‘Women’s Problems Are Everyone’s Problem,but Men’s Problems Are Their Own’—Anti-feminist Meaning-making in Affective Discourses on Young Men’s Mental Health

Abstract

This article introduces new insights into the cultural discourse surrounding young men’s mental health in modern-day Finland. Utilizing survey data (n = 975) and online discussions about men’s mental health, we delve into the affective–discursive alignments with ideas related to gender and gender equality in the context of young men’s mental health. We contextualize these alignments within the framework of therapeutic culture in Finland. Our examination highlights how men are seen to often disassociate from the public mental health discourses, viewing them as overly simplified, intrinsically gendered towards women and strongly influenced by the feminist movement. Consequently, the perceived mental health discourses provoke frustrated rhetoric of anti-feminism and tactical victimhood, portraying men as marginalized figures. We argue that the discrepancy between ‘traditional’ masculinity and therapeutic culture’s emphasis on mental health may manifest as cruel optimism, drawing attention from societal issues towards essentialist notions of gender and perpetuating a hierarchical gender order.

Introduction

Amid overlapping global crises, the mental health of young people has emerged as a significant concern in both public discourse and youth policy discussions (Brunila et al., 2020). Simultaneously, movements such as gender conservatism and anti-feminism are gaining momentum worldwide (Paternotte & Kuhar, 2018; Saresma & Tulonen, 2023; Stoltz et al., 2020). Our qualitative study brings these two viewpoints together by examining how the approaches to men’s mental health are viewed in relation to both the feminist movement and a conservative understanding of gender differences. In this article, we offer critical insights into the cultural discourse surrounding the mental health of young men in Finland by analysing affective–discursive practices from a survey data and online discussions, both centred on young men’s mental health and well-being. Our aim is to show how the perceived approaches to mental health can guide men towards constrained positions and reinforce hierarchical binary gender oppositions, decontextualizing mental health issues and hindering the strive for gender equality.

The increasing concern over young people’s mental well-being is closely connected with the ascent of therapeutic culture, particularly in Western neoliberal societies, where individual responsibility and psycho-emotional deficiencies are heavily emphasized. The sociological concept of therapeutic culture refers to a cultural shift derived from therapeutic and psychological lexicon, encompassing concepts such as vulnerability, disorder, addiction and dysfunction. Consequently, this culture is characterized by practices that accentuate personal well-being, emotional exploration, individualized accountability and ‘struggling with the self’ as key themes of modern life (Brunila et al., 2019, 2020; Nehring et al., 2020; Rimke & Brock, 2012). In neoliberal contexts, therapeutic culture decontextualizes and reconceptualizes both everyday issues, once understood as commonplace, and distress caused by structural disadvantages and inequalities, such as austerity or racism, as psychological problems that can be solved with individual measures and professional help (Illouz, 2007; Kurki & Brunila, 2023; Rimke, 2020).

We examine the affective–discursive dimensions and the influence of therapeutic culture in the context of Finland, a country often regarded as an advanced welfare state and egalitarian society. However, scholarly debates have repeatedly cast doubt on whether this characterization holds, especially given Finland’s significant turn towards a neoliberal, competitive society. This societal change stems from a combination of factors, including economic downturns, a reorientation of workforce policies towards individual responsibility, the introduction of market-driven approaches in public services that recast citizens as customers and the rise of therapeutic culture and society (Brunila & Ylöstalo, 2020). The convergence of neoliberalism and therapeutic ethos reflects a complex interplay of cultural, social and economic forces that collectively shape the perception of human subjectivity and social relations (Brunila et al., 2020; Brunila & Ylöstalo, 2020; Rimke, 2020). Therapeutic culture has also reshaped notions of masculinity, especially for young men, who are encouraged to embrace emotional self-awareness and self-improvement while simultaneously holding them accountable for their own vulnerabilities within the competitive framework of neoliberal society (Brunila et al., 2024).

Furthermore, Finland is often portrayed as a pioneer of gender equality. However, feminist scholars from different fields have for long demonstrated that in Nordic countries, gendered and intersecting inequalities continue to influence people’s lives, despite the ethos of egalitarianism (e.g., Ikonen, 2020; Julkunen, 2010; Stoltz et al., 2020). Together, the lived realities of everyday inequalities—such as high rates of violence against women (FRA, EIGE & Eurostat, 2024) or the gender pay gap—and the national self-identity of egalitarianism have created persistent paradoxes, especially for young women who are seen as empowered, ideal subjects, capable of overcoming past inequalities if they so choose (Ikonen, 2020; Lamberg, 2023). Hearn and Lattu (2002; also Hearn, 2015) have shown how perceptions of Finnish men’s high alcohol use, loneliness and exclusion in both academic and public discussions, combined with the conceptualization of gender equality as an already-achieved state, have contributed to a cultural stereotype of the ‘miserable Finnish man’ complementing the ‘strong Finnish women’, ‘despite men’s structural domination of Finnish society’ (Hearn & Lattu, 2002, p. 56).

The combination of egalitarian and neoliberal ethos, together with the emphasis on individual choice and agency, creates a fertile environment for individualized politics and contestation of the necessity of the feminist movement or women’s collective political action (Ikonen, 2020; Lamberg, 2023; Salmenniemi & Kemppainen, 2020). Consequently, the feminist movement in Finland, as well as globally, has faced increasing amounts of anti-feminist rhetoric of ‘feminism going too far’ (Blais & Dupuis-Déri, 2012; Saresma, 2017; Venäläinen, 2022), discussed below.

Men’s Mental Health, Gender Equality and Anti-feminist Backlashes

Men’s health and well-being issues, as well as their reluctance to seek help, have often been attributed to restrictive ideals of masculinity or an effort to conform to ‘hegemonic’ masculinity (e.g., Courtenay, 2000; Tähkä et al., 2024; Valkonen & Hänninen, 2013). However, recent research (Brunila et al., 2024; de Boise, 2018; Hyvönen, 2024; Olsson & Lauri, 2022) suggests that expressing emotions, intimacy and care has become part of normative masculinity, at least in certain contexts. Yet, this literature points out how this new norm is not equally accessible to all men and can also work to reinforce hierarchies between the ‘progressive and caring’ and ‘traditional’ masculinities. Accordingly, various scholars have pointed out how the changes in the gender order are far from straightforward and how adapting to the contemporary narratives of progressiveness or gender equality may also serve to (re)secure the gendered hierarchies, merely representing a change in the expressions of power relations (Bridges & Pascoe, 2014; de Boise, 2018; Waling, 2019). Therefore, it is crucial to recognize the diversity among men and how certain groups of boys and men may experience oppression due to intersecting social divisions such as socio-economic class, racialization, ethnicity, disability and sexuality (de Boise, 2018; Hearn, 2015; Julkunen, 2010; Rossi, 2015).

The importance of acknowledging the intersectionality of men is emphasized when discussing men’s privilege and vulnerability. Moreover, media sociologist Lilie Chouliaraki (2021) argues that it is essential to distinguish between tactical and systemic claims to victimhood. As psycho-emotional vulnerability has become a predominant signifier of the self within therapeutic culture, the competing affective claims to suffering blur the lines between systemic discrimination and tactical claims to vulnerability and can work to amplify or displace outrage, disconnect the pain from its conditions of emergence and reproduce existing hierarchies of social power (Chouliaraki, 2021; see also Brunila et al., 2019).

Similarly, the narratives of victimhood frequently emerge in discussion on gender equality. The shifting social conditions and expanding demands for equality within the last century have brought up various responses in men, ranging from outright hostility to enthusiastic support (Messner, 2016). Blais and Dupuis-Déri (2012) state that the anti-feminist discourses often rest on the notion of the feminization of society, which has supposedly caused an ‘identity crisis’ of men and the devaluation of masculinity. Consequently, the success of women is believed to deprive men of what is assumed to be their rightful place. Therefore, this discourse tends to attribute men’s problems to women and feminism, disregarding societal changes, such as increased competition or the precarity and uncertainty of the job market and social support systems (Blais & Dupuis-Déri, 2012; Brown, 2019).

In Finland, the long-standing emphasis on gender equality has also raised opposition and frustration, as some men perceive themselves to be left in the margins (Venäläinen, 2022). To conform to the ethos of egalitarianism, the discourses of anti-feminism and men’s victimization are often reasoned with affective rhetoric asserting that ‘equality already exists’, causing a sense of reversed discrimination (Saresma, 2017; Venäläinen, 2022). Social psychologist Venäläinen (2022) argues that the discourses of men as victims of feminism often cultivate and justify affects such as sympathy towards men and anger and resentment towards women. Finnish feminist scholar Tuija Saresma (2014, 2017; Saresma & Tulonen, 2023) has done extensive research on how these reactions are often based on gender-populist discourses and conservative understandings of hierarchical gender relations, placing feminists as scapegoats for ruining the (fictitious) ‘traditional’ gender order.

Several scholars have shown how the internet has played an important role in popularizing men’s rights activism and anti-feminist discourses (de Boise, 2019; Messner, 2016; Saresma, 2014, 2017). One example of the digital responses to the changing gender relations is referred to as the manosphere, which consists of overlapping online communities and platforms. The manosphere focuses on men’s victimization—claiming men as victims of various forms of social discrimination and cultural prejudice—usually with a strong anti-feminist and misogynistic stance (Botto & Gottzén, 2023; Saresma, 2014, 2017; Venäläinen, 2022).

This article aims to show how the affective anti-feminist rhetoric of the manosphere gains new momentum and expands beyond the manosphere as it gets intertwined with discourses of young men’s mental health. Given how the social, economic and political changes over at least half a century have profoundly impacted young people’s transition to adulthood (Roberts, 2018) and, additionally, how young people tend to get conceptualized in public discourse as both psycho-emotionally vulnerable and capable of taking action for their well-being (Brunila et al., 2019, 2024), we pay particular attention to how these discourses can shape young men’s understandings of masculinity, gender relations and mental health. We examine how the conceptualization of gender equality as an achieved state in Finland positions men as the new gender victims, reinforced with affective claims of men’s discrimination and suffering. Furthermore, the perceived public discourses of mental health, which are seen to be gendered as ‘feminine’, can be interpreted to uphold hierarchical gender dichotomies and restrictive ideals of masculinity. Although the categorization of gender as a binary is prevalent in our article, we want to highlight the importance of acknowledging the broader spectrum of gender identities and expressions. Our use of binary language stems from the discourses in our data, which focus on binary genders.

Study Design

Data

Our analysis is based on two data sets: survey data and Reddit discussion. As the survey data lacked depth in emotional expression and Reddit data lacked representativeness, combining the two data sets allows us to understand the broader spectrum of nuances in the discourses of gender equality, anti-feminism and men’s mental health in different contexts.

The first data set is from an anonymous survey conducted in November 2020 by the Family Federation of Finland and Nyyti ry ¹ for their project to promote young men’s mental health. The survey ‘Young men—How are you?’ focused on the perspectives of young men on their own mental health and on the broader societal attitudes towards men’s mental health. Distributed on the websites and social media channels of the surveyors and their collaborators, the survey reached 975 participants, of whom 91% were between the age range 15 and 34 years, and 92% were men.

The survey comprised four Likert-scale matrices, four multiple-choice questions (each offering an open-ended option of ‘something else, what?’) and three open-ended questions. The multiple-choice questions addressed what young men see as the most significant obstacles to men seeking and getting support, reasons for the potential deterioration of young men’s mental health, the most useful services to improve young men’s mental health and the ways men’s mental health is addressed in public. The open-ended questions addressed the importance of anonymity in mental health services, other important features of such services and ‘what else would you like to say’. To enable a qualitative approach, we chose the responses to the seven open-ended questions for analysis. They had in total 924 answers, varying from one word to several paragraphs. The Likert-scale matrices, which we excluded from our data, were on a scale of strongly disagree to strongly agree and addressed possible changes in the respondents’ behaviour in the past month, how men’s mental health has concerned them in the past year, the importance of different features of mental health services and statements about men and their mental health. Extracts from data set 1 are indicated with code Q/2020.

The second data set is from the social network Reddit, an anonymous social platform used as a discussion forum to post and comment on any topic imaginable (Proferes et al., 2021). Our focus was on the subreddit r/Suomi. The subreddit is meant primarily for discussions about Finland in Finnish, but is not limited to any certain topic, unlike many other subreddits. A survey conducted by r/Suomi in 2021 (n = 1,145) revealed that most of its users are relatively young (39.5% under 25 years, 43.2% aged 26–35) and mostly male (80.2%) (Reddit r/Suomi, 2021), which follows international trends of Reddit users (Proferes et al., 2021).

The second data set was produced in September 2023 by the first author. Using combinations of Finnish search words ‘mental health’, ‘well-being’, ‘youth’, ‘men’ and ‘gender’, the relevant threads were found. Discussion threads from a span of five years (2018–2023) were included in the data set, resulting in 38 threads and 3,705 comments, ranging from one sentence to several paragraphs in length. As Reddit is user-created and user-moderated, subreddits vary significantly in terms of what they allow (Proferes et al., 2021), which can enable unfiltered, antagonistic and polarized discussions. To account for this, we removed multiple comments by the same user on the same topic from our data, as well as threads that we interpreted to have been posted as mere provocation and continued the same line and/or were contributed to by only a few users. Twenty-nine discussion threads started with an article or a column linked from a Finnish newspaper discussing youth mental health issues or services, youth (un)employment, the Finnish military service (compulsory for every male Finnish citizen over 18 years of age) and its connections to men’s well-being and equality, or public figures or researchers raising concern over youth well-being or boys’ positions in society. Eight threads were started by a Reddit user sharing experiences or opinions on mental health services or issues or men’s inequal treatment in society, and one thread commented on a post about men’s mental health from another social media platform. Extracts from data set 2 are followed by the number of each discussion thread and year of publication (e.g., DT3/2018). The extracts have been translated and paraphrased to ensure the anonymity of the Reddit users and to meet the GDPR requirements for anonymous processing of personal data.

We have followed the ethical principles of the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (2019). According to these national guidelines (p. 61), this study does not require a formal ethical review.

Method and Analysis

The first author started the process of analysing with reiterated readings of both data sets and making initial notes. After familiarization, she coded both data sets based on sentiments in the data. Then, codes that related to one another were grouped together, and these clusters were studied and named. Finally, the clusters were developed into themes to represent broader sentiments in the data. The analysis followed a data-driven approach, meaning that the codes and themes were mainly developed inductively (Saldan˜a, 2013).

Two of the most prominent themes revolved around anti-feminist rhetoric and men’s exclusion. In the survey data, ‘women’ or ‘feminists’ were repeatably named as a reason for the possible deterioration of young men’s mental health, although the questions or answer options did not include mentions of gender equality or intimate relationships. Similarly, many of the Reddit threads that started discussing youth mental health in a more neutral tone often drifted towards anti-feminist rhetoric. Intrigued by these similarities and after continuing the analysis together, these two interconnected themes were refined and selected for a deeper analysis. Other common themes in the data focused on advice on how to improve one’s well-being, wishes to break the stigma of mental health issues and Finnish military service.

During the first stage of the joint analysis, particular interest was paid to the emotionally rich sentiments in the data. To analyse these further, inspired by fellow critical men and masculinity scholars de Boise (2018) and Hyvönen (2023),the aim was to utilize Margaret Wetherell’s (2012) notion of affective–discursive practices and Sara Ahmed’s (2010) ‘happy objects’ for the second stage of the analysis. After reiterated readings of the data sets, Lauren Berlant’s (2011) ‘cruel optimism’ was included as an analytical concept because, alongside happy objects, it captured something essential from our data about what kinds of objects are constructed as desirable but can turn detrimental to the desirer and the affective circulations surrounding the actors enabling or hindering the realization of these desires.

The conceptualization of affective–discursive practice (Wetherell, 2012) understands affects and discourse as inseparable, reinforcing each other, together contributing to meaning-making. Therefore, affect is not merely an emotion inside the self, but entangled in discourses, understood as performative, social and patterned in nature. Affects are rarely performed through explicitly describing one’s own or others’ feelings or emotions, but instead as evaluations and significations of events (Wetherell, 2012, p. 72).

According to de Boise (2018), not only affects are embodied and relational in interactions and relation to others but ‘affect can also be generated through, and in relation to, imaginary discursive positions’ (p. 168). Here, Ahmed’s (2010) concept of happy objects works to shed light on the ways discourses work to produce affects and the affective connections people make with the world around them. With happy objects, we examined the objects which are associated with the promise of happiness; as this promise gets distributed through affective narratives, it guides our perception of objects, experiences, bodies or situations as good or bad and directs our attention and actions towards them, with the presumption of future happiness. This way, affect inseparably involves material and discursive processes, shaping the ways in which it circulates and is mobilized by and against certain objects or causes (Ahmed, 2010; de Boise, 2018).

Drawing on Berlant’s (2011) ‘cruel optimism’, we considered how the discourses of gender and mental health are associated with a promise of happiness but get turned into cruel optimism. For Berlant, ‘cruel optimism exists when something you desire is actually an obstacle to your flourishing’ (2011, p. 1). This occurs because the object of desire, while offering hope, binds individuals to precarious conditions in which those promises become increasingly untenable. Consequently, the continuous pursuit for happiness can become harmful to the pursuer and a distraction from observing the conditions in which the distress is produced.

With this methodological lens, we asked from the data: (a) What are the characteristics of the discourses on mental health, gender equality and men’s positions constructed in the data? and (b) How do affective components interact within these discourses?

Both the survey answers and the discussion forum threads were in Finnish. The translations were done by the first author. The chosen extracts in the results are individual responses, selected for their ability to encapsulate key themes within the presented discourses.

Next, we discuss our results in two interconnected empirical chapters. The first one addresses the affective–discursive anti-feminist reactions in the context of men’s mental health. The second one focuses on the reproduction of binary gender differences with the perception of mental health discourses and services as an ‘arena of women’. After the results, we discuss the significance and implications of our findings.

Research Findings

Anti-feminism, Resentment and Victimhood

In this section, we address the ways discourses of men’s mental health in Finland were seen as entangled with and influenced by the feminist movement, exhibiting anti-feminist rhetoric similar to the manosphere (see Botto & Gottzén, 2023; Saresma, 2014). This discourse positioned men as ‘victims of feminism’ and consisted of a combination of affects, such as frustration, resentment and anger, mobilized against the feminist movement. This rhetoric was prevalent in both data sets. However, the Reddit discussions were more nuanced, including more rationalizing of and opposition to anti-feminism than the survey data.

In line with previous research (Blais & Dupuis-Déri, 2012; Saresma, 2017; Venäläinen, 2022), the respondents considered that the continuous strive for gender equality has left young men in the margins and feminism was the reason for men being disregarded by society. This discourse echoed the Finnish self-identity as an egalitarian nation, rendering the contemporary feminist movement redundant or as ‘oppression of men’. Both through aggressive statements of feminists hating men and with a more rational tone indicating how feminists focus on imaginary problems when there are real issues in the world, this rhetoric involved a lot of potential to strengthen the collective affects of resentment and injustice. In Reddit, these affective discourses were often supported by providing evidence from outside sources, such as research articles or interviews with experts, used to legitimize men’s victim position as factual. Moreover, the responses in both data sets often implied a shared knowledge of feminists’ ‘irrationality’ with rhetorical means of exaggeration and placing quotation marks around ‘women’s problems’ or ‘promoters of equality’ when talking about feminists.

Men are blamed for every problem that exists in the world. (Q/2020)

Women’s ‘problems’ account for nearly all of media attention, although when measured in absolute terms, they don’t have real problems anymore. (DT2/2018)

With belligerent statements of feminists and women—often used as synonyms—intentionally ignoring men’s issues, the respondents built an image of feminism as an enemy of ‘real equality’. The data contained several references to a (fictitious) past of ‘traditional’ gender order that has been ruined by the feminist agenda (see Saresma, 2017). Following Blais and Dupuis-Déri (2012), men were positioned to be in crisis due to the ‘toxic feminism’ in society. This was built on exaggerated affective descriptions of how men, especially young men, are ‘always’ or ‘only’ seen as harmful and problematic, which has created an atmosphere where they need to be ashamed or sorry for being men. Furthermore, both data sets contained similar repeated notions of feminists only caring about men’s issues when they become a problem for women, or at least are ‘conveniently framed as women’s problems’, casting men as marginalized figures in public discourse.

This disregard and contempt of men’s issues from society was seen to weaken the mental health of young men. In the Reddit discussions, feminism was seen as widespread and infiltrated into every aspect of society, including most media and politics, leading to men’s inequal treatment. In the survey answers, men’s perceived inequality was attributed more to men’s systemic discrimination in contemporary society, positioning men as the new gender victims. Furthermore, misogyny permeated the survey responses more explicitly, where ‘women’ were repeatedly identified—alongside feminism and societal attitudes—as the root cause of young men’s ill-being. On the one hand, the answers echoed a sense of being excluded and recurring concern about the perceived lack of public discussion about men’s ill-being. On the other hand, this victim rhetoric positioned individual men’s grievances against feminist critiques, mobilizing sympathy towards men and diverting attention from structural inequalities that maintain gender hierarchies. Both data sets revealed striking similarities in how feminism was predominantly understood as a homogenous ‘anti-men’ movement, either as actively silencing anyone who acknowledges men’s issues or as a reason why men’s issues are not publicly discussed, since they are not the primary focus of feminism. By framing the feminist movements as inherently discriminatory and unnecessary, this rhetoric can be seen, echoing Chouliaraki (2021), as the use of power and a tactical claim to victimhood, aiming to silence and delegitimize those who acknowledge gender equality issues in ‘egalitarian’ Finland.

In the dominant view, everything evil in the world is caused by a white man, and that cannot be corrected. Therefore, a white man is the most inferior thing in today’s society. When the quality of public debate is like this, I wonder what it feels like to young men or boys. (Q/2020)

[A reason for the potential deterioration of young men’s mental health is] feminism and the oppression of men’s rights, makes you feel like you should be ashamed of being a man. (Q/2020)

This discourse, exemplified in the extracts above, illustrated how feminists were seen to portray men and masculinity as inherently bad and especially ‘white, heterosexual men’ as the root cause of countless problems, often implicating that the category of ‘men’ mainly applies to white, heterosexual men. This victim rhetoric, distinctive in both data sets, also displayed a strongly misinterpreted understanding of the concept of privilege, as if privilege would mean that one never has any problems or obstacles in life. Claiming men as privileged was seen to place them as responsible to manage their problems on their own without help from others or society. This type of understanding of privilege evoked affective potential for rage and resentment, mobilized towards the feminist movement. The affective descriptions of neglect across both data sets were utilized to justify and strengthen the anti-feminist discourses as factual, demonstrating the circular effects of affect and discourse (Wetherell, 2012).

Many respondents also criticized the tendency to attribute men’s problems to their personal qualities and behaviour, if they get recognized at all. This can be interpreted as critique towards therapeutic culture, which emphasizes individual solutions over broader social contexts.

What really bothers me about this [article about men’s well-being not being women’s responsibility] is the ‘feminist’ perspective in which men are once again blamed for the challenges they face. Put another way, men are faulty, and their lack of skills is the root of their issues. (DT1/2023)

However, the individualized focus we interpreted from the data was seen to apply only to men. The respondents perceived women’s issues to be addressed as structural gender equality questions that are considered a matter of collective responsibility. Consequently, the data accentuated an urgent need to recognize men’s mental health as a societal equality issue, while paradoxically most of the articles linked to Reddit did exactly that. The respondents described how the social norms around ‘traditional’ masculinity limit men’s possibilities and willingness to address topics such as mental health, especially publicly. Thus, both data sets included explicit declarations that feminists should take care of men’s problems, presented as an act for equality. This way, feminists were paradoxically positioned to blame for and to solve men’s issues. Simultaneously, feminists were often positioned as ‘the other’, highlighting their partiality towards or ignorance of the nuances of men’s experiences and challenges in society.

Both data sets also contained some critique towards the gendered oppositions and anti-feminist rhetoric the respondents had observed in society. On Reddit this was frequently brought up as a response to other commenters and often backed with a statement that the writer himself is a man and a feminist. The survey answers mainly criticized the opposition of men’s and women’s issues, whereas in Reddit, men were seen to victimize themselves and to purposefully misinterpret feminists who are raising awareness of the problems that influence everyone. The respondents considered this as a way to hinder the awareness of the real issues men face in everyday life.

Rather than using every issue affecting men as a weapon against feminism, perhaps we could strive to address the root reasons of marginalization and do something about it? (DT2/2018)

Interpreting things in way that justifies your hatred of the group you hate is part of today’s culture. (DT16/2023)

The pervasive framing of the feminist movement as the reason for young men’s ill-being and victim positions exemplifies Berlant’s (2011) cruel optimism, as it created a fond attachment to a ‘traditional’ gender order where the limited, conservative ideas of gender are seen as a source for happiness and a simpler life. This way, the fictitious past of ‘traditional’ gender hierarchy becomes a happy object (Ahmed, 2010), seen as hindered by the contemporary ideals of equality and pursued through the condemnation of feminism as unnecessary and harmful. As cruel optimism maintains ‘an attachment to a significantly problematic object’ (Berlant, 2011, p. 24), the ‘traditional’ gender order becomes a form of cruel optimism, governed by the fear of losing masculinity and power and privileges historically associated with it (see Allan, 2018), as this attachment tends to cultivate rage and resistance towards gender equality and maintain an old-fashioned, restrictive image of ‘masculine men’. The idealized past is portrayed as a solution to contemporary uncertainties, decontextualizing the precarities of a neoliberal, competitive society (Brown, 2019; Brunila & Ylöstalo, 2020) and placing blame on feminists and their strive for gender equality.

Feminized Mental Health and Gender Essentialism

In this section, we examine how mental health discourses and services were viewed as inherently gendered as feminine, aimed at women or minorities—a group constructed as excluding men—and to oversimplify men’s issues. Utilizing a gendered logic of mental health, this discourse reproduced essentialist ideas of gender and masculinity, directing focus towards gendered oppositions. While the survey data contained more explicit references to mental health services due to the nature of the questions, similar notions of gendered differences in emotional expression emerged across both data sets.

This discourse revolved around the perception that nobody cares about men’s mental health, as media was seen to treat men unequally and portray women as ‘more affected by mental health’. Both data sets displayed collective frustration towards the affective rhetoric utilized when men’s mental health is discussed in public. This included descriptions of experts laughing at men’s suicides on TV, aggressive and accusatory talk about ‘marginalized, violent men’, ‘shouting’ about incels, patriarchy or ‘men who just slack off and do nothing for themselves or the society’. This was seen to elicit gendered shame when discussing mental health, as especially young men were seen mostly as an object of ridicule or blame when their issues were publicly addressed. These encounters evoked emotional interpretations of how men’s problems are not considered as important as women’s or minorities’, positioning men as marginalized in the public discourses of mental health.

Women’s problems are everyone’s problems, but men’s problems are their own. (Q/2020)

The debate is aggressive and blames men. Men are always portrayed as the culprits and the threat, ‘marginalized violent men, or violent alcoholic men’. Or something similar. (Q/2020)

Youth mental health in general was seen as a repeated topic in public debate, yet this debate was understood as not including men, which suggests that young men were seen as a separate group from other young people, with separate problems. This notion was often explained by claims of the ‘current trend’ of equality, regarded to not encompass men. Simultaneously, some respondents across both data sets stated how they would not want to detract attention from ‘women or minorities’ but hope for more public discourse explicitly about men’s mental health. However, there was an inclination to express mere frustration over the perceived state of public discourse, illustrating a strong either–or approach.

Some respondents noted how young men’s mental health has risen as a topic in media discussions, but they were viewed to often underestimate and simplify issues.This discourse often rested on exaggerated affective rhetoric of the media ‘only’ or ‘always’ talking about violence or other ‘side-effects’, rather than addressing the causes of men’s mental health issues or their impact on men themselves. The affects of frustration and anger were employed to provoke sympathy towards men and mobilized especially against the media. The survey answers were more aggressively against the media, containing claims of media’s misandry and problem-centred ways of talking about men. In the Reddit comments, the discussion was more nuanced, including more reflections about the ways men’s problems are already acknowledged, but pointing out shortcomings in current discussions. In both data sets, the media discourses of men’s issues were seen to denigrate men, their needs and the diversity of men, as the most prevalent issue discussed in the media was regarded to be men’s need for (heterosexual) sex. In the Reddit data, many commenters discussed how this homogenous narrative of men’s needs and sexuality works to construct a normative picture of men, which the respondents saw to belittle men and to produce an idea of men seeing women as inequal ‘objects’.

Although the respondents critiqued the perceived normative media representations of men, there was a strong tendency throughout both data sets to accentuate an understanding of gender as a binary division between men and women. Affective discourses appealing to taken-for-granted differences between men and women were utilized to establish essentialist, hierarchical ideas of gender.

Men’s mental health issues manifest themselves in another way. To simplify, men get self-destructive when they are depressed, whereas women cry and have a difficult time getting out of bed in the morning. (DT5/2023)

The unfortunate fact is that services provided by women are not what men generally need. Men need activities organized by sensible men for each other, while activities organized by women are often seen by men as pointless dabbling that lacks meaning. But of course, it’s better than nothing. (Q/2020)

As such, this theme involved an interesting paradox, as ‘men’s problems’ were seen to adhere to all men, casting men as a homogenous group, despite the critique towards this kind of rhetoric in public discourse. Simultaneously, the discursive practices placing men as the opposite of women and minorities worked to construct a normative idea of a man as someone who is not a part of any minority group, excluding, for example, men of colour and trans or gay men from the conversation (see Hearn, 2015; Rossi, 2015).

The gendered discourses of mental health, paired with the expectations from society, were deemed to position men outside of both the mental health discussions and the opportunity to seek help. In line with previous research (Courtenay, 2000; Tähkä et al., 2024; Valkonen & Hänninen, 2013), this notion was built on references to ‘traditional ideals’ of masculinity that prevent men from talking about their issues or from even recognizing their problems. The situation was explicitly described as unfortunate, unnecessary and frustrating, and these affective discourses were utilized to place blame on both men themselves and the society around them. Especially in the survey answers, this rhetoric was often employed to position men as victims of a larger entity outside of themselves, which neglects men’s agency in the reproduction of masculinities (see Waling, 2019). In the Reddit data, young men were positioned as more agentic in upholding this ‘traditional’ image of being a man, especially in their homosocial relationships. Concurrently, many Reddit comments constructed men as the ones who should initiate the discussion about and change in the societal expectations of masculinity. However, in both data sets, the participants described the pressure from society to cause men to be unable to challenge gender norms or take care of themselves.

Seems reasonable that since culture does its best to prevent the other gender from expressing emotions, it is difficult for this gender to do so. (DT38/2018)

What is deemed suitable for men is influenced by the traditional perception of men, and seeking help is not currently a part of that. (DT9/2022)

These discourses that we interpreted from the data were used to mobilize affects of resentment towards the contemporary mental health services for disregarding men and not addressing the (assumed) differences between genders. Echoing Salmenniemi and Kemppainen (2020), well-being was constructed as a domain of women, cultivating affective rhetoric of victimhood and negligence. In the survey data, most services were seen to be directed at women and girls, or provided by women who could not understand men’s needs. The need for the service provider to be the same gender works to again accentuate the idea of gender as the most important factor in a person’s lived experiences, not taking into account other intersectional differences and positions. Moreover, especially in the Reddit discussions, men were also portrayed as ‘bad customers’ of mental health services—understood as individuals who do not seek help, fail to seek it early enough or do not respond to the help offered—because of the pressure to conform to ‘traditional’ ideals of masculinity, which was assumed to also influence the gendered statistics of mental health services. Following Olsson and Lauri (2022), this suggests that a part of idealized masculinity in contemporary Finland is aligned with the ability to express emotions and vulnerability. However, the difficulties to fit into this new norm elicit affective descriptions of suffering and exclusion, employed as an evidence of men’s victim positions in society.

Both data sets also contained critical remarks towards the gendered oppositions in these discourses. With sarcastic and humorous notions, the gendered perspectives were constructed as unnecessary, as everyone’s mental health was seen to be failing. This discourse strongly echoed therapeutic culture, often viewing the decline of youth mental health as self-evident, emphasizing the importance of individualized services and measures to improve it, but to leave out unnecessary gendering.

In this theme, mental health was constructed as a happy object (Ahmed, 2010) that directs actions towards constantly tending to it. However, achieving this happy object was seen to be hindered by the feminized discourses and services of mental health that ignore men-specific needs and by men’s own behaviour stemming from societal expectations of ‘traditional’ masculinity, highlighting a gendered logic of addressing mental health. As the continuous self-optimizing, promoted by the neoliberal, therapeutic culture, decontextualizes problems from their societal circumstances and requires that individuals are never truly happy with themselves (see Nehring & Röcke, 2023), seeking the happy object of mental health becomes a form of Berlant’s (2011) cruel optimism. As our analysis shows, the gendered logic of mental health can cultivate frustration and disappointment and, despite the criticism of normative representations of men in public discourse, can direct focus towards essentialist notions of masculinity and binary oppositions between genders instead of the societal condition and normativities around gender, manhood or mental health (see Blais & Dupuis-Déri, 2012; Brown, 2019; Rossi, 2015).

Conclusion

Our research shows that the typical affects circulating in online discussions about men’s inequality and mental health display the rhetoric of the manosphere, gaining prominence in the echo chambers of the internet, but expanding beyond them, as a similar rhetoric was visible in the survey answers. The two data sets demonstrate how the affective rhetoric of men’s discrimination is not isolated to one phenomenon or discussion but is utilized in regard to a variety of topics connected to men’s positions in society. Furthermore, the misogynistic ideas and anti-feminist rhetoric are taking on new forms on new platforms and gaining new prominence by intertwining with the discourses of therapeutic culture and a gendered logic of mental health.

The cultural norm of attending to one’s mental health—highlighted in Western therapeutic societies—provides a fertile ground for anti-feminist rhetoric with a portrayal of men’s mental health struggles mainly as a result of societal neglect. Therapeutic culture fosters an individualized, self-improvement-driven approach to well-being, accentuating emotional expression and psycho-emotional vulnerability as key aspects of a ‘healthy’ masculine identity. However, our findings suggest that this cultural emphasis creates tensions for men who struggle to reconcile ‘traditional’ ideals of masculinity with the normative expectations of emotional openness and self-care. Therefore, therapeutic culture plays a pivotal role in shaping contemporary understandings of masculinity and mental health, especially for young men who must navigate the discrepancy between being a masculine and therapeutic subject, the increasing social uncertainty, and the liberal and political agendas of equity and inclusion (see Brown, 2019; Roberts, 2018).

Drawing upon our research findings, we argue that the contradictions between ‘traditional’ masculinity and therapeutic culture’s emphasis on mental health can take the form of what Berlant (2011) calls cruel optimism, reinforcing binary gender hierarchies and essentialist views of masculinity rather than improving men’s well-being. When men’s mental health is tied to two contradictory happy objects—traditional masculinity and therapeutic subjectivity—these affective attachments keep men invested in both ideals despite their incompatibility, leading to a persistent crisis narrative that places men as victims of both masculinity and gender equality. Rather than critically examining these attachments, the affective circulation of resentment amplifies the perception of men’s disadvantage and redirects frustration towards those perceived as blocking access to either ideal—feminists, women or feminized mental health services.

On the one hand, this framing positions men’s happiness as inherently separate from gender equality, assuming that men’s well-being can only be achieved in opposition to it. On the other hand, it may reinforce normative ideas that ultimately work against men’s well-being, instead of for it. As a result, men’s well-being can become an object characterized by cruel optimism, since it not only distracts from addressing structural inequalities but also keeps men tied to a future that sustains, rather than alleviates, their distress.

Furthermore, the gendered logic of mental health both leads to a sense of exclusion among men and elicits anti-feminist reactions, upholding the cultural stereotype of the ‘miserable Finnish man’ (Hearn & Lattu, 2002) as a counterpart to Finnish women, who are seen as the beneficiaries of ‘egalitarian’ Finland. It also exemplifies how adhering to a fixed binary understanding of gender can make it difficult to associate any qualities considered feminine, such as emotional expression or tending to one’s mental health, with men.

Consequently, the contemporary emphasis on emotional suffering and commodified narratives of victimhood as a means of gaining visibility (Chouliaraki, 2021) can reproduce gendered power structures rather than disrupt them, while also obscuring the intersectional differences that shape men’s diverse experiences of the world. Based on our analysis, we suggest that looking beyond gender as a binary and focusing more on intersectional approaches to human subjectivity, we could open a more nuanced perspective towards societal issues, such as mental health. Furthermore, addressing these challenges requires critically examining how therapeutic discourses shape gendered expectations and exploring ways to integrate collective, inclusive and structural perspectives into mental health discussions.