Counter-Apology for Heteropessimism

Maria Sole Pacini
May 15
7 min read

This text is intended as a response to the article Come be the Men we need by Agnese Capiferri

The article connects and analyzes, with varying degrees of efficacy, two recently coined concepts: “heteropessimism” (introduced by sociologist A. Seresin and defined as an attitude of disenchantment and disaffection, coupled with regret, toward relationships with the opposite sex) and the “male loneliness epidemic” (the phenomenon, whether real or merely perceived, in which men feel increasingly isolated both emotionally and socially). The author contends that the reason for women’s skepticism toward romantic relationships lies with male subjects who, due to cultural and social factors—as well as a lack of will and accountability—demonstrate a deficiency in emotional maturity.

However, if such a latent “heteropessimism” truly exists within society, I believe our gaze cannot be directed toward only one side of the issue; we must strive to broaden our field of vision, seeking to identify and understand the true root of the matter.

While we may all agree that men face greater difficulties in processing an inner emotional sphere — which subsequently leads to loneliness (one need only consider the cultural legacy, rightly highlighted by the author, that perceives emotionality as an intrinsically feminine domain) — we must nevertheless recognize that this is an issue holding us all in check, regardless of gender. In recent years, we have witnessed an increased consideration for mental health and subjective interiority, which inevitably leads to a deeper knowledge of the self and of the relationships we maintain with the "Other." Once we explore and map our inner emotional life, it becomes difficult to ignore or feign ignorance of it; the result is that we all feel lonelier, because our world collides when placed alongside worlds that are not similar. The issue is not that there is a latent “heteropessimism” in society; the point is that emotional connection is not simple, especially when cultural prejudices come into play—but we shall discuss this further on. The effects of increasingly accessible mental healthcare (though still not accessible enough), both in economic terms and in terms of cultural acceptance, also lead to this: to knowing oneself and choosing one another consciously. Therefore, I do not believe this is a gender-specific phenomenon, but rather a collateral issue stemming from a positive evolution of the community.

Upon closer inspection, it is not even a collateral problem so much as an indirect one: loneliness is not entirely negative and is, if approached correctly, the best engine for seeking out people who are like-minded. Surrounding oneself with similar individuals creates the foundations of a well-built "village"; it is a task that requires care, effort, and, at times, the courage to be lonely. Yet, I believe almost all of us would accept this condition rather than feeling lonely and misunderstood (primarily by ourselves) for a lifetime. Ultimately, it is the realization of what Aristotle intuited centuries ago: man is, by nature, a political animal, made to flourish alongside others—but not alongside everyone.

Even the phenomenon of dating apps can be interpreted in this sense: in a jungle of profoundly different interests, motives, and quests, a functional emotional connection is difficult to establish; furthermore, it is certainly true that the superficiality of the "swipe" does not help.

But why, then, do we specifically speak of a male (and not female) loneliness epidemic?

The problem arises when loneliness, instead of leading one to seek their peers, collapses into isolation. For those socialized as women, the search for like-minded individuals is easier and culturally aligned with expectations: we do not have to tear down the wall of patriarchal expectation—the image of the strong man who never cries, or at least only does so alone. For those to whom that wall seems insurmountable, it can turn into the only room they know, and the only tool we give them to break it down is aggression, in whatever form it may take. What I mean is that we speak specifically of a male loneliness epidemic, and not a female one, because it is the one with the most serious repercussions on society, due to the aggression ontologized by patriarchy within masculinity: the feeling of marginalization can turn into violence. Consider, for example, the incel phenomenon, a direct consequence of emotional isolation. These young boys, in a characteristically confusing emotional phase—generally the harrowing years of middle school—find their only lifeline in what society offers them as the only acceptable emotion: rage. These boys are denied the chance to begin the path of emotional introspection because, at the threshold, there is always someone telling them that such things are "girls' stuff."

The male loneliness epidemic, therefore, does not only concern romantic connections, but more generally the difficulty of sharing an emotional world with another person. This is certainly linked to the types of friendships the two genders tend to establish, as the author rightly points out; however, we are gravely mistaken if we think these are not also cultural products. Allow me to preface this by saying: I am well aware that everything I’m about to write concerns general trends; I know that exceptions are frequent and that every scenario is different, obviously.

Men tend to establish what are known as "joking relationships"—connections that feel close through banter and humor, often at the expense of third parties. One of the implicit purposes of this type of connection is the very exclusion of the emotional sphere. This is clearly a product of patriarchy: the elimination of emotionality, or at least its relegation to an infinitesimal space, is directly connected to that ideal of the strong, imperturbable, invincible, yet profoundly lonely man. Men are not "by nature" (and what does "by nature" even mean, anyway?) inclined to form a certain type of relationship; rather, it is what is expected of them within the social fabric of their interactions. There is, however, a positive side: when they do manage to take this type of friendship to a higher level and create a shared emotional world, the connection remains solid for a long time. This is because they have had the opportunity to explore the other person for a significant period—sometimes even years—before the fateful emotional revelation. The result of great patience and a careful sifting through various friendships to find the "chosen one" leads, more often than not, to a sound selection that typically endures over time.

Among girls, on the other hand, we tend to base intimacy on emotional disclosure, and quite often, this does not work. How can something as unique and specific as one’s interiority be compatible with everyone we wish to befriend or with whom we are already friends?

Certainly, this type of relationship we tend to form helps us engage in important introspective work, but that is not enough: knowing oneself does not necessarily lead to finding the right connection. For this reason, it is clearly almost impossible for a system that bases all relationships on emotional disclosure to work consistently and indefinitely.

Once we have unveiled our inner world to ourselves, it becomes difficult not to take it into account in every kind of relationship, and it is even harder to find someone who understands it and manages to inhabit it.

Furthermore, the author claims that what she terms “heteropessimism” also arises because men “have had no other model to aspire to [compared to feminism, proposed only for women], nor a movement to help them question their own role, their own masculinity.” It seems absurd to have to repeat it once more, but feminism originated as a universal movement that proposes alternative models of subjectivity and systems not only for women, and not only for the oppressed. This is precisely what the author fails to see: the model has been incessantly proposed even to those socialized as male in recent years, but it takes courage to follow it, because the side effect is losing the hegemony and the privileges to which they have been accustomed since birth.

The model was, and is, there; if it is not followed, it is certainly partly the fault of the individuals, because the required work demands courage and introspection, as previously mentioned. However, the greater burden lies with the movement, which evidently has an accessibility problem. I agree with the idea that now is the time for struggle, and that we must not yield to the inclusion of power systems typical of patriarchy (obviously), but we must identify against whom we are fighting; otherwise, it is merely a futile battle against windmills. The oppressive symbol must be recognized in the social structure of which the male subject is the primary bearer, not in another subjectivity. The distinction is subtle: the bearer of a symbol, not the symbol itself. If we succeed in shifting this narrative—presenting the transfeminist movement as a universal movement—we are halfway there.

There is no victory without alliance. By this, I repeat, I do not mean that men should take a central place in the feminist movement—effectively replicating the power structures currently in force—but simply that they must be involved, accepting that, for once, they are not at the apex of the pyramid. It is true that the male subject carries the largest share of patriarchy: just as female subjectivity is ontologized in the role of the oppressed—and it cannot be otherwise until the moment of struggle is transcended—so the male subject is ontologized in the role of the oppressor. We must become conscious of this, but it does not mean that the liberation movement must exclude them a priori. If someone is ready to leave behind that toxic model of masculinity, along with all the privileges and oppressions it entails, why should they find the doors barred? Recognizing the transfeminist movement as a universal force means taking a necessary step: breaking down the barriers of accessibility that keep many men excluded from change. The challenge is not to invite men to occupy the central space that, for once, does not belong to them, but to encourage them to dismantle their birth-assigned place, accepting that they are not the center of attention.

In conclusion, I believe that male loneliness is not the symptom of a gendered emotional illiteracy, but rather stems from a collateral issue of widespread loneliness across all of society, resulting from a deeper exploration of subjective inner life. We speak specifically, however, of a "male loneliness epidemic" because of the aggression and rage ontologized within the male gender, which lead to phenomena such as the manosphere or incels—trends that are real, dangerous, and widespread, both for those who participate in them and for those around them. The issue of this so-called "heteropessimism" cannot and must not be resolved with a simple "grow up." As with any social phenomenon, the roots run deep, and we are all, to some extent, involved.

Counter-Apology for Heteropessimism

A response to "Be The Men We Need"