The Myth of Men as Simple Creatures

One of the most persistent myths about gender is that men are emotionally simple. Manosphere bros promote it subtly, seemingly benevolent sexists promote it more enthusiastically, as if to excuse men for acting dumb, parents tell it to little girls everywhere urging them to be more understanding of boys because that’s just how they are.

Even some women who describe themselves as feminists often use it because it’s a good explanation for the obnoxious ways men behave, and a good vehicle to vent our collective frustration.

This claim that men are simple creatures is often presented as common sense. The idea appears everywhere. Men supposedly want straightforward things, don’t overthink things as much (or barely think them at all if it’s anything relational), and supposedly don’t read between the lines. Men allegedly don’t analyze relationships, or dwell on interpersonal dynamics, or concern themselves with emotional nuance in the way women do.

“He just doesn’t think about these things.”

“Men are simpler.”

“Men aren’t wired that way.”

“Women are emotional. Men are practical.”

It’s remarkable how popular this narrative is, in spite of lacking evidence to support it, and how different political groups are meeting across the isle to agree on it: misogynists because it allows men to go on during the bare minimum and feminists because it explains why men are behaving in vexing and completely obnoxious ways.

But men are not simpler than women by default.

They are just less expected or pressured to do emotional work. Just as people also like to perpetuate the myth of women’s intuition as its logical counterpart. It’s convenient to think of women as endowed with magical intuitive ability because then you don’t have to face the fact that society trains them to be observant.

Just as it’s convenient to think of men as simple creatures because then you don’t have to face how society allows them to be simple and still get through life easily.

Human beings are social animals: human survival has always depended on navigating relationships, alliances, conflicts, hierarchies, cooperation, trust, rejection, belonging, and status. These rather intricate social concerns are not exclusively female concerns. They are human concerns.

So why are we still focusing so much on whether men possess emotional complexity, or confidently claiming that they don’t? The real question is why societies have become so invested in pretending that men are simple creatures, except when they do a sudden turn-about and claim that they are also natural leaders. Something doesn’t add up.

The Difference Between Having Emotions and Managing Emotions

One reason the myth persists is that people often confuse emotional experience with emotional labor. These are not the same thing.

To say that someone experiences emotions is simply to acknowledge that they have an emotional life. To say that someone performs emotional labor means they actively monitor, interpret, regulate, communicate, and manage emotions within social relationships.

A person can possess a rich emotional world while performing very little emotional labor. I’m thinking now of all the male artists and writers in history whose praises we still sing today, who showed amazing emotional depth in their work, while also mistreating and exploiting their wives who did everything for them so the grand geniuses could just focus on their art.

This distinction helps explain a paradox that appears throughout discussions of gender. Men are frequently described as emotionally uncomplicated. Yet many of the same men experience intense anger, shame, pride, jealousy, resentment, humiliation, anxiety, loneliness, insecurity, grief, competitiveness, fear of rejection, and fear of failure.

These are not simple emotions, they’re deeply human emotions.

What often differs is not the existence of emotional complexity but the degree to which individuals are expected to analyze it, communicate it, and take responsibility for managing it.

Sociological research has repeatedly found that women carry a disproportionate share of emotional management and mental load within relationships, families, and workplaces.

The result is a cultural illusion. Women appear more emotionally sophisticated because they are expected and pushed to engage in emotional work more frequently. Men appear simpler because much of that work has historically been outsourced to women and continues to be outsourced to them today, especially as part of ‘traditional’ gender roles.

Emotional Outsourcing and the Feminization of Emotional Labor

One of the least discussed forms of gender inequality involves what might be called emotional outsourcing. Modern societies often encourage men to rely heavily on female partners for emotional support while simultaneously discouraging emotional vulnerability with other men.

Researchers consistently find that women maintain larger emotional support networks and are more likely to discuss personal problems with friends and family members. Men, by contrast, often depend disproportionately on romantic partners for emotional intimacy.

This study, for example, documents significant differences in how men and women maintain close friendships and emotional support networks.

This creates an arrangement in which women frequently become emotional hubs and official representatives for their couple. They help partners process conflict, interpret social situations, navigate interpersonal difficulties, maintain family relationships, and regulate emotional distress.

When this labor becomes normalized, the resulting competence is often mistaken for innate female nature. Women are said to possess ‘natural’ emotional intelligence and men are presented as ‘simple creatures’ that you can’t expect too much from.

The real explanation is that women are expected to practice it because it’s expected of their gender. <