Feminists wanted men to be more like women — and now, it seems, they’re regretting it. 

In a series of stories in The New York Times, academics and experts bemoaned first that “real men” have disappeared and then that women are now doing the lion’s share of “emotional labor” in relationships — a phenomenon they’ve termed “mankeeping.”

For decades, third-wave feminists have been after men to be more like women: sensitive, caring, nurturing and comfortable with sharing their feelings and putting themselves in vulnerable positions, in order to connect on a more emotional level with the women in their lives. They’ve demanded an end to “toxic masculinity” and eliminated male-only spaces, creating a world that, it now seems, makes both sexes miserable — albeit, miserable together.

To be sure, there are benefits to more open and caring relationships, and even the Catholic Church finds, in its vision for marriage, a model of interdependence that mirrors the relationship between Christ and his own Bride, the Church. Not all masculinity is, indeed, non-toxic (and neither is all femininity), and modern relationships often seek balance, giving both men and women the freedom to seek fulfillment in God’s call to matrimony.

But there’s a point at which denying the unique gifts of both masculinity and femininity will have an impact on our lives. And, it seems, at least, that writers for The New York Times are discovering some drawbacks to sanitizing men: notably, that they no longer act like men.

In one column, a writer bemoans the disappearance of men, claiming that the dating world is now rife with guys who don’t make conversation, who have “withdrawn” from the traditional practice of getting to know a woman, and who have become “indifferent” on dating apps. 

But as many of the Times’ own commenters ultimately pointed out, this is precisely what women demanded: Being a man in the world became “misogynistic,” and abiding by traditional social norms is considered a sin. Dating became a minefield; and, in many ways, a lousy deal. Women now demand emotional intimacy and vulnerability, but men aren’t relieved of the duty to make the first move, to pay, and to bear the emotional burden when things ultimately don’t work out — because they won’t, because women don’t want a man devoid of masculinity, even if many don’t quite realize it.

And that’s what brings us to the second piece, on “mankeeping.” 

Mankeeping, it turns out, is “the work women do to meet the social and emotional needs of the men in their lives, from supporting their partners through daily challenges and inner turmoil, to encouraging them to meet up with their friends.”

To most of us, that probably sounds like … marriage. But to the piece’s authors, the “emotional labor” women must now invest in their partners is an oppressive force that renders relationships themselves unbalanced and unfair. 

It has “ruined” dating, the authors claim, and driven women to celibacy, (which the authors consider a bad thing) lest they be called upon to care for someone other than themselves. Many of the couples cited in the piece are older and childless, high-achieving individuals who somehow end up in a marriage (perhaps in name only)  that requires they remain committed to each other — and to them, that’s an insurmountable problem.

Look, I understand mankeeping a little. I’ve had to point out the ketchup in the fridge more times than I care to count. But maybe — just maybe — this is a symptom of a bigger problem and not the problem itself.

There is a male mental-health crisis — and a male loneliness crisis — and both have had dire consequences. Studies show that men are four times as likely as women to commit suicide, that a fifth of men describe their lives as lonely most or all the time, and around 15% of men report that they have no close friends. 

The “loneliness epidemic” is two-gender, to be sure. Women and men both report that they are increasingly lonely and depressed; we are an increasingly isolated society. We live further apart, we communicate almost exclusively through technology, and our communities, which were once established in neighborhoods and through churches, are disappearing. 

For men, though, it’s a “victory” for feminism that’s decades in the making: a war on everything from traditionally male hobbies and careers to male-only spaces. Sports must be feminized, and even scouting now includes girls. Men have been therapized and, in many ways, neutralized, and while the world has opened for women, men have found themselves increasingly marginalized.

Women claimed that this is what they wanted: softer, more female men, and now they’re mourning what they lost.

Men and women without children probably feel the crisis more acutely. Many of us with kids know that communities can be formed through schools and home-schooling pods and that our “new” friends often turn out to be the parents of our kids’ friends, or people we meet at extracurriculars, kid-focused events, or doing volunteer work for, yes, our kids. Without the driving force of a family, worlds seem much smaller, even if you live in, say, The New York Times’ regular circulation zone.

But there are more sinister issues at play in the world of “mankeeping”-as-a-social-problem: We’ve become so obsessed with equality that we’ve forgotten both genders have unique, innate gifts that help us to function in relationships and that our interdependence is a gift. The two genders are, fundamentally, cosmic puzzle pieces: unique shapes that form a whole when bonded together.

Conservatives and traditionalists might say that this is a female-only problem and that women need to “reclaim” femininity in order to provide an opening for men to “reclaim” their masculinity, reverting, perhaps, to a time when women wore crinoline skirts and men had the three-martini lunches. But we know from our grandmothers and grandfathers that that vision of “interdependence” was fraught with its own problems: Women were often relegated to a second-class status, and men were overworked and under cared for, both in positions that failed to honor their human dignity.

Maybe the solution is, instead, to revisit the idea that men are naturally protectors and providers, and women are naturally nurturing and caring, and that allowing those talents to shine would make life better for, well, everyone (except, perhaps, the writers at the The New York Times, who seem to view themselves as perpetual victims of perceived oppression). 

Men should be given the space to be men without being made to feel toxic, and women should be given the space to be women, without being made to feel weak — because being a protector and provider is not toxic, and being nurturing and caring is not for the weak (as any Catholic mother knows). 

The Catholic Church’s vision for marriage, perhaps uniquely, takes all of this into account. Pope Leo XIV, in his recent homily for the Jubilee of Families, Children, Grandparents, and the Elderly, called marriage “the measure of true love between a man and a woman: a love that is total, faithful and fruitful” and families “the cradle of the future of humanity” 

We understand that, like Christ and his Church, we each serve different roles in our relationships. We give and we receive. We protect and provide. We nurture and care. We bring forth life, and we raise it. We create a single entity, a single community, and we fill each other’s needs with each other’s talents. 

The good news is, too, that the Catholic Church calls us to understand each other’s limitations. Protectors and providers still need support and care, and nurturers still need a strong shoulder to lean on — and those limitations don’t make us weak; they just give us the gift of needing each other. 

We simply can’t do it all alone; we’re not made to do it all alone.  

As Pope Leo noted in that same Jubilee homily, “As soon as we were born, we needed others in order to live; left to ourselves, we would not have survived. Someone else saved us by caring for us in body and spirit. All of us are alive today thanks to a relationship, a free and freeing relationship of human kindness and mutual care.”