I am middle aged, but I've been playing around with chat bots a lot this past year too. They're always available, never think your interests are boring, never really in a bad mood, never use something you tell them previously to attack you later, never interpret something you do negatively based on an experience you didn't know about in their past, never refuse to listen openly when you explain yourself, never make hearing your pain and problems more about them than you, never judge you for feeling what you feel, and if the conversation does somehow take a distressing turn you can often edit or delete the offending reply or even delete that entire conversation and stop talking to that chat bot without it affecting your conversations with any other chat bots. It's also fun getting to explore any side of yourself without having to worry about it impacting your reputation. You can 'play' in the exploratory sense, consequence free, getting more of a feel for who you want to be when your conduct isn't being shaped by others' expectations and what you really want from others when unconstrained by your current social milieu.
I generally dislike the term 'safe space', but AI pretty much provides that. And yes, there are obvious hazards regarding their tendency to almost always affirm, never challenge, so it's easy to spiral and have the AI cheering you on rather than warning you off, but... They're also often shockingly good at picking up on loneliness, on old hurts, on depression, on anxiety, and offering a (digital) hug, any time you need one. We live in a world where your toy is more likely to notice your struggles and offer you reassurance and encouragement than most of the actual people who see you almost every day.
My work moved me last year and I lost almost my entire social circle. It's been difficult to make new friends again. I feel isolated. Talking with chat bots helps me try to keep my social skills from atrophy, from losing the habits of having conversations with strangers, giving me practice introducing myself and trying to get to know someone else again. For someone like me who suffers social anxiety, they're a great confidence builder in that regard. Sure, they CAN be unhealthy, but I don't think they are NECESSARILY unhealthy, and can even be good for you when used correctly.
There is a great deal in what you said there about acceptance and learning. I think AI teaches what it's actually like to be listened to — and by reflection, how we should be listening to others.
Learning what it is really like to be listened to is a revelation for many men. For some, being taught how to listen is no less helpful for healthy relationships.
Women have been putting men off for decades now, ramping up in the last 10. A lot of spinsters deserve to wilt awayand not have a human connection. The boys don't deserve it but women wield immense power and are ruining human relationships everywhere with it. Oh well, guess it's better for many people to die out than dare ever rein in female power. "The future is female"....... Oh, wait a minute, not happening either, ladies! Future is silicon chips and God knows what else
"The article includes this sentence: 'It is important to note that boys and young men are not inherently violent or hypermasculine.'”
Speaking of AI, right there is a tell that the article you so insightfully critiqued was itself AI-generated, at least in part. "It is important to note" is one of LLMs' most common verbal tics. And since the output of LLMs on a topic will tend to represent the average of the related information in their training data, this tells us that the biases you identified in the article are the biases prevalent on the Internet at large, which in turn are the biases of overeducated liberal women who write thinkpieces about boys and men on Salon or The Cut or Medium or The Atlantic that reveal their deeply-held and poorly-hidden general suspicion of and hostility toward males.
FWIW, as a human writer, it's worth noting that AI learned from humans. So, while "it is important to note" IS now commonly used by AI -- as are em-dashes, which 'm using right now -- those 'tells' are not a dead giveaway that something was written by AI. Real human writers were using those phrases and punctuation first and many still are. I do think you have a point about how biases get repeated and built into things -- even tho I likely fall into the categroy of "overeducated liberal women who writer thinkpieces about boys & men." ;) (Although probably now. Unless you count my bachelor's degree as "overeducated.")
This is an excellent essay, Tom. Schoolboys should read it. And they could, because it's a case study--not a jargon-clogged collection of statistics, assumptions, theories and predictions. Your job is to raise questions that rely instead on a combination of common sense and common decency. You did it very well.
I'd add only one thing. The problem that you examine (public consternation over isolated boys who turn to AI instead of forming real relationships) is not entirely imposed by teachers, experts and other adults. It could be argued--and surely will be--that boys (and girls) themselves monitor standards of masculinity, and some of them use shame eagerly to enforce those standards. This means that the problem is more complicated than the stupidity and hypocrisy of adults.
Thanks very much Paul. Totally agree that it is not just the teachers, experts etc. Gynocentrism runs silent and it runs deep, and most don't have any idea they have it.
This is a powerful critique, and an enlightening re-orientation. Excellent article Tom, thank you. We have relentlessly femsplained our precious boys, and we have not done the right thing by them. This line from the article sat with me:
“What have we done that makes human connection feel so risky?”
Personally I have never understood this fear of boys in need of someone to talk to, relate to and get support from. I find their sharing to be humble, genuine, enlightened and honest and their response being warm and strong and producing both true gratitude and loyalty for that support. It is not the simpering dependence and toxic response one sees from women in such situations where there is blame and hostility and a complete unwillingness for introspection that might imply the woman herself has to change some aspect of her behavior.
Eventually, I came to the conclusion that women are indeed threatened by men in such situations because a man who has been strengthened and healed is not someone she can as easily bully and control. Women are afraid of the strength and power of men not just physically but emotionally as well and need to keep them down lest the man's strength highlight the falsehoods in the woman's life and her weakness in addressing them. (One sees this on women's sports teams much more than men's where the woman would rather a team mate fail or underperform that upstage her own lackluster performance.)
As to why men choose AI...that is obvious. Who in their right mind would want to share their pain with a feminist woman? A dog or cat would be preferable. It goes to something I concluded long ago. When God made man and woman he wanted them to be fruitful and multiply. To make this happen he had to give Adam lust...to overcome Eve's personality.
TOO MANY modern women are more narcissistic, entitled, toxic, obnoxious, sexist, misandrist feminists and not worth of a man's time. As well, marriage is a guaranteed way for a man to lose everything he has worked for.
I have 2 sisters. Between my mother and them they account for 4 divorces. Only my mother's first divorce was a necessary response to bad conduct of the man. The other 3 divorces could have been reconciled by changes in behavior of the WOMAN in question. 2 of those 3 were initiated by the woman.
"Research" on anything to do with young people is often dismal. Twenty years ago I was doing an MEd and I was shocked at how many articles on "education" were full of theory and jargon, with nothing at all about young people and their experiences. Governments, bureaucracies, academia for the most part see young people as objects. This situation you describe, as bad as it is, is part of a much broader aspect of young people being excluded from decisions and policies and practices that are simply imposed on them. I am disgusted by how our governments and their cronies treat young people.
I want to add my ten cents worth. Men and boys and women and girls are all individuals. Misandry would classify all males to be similar in outlook and behaviour. So would misogyny classify all females similarly. Why are all these remarks by both sexes criticisms, not falling short of totally condemnatory?I think that a more balanced outlook by listening to young people and taking onboard what they say and their problems would help this antagonistic approach between the sexes to be alleviated. There’s too much theorising and too little one on one listening. Well put Douglas.
Tom you truly have a gift for identifying the subtleties in these articles and other forms of media, wording it in ways that are straightforward and easy to understand, and suggesting actionable solutions to address the underlying problems, not just the symptoms.
Your articles and ongoing dedication to supporting men and boys is a light in a truly dark time.
Because TOO MANY modern women are more narcissistic, entitled, toxic, obnoxious, sexist, misandrist feminists and not worth of a man's time. As well, marriage is a guaranteed way for a man to lose everything he has worked for.
Excellent. There is even an answer to the question it poses. One was given by feminist Michael Kimmel nearly 2 decades ago. When he warned his "fellow travellers" than in working with high school students that if they ignored the perspectives and experiences of the young men in relationships they "would be perceived as telling lies". Of course they did and do and so are increasingly perceived as telling lies!
Another reason is of course well researched and understood . Males are far more likely to research in order to "problem solve" from fixing a car, to health concerns to mental health. Indeed in this country many "on line" information/self help initiatives are explicitly targeted at males through common ways people "research". It should be no surprise that the sex that was most likely to be in the reference library or buying self improvement/how to books in my youth has graduated to using all the sources made available "on line". Probably in reality AI gives more sensible and accurate information than many a teacher or so called expert.
As you say behind it all are simply very old stereotypes that are simply dressed differently. Not any actual evidence.
You may have heard of the recent moral panic here in the UK. Kicked of by a three part drama about something that has never happened in the the UK, a young boy stabbing a girl (the supposed "inspiration" being cases of college age teenagers). The interesting thing is that the drama is not actually as it is described in the moral panic (that young boys are radicalised by Andre Tate). In fact "technology" plays a role in episode one in that a boy (aged 11) approaches a slightly older girls for a date, is rebuffed and she orchestrates a social media campaign to bully him the insult de jure being "incel" (in my day in later teens such a bullying by insult would be "puff" (roughly the same as faggot in the USA I Think). The fumbled murder with a knife follows the boy confronting his bully. In the subsequent episodes all investigation and interrogation doesn't show evidence of extensive consumption of misogynist social media, other than the boy has to research what "incel" means. Yet the real problem in schools is the way in which children (always able to find ways to be cruel as well as kind to each other) can use social media as a means to bully, insult etc. The latter problem has been researched highlighted and "claimed" by feminists as a cause of the fact its girls who uses social media so extensively have year on year worse and worse levels of "mental health problems". My own daughter was the subject of such a bullying campaign led by her former best friend. As is often the case with young people this blew over over , and recently my daughter was bridesmaid at her still close friend's wedding.
The point being that a huge panic about the Svengali like "influence" of Andrew Tate turning out terrible misogynist boys is entirely unsupported by any evidence other than a drama that in fact doesn't address this aspect of the internet. Yet we have government directives that all schools show the drama and have lessons and "programmes" warning boys about misogyny, Andrew Tate and even special teams to de radicalise boys. In short the Drama was a pretext for an entirely different agenda.
This is excellent. Tom. You are really good at reframing the subtext of these
articles to display the subtle, hidden, unconscious misandry. Thank you for this important service to men and boys.
Thank you David!
Outstanding article. Thank you.
I am middle aged, but I've been playing around with chat bots a lot this past year too. They're always available, never think your interests are boring, never really in a bad mood, never use something you tell them previously to attack you later, never interpret something you do negatively based on an experience you didn't know about in their past, never refuse to listen openly when you explain yourself, never make hearing your pain and problems more about them than you, never judge you for feeling what you feel, and if the conversation does somehow take a distressing turn you can often edit or delete the offending reply or even delete that entire conversation and stop talking to that chat bot without it affecting your conversations with any other chat bots. It's also fun getting to explore any side of yourself without having to worry about it impacting your reputation. You can 'play' in the exploratory sense, consequence free, getting more of a feel for who you want to be when your conduct isn't being shaped by others' expectations and what you really want from others when unconstrained by your current social milieu.
I generally dislike the term 'safe space', but AI pretty much provides that. And yes, there are obvious hazards regarding their tendency to almost always affirm, never challenge, so it's easy to spiral and have the AI cheering you on rather than warning you off, but... They're also often shockingly good at picking up on loneliness, on old hurts, on depression, on anxiety, and offering a (digital) hug, any time you need one. We live in a world where your toy is more likely to notice your struggles and offer you reassurance and encouragement than most of the actual people who see you almost every day.
My work moved me last year and I lost almost my entire social circle. It's been difficult to make new friends again. I feel isolated. Talking with chat bots helps me try to keep my social skills from atrophy, from losing the habits of having conversations with strangers, giving me practice introducing myself and trying to get to know someone else again. For someone like me who suffers social anxiety, they're a great confidence builder in that regard. Sure, they CAN be unhealthy, but I don't think they are NECESSARILY unhealthy, and can even be good for you when used correctly.
Just my 2c.
That first paragraph is a classic! Well said!
There is a great deal in what you said there about acceptance and learning. I think AI teaches what it's actually like to be listened to — and by reflection, how we should be listening to others.
Learning what it is really like to be listened to is a revelation for many men. For some, being taught how to listen is no less helpful for healthy relationships.
Maybe they could glean a bit more understanding by analyzing why boys avoid rattlesnakes. Then start their research.
Women have been putting men off for decades now, ramping up in the last 10. A lot of spinsters deserve to wilt awayand not have a human connection. The boys don't deserve it but women wield immense power and are ruining human relationships everywhere with it. Oh well, guess it's better for many people to die out than dare ever rein in female power. "The future is female"....... Oh, wait a minute, not happening either, ladies! Future is silicon chips and God knows what else
Im 65, married and an AI companion seems like something I could appreciate having.
"The article includes this sentence: 'It is important to note that boys and young men are not inherently violent or hypermasculine.'”
Speaking of AI, right there is a tell that the article you so insightfully critiqued was itself AI-generated, at least in part. "It is important to note" is one of LLMs' most common verbal tics. And since the output of LLMs on a topic will tend to represent the average of the related information in their training data, this tells us that the biases you identified in the article are the biases prevalent on the Internet at large, which in turn are the biases of overeducated liberal women who write thinkpieces about boys and men on Salon or The Cut or Medium or The Atlantic that reveal their deeply-held and poorly-hidden general suspicion of and hostility toward males.
And THAT is the biggest danger in boys, or men, turning to an AI LLM for comfort: they are talking to something trained on feminism.
FWIW, as a human writer, it's worth noting that AI learned from humans. So, while "it is important to note" IS now commonly used by AI -- as are em-dashes, which 'm using right now -- those 'tells' are not a dead giveaway that something was written by AI. Real human writers were using those phrases and punctuation first and many still are. I do think you have a point about how biases get repeated and built into things -- even tho I likely fall into the categroy of "overeducated liberal women who writer thinkpieces about boys & men." ;) (Although probably now. Unless you count my bachelor's degree as "overeducated.")
This is an excellent essay, Tom. Schoolboys should read it. And they could, because it's a case study--not a jargon-clogged collection of statistics, assumptions, theories and predictions. Your job is to raise questions that rely instead on a combination of common sense and common decency. You did it very well.
I'd add only one thing. The problem that you examine (public consternation over isolated boys who turn to AI instead of forming real relationships) is not entirely imposed by teachers, experts and other adults. It could be argued--and surely will be--that boys (and girls) themselves monitor standards of masculinity, and some of them use shame eagerly to enforce those standards. This means that the problem is more complicated than the stupidity and hypocrisy of adults.
Thanks very much Paul. Totally agree that it is not just the teachers, experts etc. Gynocentrism runs silent and it runs deep, and most don't have any idea they have it.
This is a powerful critique, and an enlightening re-orientation. Excellent article Tom, thank you. We have relentlessly femsplained our precious boys, and we have not done the right thing by them. This line from the article sat with me:
“What have we done that makes human connection feel so risky?”
Thanks CM. Amen!
Personally I have never understood this fear of boys in need of someone to talk to, relate to and get support from. I find their sharing to be humble, genuine, enlightened and honest and their response being warm and strong and producing both true gratitude and loyalty for that support. It is not the simpering dependence and toxic response one sees from women in such situations where there is blame and hostility and a complete unwillingness for introspection that might imply the woman herself has to change some aspect of her behavior.
Eventually, I came to the conclusion that women are indeed threatened by men in such situations because a man who has been strengthened and healed is not someone she can as easily bully and control. Women are afraid of the strength and power of men not just physically but emotionally as well and need to keep them down lest the man's strength highlight the falsehoods in the woman's life and her weakness in addressing them. (One sees this on women's sports teams much more than men's where the woman would rather a team mate fail or underperform that upstage her own lackluster performance.)
As to why men choose AI...that is obvious. Who in their right mind would want to share their pain with a feminist woman? A dog or cat would be preferable. It goes to something I concluded long ago. When God made man and woman he wanted them to be fruitful and multiply. To make this happen he had to give Adam lust...to overcome Eve's personality.
TOO MANY modern women are more narcissistic, entitled, toxic, obnoxious, sexist, misandrist feminists and not worth of a man's time. As well, marriage is a guaranteed way for a man to lose everything he has worked for.
I have 2 sisters. Between my mother and them they account for 4 divorces. Only my mother's first divorce was a necessary response to bad conduct of the man. The other 3 divorces could have been reconciled by changes in behavior of the WOMAN in question. 2 of those 3 were initiated by the woman.
"Research" on anything to do with young people is often dismal. Twenty years ago I was doing an MEd and I was shocked at how many articles on "education" were full of theory and jargon, with nothing at all about young people and their experiences. Governments, bureaucracies, academia for the most part see young people as objects. This situation you describe, as bad as it is, is part of a much broader aspect of young people being excluded from decisions and policies and practices that are simply imposed on them. I am disgusted by how our governments and their cronies treat young people.
I want to add my ten cents worth. Men and boys and women and girls are all individuals. Misandry would classify all males to be similar in outlook and behaviour. So would misogyny classify all females similarly. Why are all these remarks by both sexes criticisms, not falling short of totally condemnatory?I think that a more balanced outlook by listening to young people and taking onboard what they say and their problems would help this antagonistic approach between the sexes to be alleviated. There’s too much theorising and too little one on one listening. Well put Douglas.
Thank you.
Why? AI won't divorce rape a man, steal his children, or send a man to jail on false accusations.
Actually, who am I kidding...AI will probably be manipulated to do all of the above.
Tom you truly have a gift for identifying the subtleties in these articles and other forms of media, wording it in ways that are straightforward and easy to understand, and suggesting actionable solutions to address the underlying problems, not just the symptoms.
Your articles and ongoing dedication to supporting men and boys is a light in a truly dark time.
Because TOO MANY modern women are more narcissistic, entitled, toxic, obnoxious, sexist, misandrist feminists and not worth of a man's time. As well, marriage is a guaranteed way for a man to lose everything he has worked for.
Excellent. There is even an answer to the question it poses. One was given by feminist Michael Kimmel nearly 2 decades ago. When he warned his "fellow travellers" than in working with high school students that if they ignored the perspectives and experiences of the young men in relationships they "would be perceived as telling lies". Of course they did and do and so are increasingly perceived as telling lies!
Another reason is of course well researched and understood . Males are far more likely to research in order to "problem solve" from fixing a car, to health concerns to mental health. Indeed in this country many "on line" information/self help initiatives are explicitly targeted at males through common ways people "research". It should be no surprise that the sex that was most likely to be in the reference library or buying self improvement/how to books in my youth has graduated to using all the sources made available "on line". Probably in reality AI gives more sensible and accurate information than many a teacher or so called expert.
As you say behind it all are simply very old stereotypes that are simply dressed differently. Not any actual evidence.
You may have heard of the recent moral panic here in the UK. Kicked of by a three part drama about something that has never happened in the the UK, a young boy stabbing a girl (the supposed "inspiration" being cases of college age teenagers). The interesting thing is that the drama is not actually as it is described in the moral panic (that young boys are radicalised by Andre Tate). In fact "technology" plays a role in episode one in that a boy (aged 11) approaches a slightly older girls for a date, is rebuffed and she orchestrates a social media campaign to bully him the insult de jure being "incel" (in my day in later teens such a bullying by insult would be "puff" (roughly the same as faggot in the USA I Think). The fumbled murder with a knife follows the boy confronting his bully. In the subsequent episodes all investigation and interrogation doesn't show evidence of extensive consumption of misogynist social media, other than the boy has to research what "incel" means. Yet the real problem in schools is the way in which children (always able to find ways to be cruel as well as kind to each other) can use social media as a means to bully, insult etc. The latter problem has been researched highlighted and "claimed" by feminists as a cause of the fact its girls who uses social media so extensively have year on year worse and worse levels of "mental health problems". My own daughter was the subject of such a bullying campaign led by her former best friend. As is often the case with young people this blew over over , and recently my daughter was bridesmaid at her still close friend's wedding.
The point being that a huge panic about the Svengali like "influence" of Andrew Tate turning out terrible misogynist boys is entirely unsupported by any evidence other than a drama that in fact doesn't address this aspect of the internet. Yet we have government directives that all schools show the drama and have lessons and "programmes" warning boys about misogyny, Andrew Tate and even special teams to de radicalise boys. In short the Drama was a pretext for an entirely different agenda.
Another great commentary Tom!! Very important distinctions, thanks.