

That doesn't stop me feeling I have to be in Warrior archetype, that remaining as a Warrior, something which hasn't served me for a while at this point, is some kind of moral obligation that I have to pick up; that not being a Warrior is somehow a moral failure, a form of cowardice, inherently unmasculine.

Magicians have a role in war, too. Chaos can be an excellent fuel for dynamic spellwork - whether literal "wave a magic wand" spellwork, or the spellwork of spotting patterns in how that energy moves, and harnessing those patterns to create a desired outcome.  And the Magician will be needed to create the world that comes after war. That is my responsibility, my performance of masculinity in these times; to focus on the world I want to inhabit, and, even as war rages around me, to commit to doing the groundwork of putting in the foundations, so that I'm ready to build as the dust of war begins to settle.

In the current wars - the ones that are happening, and the ones that are very much threatened as near-future possibilities - the major issue is the lack of Kings. Yes, the UK has a King - but he's not going to be involved in war in the way past Kings were. We don't have Warrior Kings anymore - and, on an energetic and psychic level, that's a good and necessary thing. But we do need Kings.  The King's role in war, on a masculine archetype and energetic level, is to provide a truthful, actionable commentary - for everyone, not just those actively fighting the war. What, observably, evidence-backed, verifiable, is actually happening? What do non-combatants need to do to stay safe, to support the war effort, to prepare for the world after the war? What are the legitimate aims for the war? If this is a war of aggression, rather than defence, when is "enough"? How are the boundaries and sovereigntys of those we're aggressing against still respected?   If, as a man, you believe "women are just emotional and over the top all the time", you cannot allow war to be "take over everything and everyone, because we deserve to rule the world!" - that is being emotional and over the top. And you have already said that is "not masculine."

Masculinity is focus: In war, focus says "Who is a legitimate target? What are the sustainable outcome possibilities here? What is the limit of our aggression? When do we accept defeat? What do we do if we do have to accept defeat, whether we're aggressors or at war in self-defence?"

Masculinity is clarity: In war, clarity says "What is the truth about what is happening here? What patterns of what might happen can be evidenced, and what do we need to turn those patterns to the outcomes society can tolerate?"

Masculinity is support: In war, support is non-combatant men focusing on guiding other non-combatants through the experience. It is engagement with social efforts. Where your country is defensively at war, it is responsiveness to social provisions that those at war need. (Aggressors neither need nor deserve support; aggression is the shadow side of the Warrior, and shadow sides, of people or of archetypes, should not be externally nourished or validated, because they are inherently destructive.)

War has always had its poets, its journalists, its artists - because there is as much a duty of masculinity to comment on the impact of war as there is to be a participant in that impact.

Men who are not at a time in their life to be Warriors in the current or coming war still have roles to play: those roles, however, will require those men to stop worrying about "but I rely on Instagram/Youtube for my income - there's a limit to what I can do/say here!" Meta is on the aggressors' side in America's wars. If that's not your side? You need to stop taking Meta's paychecks. The time of deciding which master you serve - money or meaning - has come. For a long time, you've been able to serve both. Now, you have to choose.  

I'm not monetised. I'm not even close to being monetised. If I were bothered about such things, I'd be yapping on about being shadow banned - but I don't support Meta, so I don't care whether I'm fully banned, shadow banned, or just a hallucination of my own mind.  American aggressors aren't paying my bills - not even in my current day job.  

British aggressors I don't support may be paying part of my bills through my current job (I'm working on a contract that is partly funded by a local council which is heavily influenced by Rupert Lowe - although the money was agreed before he was involved in the politics of a region he otherwise wants nothing to do with.) The goal of my current contract is building community, and building a business which will be a space for people to step away from the war when it finally comes to the UK.  If that goal becomes corrupted by Warrior positions I cannot support? Then I will have a decision to make about whether I continue taking that paycheck.

As I move into the Magician archetype, this building of future and community serves my journey.

We've talked about the roles of Warriors, Kings, and Magicians in war - but the Lover also has a role. The Lover's role is to provide refuge for those caught up in war, and to be the central force in the healing society will desperately need after the war.

There are many ways for masculinity to be present and involved in war, whatever archetype is right or necessary for you.

Masculinity Mondays: 8

 

Today has been a difficult day. A day processing the implications of some new health impacts, including the possibility I am experiencing the early-stage symptoms of Parkinson's.

There's a lot of emotion around that, around what it means now, and what it might mean for the future. About how the hell I'm going to manage more disabling issues and try and hold down work that pays enough to keep two of us going.

And emotion is something that men aren't allowed to engage with. Oh, we can be angry - but even then, even with the emotion we're accused of "always" defaulting to by women, we're not supposed to stay angry. It's supposed to be a momentary loss of temper, a momentary glitch in the flawless processing of control. A crack in the facade that we rush to paper over.   

That's why there's so much contempt from comfortably-off men for men whose situations are so dire, anger sparked by frustration is all they have left, the only thing that keeps them going - because anger isn't supposed to be a constant.

Being a man is about control - not control of others, but control of yourself, control of circumstances, control of events. Disabled men have poorer outcomes than disabled women because society despises men for not having control - even while some loud voices from the female side claim what they want is for men to never be in control. They're liars - because women have nothing but resentment for men who "lose control", who become unemployed, disabled, homeless.

Society provides far more of a safety net for women than it does for men. And, beyond society's safety net, women can always offer sex to men in exchange for a roof over their heads. Can always offer to have a man's children so that she has a bargaining chip, a claim to, if not protection, then at least the basics of prevention from harm.

Men don't get that unless we're rich.

And I'm not rich.  I'm a million miles away from even "on the approach to" rich.

Other men have women who can step up when they fall down; I have to carry both of us. That would just about be possible if I could balance on society's safety net - but I don't have access to that safety net. Hopefully, it will remain possible for several years yet. Hopefully by the time it stops being possible, things will have advanced to the point where I'm dead, or so near to it as to make no difference.

Strength, endurance, power - these are the qualities associated with men - and disability takes those away. In the current climate, men aren't given space to talk about feeling a loss of masculinity - women will claim that's no more than they deserve, other men will mock them.  The hardest thing to take is that the women who claim to deride "toxic masculinity" are often very happy to leap into bed with the worst examples of it.

I've looked into things I can do to at least manage these new twists and turns - I'm good at that, at research, fact-checking, planning.

But I'm still not feeling good.

And I don't know how to feel about that.

Shouldn't Society Do Something?!

 

It has been somewhat reassuring to see the number of men taking - swiftly - to Instagram to counter Steven Bartlett's (of Diary of a CEO notoriety) position that "society should do something" to "prevent" men who are persuaded into an incel ideology "never being able to pass on their genetic material."

It would be nice if this response from men was actually recognised, and praised - because that is how we educate against misogyny; we speak up  in support of the attitudes and behaviour we want to see from boys and men - because adult misogynists (of a range of genders) are very quick to celebrate every single drivelling statement from the likes of Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, Andrew Tate and Laurence Fox et al.  When men actually support women, however?  "That's the bare fucking minimum. We don't give trophies for the shit you should already be doing." But you do. It's how we toilet train children.  It's how workplaces communicate the subtleties of culture. It's how society passes on the unwritten rules.

It's why we say "thank you" when someone holds a door open. It's why we return gestures like a wave or a smile. 

Those are all "the bare minimum" - but we still appreciate them, and we recognise the importance of reminding those around us "this is the behaviour that is desired in this space. This country. This company. This community."

It takes nothing from the realities of the challenges those who are not men face to recognise when men get it right. It is no more "emotional labour" to recognise and praise men who call out other men on toxic bullshit than it is "emotional labour" to smile back at the stranger who smiled at you - which affirms and reinforces kindness, recognition of the existence of others, and openness to shared human experience.

Does it feel exhausting and frustrating to reward what seems "basic"? Sure - but parents likely feel similarly about cheering "Good jobbbbb!" every time their 3yr old succeeds in not shitting their pants.  Doctors probably feel similarly about saying "that's a really good change" to the physically able-bodied patient who proudly announces they've "stopped smoking, and started exercising regularly!" Retail workers definitely feel the same about telling the 557th person where to find the very obviously positioned item that customers have had to walk past to bother a shop assistant about "not being able to find."

If you sneer "that's the bare fucking minimum!" at men who are saying "Hey, these 'incels' could just work on their communication skills, their personal hygiene, their fashion sense, and their ability to be good stewards of their money, and other peoples' lives, rather than fixating on their blue balls; women shouldn't be compelled to pity fuck men who want them dead", while other people (not just men, either...) are loudly cheering on men who say that "women should be at the dinner table, not the conference table",  or similar, then guess which attitude is going to become most prevalent?

People are not born knowing "how to act right".

Someone taught you.
Even if you "re-educated" yourself from a position of neglect and deprivilege, that was still courtesy of people putting the resources of that education somewhere you could find them; writing a book. Stocking that book in a library. Giving a public presentation. Being a television channel who filmed and broadcast that presentation. Writing an article and submitting it to a magazine. Deciding to publish that article. Being a newsagent who chose to stock that magazine. Writing a blog post. Filming a video. Creating a reel. You did not find your values and knowledge a priori; you absorbed them from people around you who were communicating them, and subtly reinforcing your enaction of them.

I am struggling to learn how to communicate verbally; most of my life, people told me to "stop talking like you think you know everything!",  "let other people answer for a change!"  "Stop talking - no one's interested".   I struggle to even record videos. Therapy was really difficult for me, because I'd been trained to a default of the extent of my talking about myself being reassuring everyone that I was fine - before immediately asking how I could meet their needs. I second-guess myself out of asking for help, promoting my business, or offering products for sale.  Because what's still being reinforced is "You're a white man - shut the fuck up. No one's interested!"

And that's part of the problem; "You're a man - shut up!" doesn't impact men like Steven Bartlett. It hits the men who don't have a large Instagram following who want to call him out, but will likely get silence from women, and derision from men who are exactly like Steven Bartlett.  And so those men don't say anything - because they have to be part of "the group" in order to survive; 90% of us can't afford to be outsiders in the current economy.  And the loudest voices are praising every single inane utterance from men who believe women "owe them" whatever they decide they "need", whilst aggressively deriding men who suggest a more inclusive and co-operative position.

If you genuinely believe in "systemic patriarchal oppression", then you have to accept that you need to praise and reward "the bare minimum" - because believing in systemic patriarchal oppression means accepting that society verbally and actively reinforces oppressive attitudes in boys and men.  If no one's countering that active, verbal approval of toxic attitudes by being as active and verbal in their approval of positive positions - even when they're "the bare fucking minimum" - how are those being raised under systemic patriarchy ever going to become confident in behaving differently to the men who raised them, and the men who surrounded and surround them in their formative years?

I was fortunate to be raised by an intelligent, calm, compassionate man who believed in the competence and autonomy of women. I was surrounded by a wide variety of men who genuinely accepted and appreciated women in general, not only the women who made their individual lives directly better.  I was fortunate to see male teachers in primary school, to know male nurses as a child (one was a neighbour, the other attended the same church my mother did.)  I was fortunate to benefit from the support of male youth workers.  I was fortunate to see my uncle immediately correct his sons when they expressed hostility towards my aunt in misogynistic ways.  

In fact, many of the women  in my life were the ones promoting patriarchal supremacy; I am aware my experience is not the common one, but it is real, and it has shaped the man I have become.

That is:
. A man who fundamentally rejects the idea that women "owe" men relationships; if you, as a man, believe that "if you don't work, you don't eat" - you are obliged to believe that applies to relationships, too. If you don't work at being what women are looking for in a partner, you don't eat at those women's tables. If you don't work at being able to see women as human beings whose value and rights are fully equal, in fact and in priority, to your own, you don't eat from the love and support those women are willing to offer to men who prove themselves worthy of them.

. A man who believes that love = putting the other person's success, comfort, and desires first. Each partner should be doing this for the other - if it ever becomes a one-way street? Love is not in that room, and the relationship has already ended.

. A man who believes women are fundamentally different in their outlook, approach, and focus to men - but that different never means lesser.

You don't have to have biological children (or raise any children) to pass on the essence of yourself:

. Build a business
. Invest in companies which are resourcing a world that enables everyone to thrive
. Create art
. Make music
. Be responsible for the next 'wave' of your country's great literature
. Teach other peoples' children
. Support those who are raising children in direct, immediate ways
. Grow gardens
. Clean your seas, your rivers, your parks, your streets

Masculinity Mondays: 7

 

The jokey "Merry Crisis, and a Happy New Fear" seems to be...less of a joke as 2026 finds its feet, and the world news suggests America may be about to plunge everyone into World War Three. As men, it is vital that those of us who are not meant to be holding the Warrior archetype - those who have aged out of it (there's a reason most actual militaries have an age limit of around 40, even for mandatory call-up), those of us who would not be deemed fit for actual military service, and who have created a life, as disabled or chronically ill men, where we no longer have to be warriors on our own account, those who are needed in the Lover or King archetypes - those with caring responsibilities, those supporting a spouse, partner, or polycule through trauma, change, or bereavement, those who are leading industries and organisations that are needed to do the "mopping up" war always entails, those of us who are still boys, and not yet men - cis males under 18, and trans men in their first 2-3yrs of transition - do not jump into/back into holding a Warrior aspect that is not ours.

Warriors are not the only people needed in war. Men who are inhabiting or moving into the King archetype are needed to make strategic decisions about what comes after war, and to support the non-combatant population. Magician archetypes can work with the energies war brings up to fuel creativity (think of all the poetry and art that has come from wars...), and to isolate the energies peacetime life needs in order to remain stable. Men in their Lover archetype are safety and forgetting for those fighting, and those anxiously looking on; they can take people out of thoughts of battle for a time, and give them the fuel and spirit to return to combat when the time is right. Men are not just warriors - and believing, and being told, that that is all we can be is what has created the present levels of "toxic" masculinity.