There's something that I've been noticing and bothered by in how gender issues are talked about in policy, funding, and program design.
We don’t frame men’s issues the same way we frame women’s issues.
When women face certain issues, we’ve finally become good at first looking at the systemic and structural factors that contribute to them. Structural biases in power, access, legal protection, etc.
With men's issues though, I've been struck by how we take a different approach. We tend to look first at their behaviour and their norms. How men are raised. Masculinity expectations. Risk-taking. Reluctance to ask for help. And very often the explanation points to “patriarchy” or “toxic” male gender norms, which ends up putting the cause of the problem (in society's mind) close to the people experiencing it.
Same topic — issues that a certain gender faces — but two very different lenses.
This has a huge impact on how we think about the issues and how we deal with them (or not). Structural problems tend to draw institutional responses to support at a societal level. Men's issues tend to calls for mindset or behavioural changes in men themselves.
One gender gets protected funding and specialist services. The other gets told “Men need to change.”
This is a blind spot in our collective consciousness. And if the aim is to build a better future for all of us, blind spots need to be looked at and spoken about, rather than defending frameworks or gendered interests.
This pattern show up across multiple areas.
Take gender-based violence. The definition on paper is gender-neutral — violence based on someone's gender. In practice though (and specified even within the UN's SGD 5), the model, services, funding streams, and messaging are built almost exclusively around women as victims (and men as perpetrators). Male victims exist (and the data supports the existence of a substantial minority of 10-50% depending on the category), but they are largely considered as non-existent as far as programs or funding are concerned, if considered at all.
Or take mental health. Male suicide rates are significantly higher in most countries. This is old news. But listen to how it’s explained. The dominant story is about masculine "norms" such as emotional suppression, pride, or refusal to seek help. There are some truths to it, and there are myths (especially about asking for help - the vast majority of male suicide victims contacted intervention services). But notice the framing: the suffering is real, yet the cause is located primarily inside male culture and male behavior, not in societal structures or institutional gaps.
You see a similar split in education discussions. When girls fall behind, the conversation is about systemic barriers and access. When boys fall behind — which is now happening, and worsening, in several developed countries — the framing becomes motivation, discipline, and culture. Same outcome. Different mental framing.
If we talk about income gap, the public narrative lags behind real facts. In many developed economies, pay differences for similar roles are virtually non-exisitent. The only major divergence lies between mothers and non-mothers, due to career interruptions and the fact that mothers work less. Yet the headline framing often still defaults to discrimination-at-pay, because that fits the established structural story better.
In reality, at the lower end of the income distribution, women out-earn men. In female-dominated jobs, women are overrepresented (notice how this is a truism) and marginally more likely to be favoured for senior roles. In the UK, US, Canada and Australia, women under 30 now out-earn men in the same age cohort. These are real numbers, but they’re rarely described as gendered economic issues. When men earn less, the explanation usually points to choice, not structural issues.
As a society, we let men down by not looking at structual inequity. We have grown up with the idea of "the patriarchy" and that men are advantaged over women, so much that we have become blind to structural inequities that men face.
So what would a more balanced framing actually look like?
- Firstly, we would apply the same standards across the board. Some gender-linked problems are structural. Some are cultural. Some are behavioral. We should look at all of these factors for everyone, not changing depending on which sex is experiencing the issue.
- This would also mean considering men’s issues as gendered where the patterns are clearly gendered instead of scattering them across unrelated policy buckets. Male suicide, workplace death, violent victimization, educational disengagement, family court outcomes, social isolation — these are not random. They show consistent gender skew across countries. When that happens, we should look at what structural societal factors are contributing to these issues, as much as we would do if women faced these issues because of their gender.
- We should also be more inclusive in our approach to gender programs. At the international level, most gender funding and programs that include boys or men are designed mainly to improve outcomes for women and girls. Basically train men to treat women better. Men are engaged as partners, allies, or leverage points. This is a good thing to do, but there are rarely any programs to support men themselves as the affected group.
We also need to talk about male norms with more care and respect. Part of the issue is that society often speaks of masculinity in terms of risk and toxicity. We should also highlight strength, responsibility, protectiveness, endurance, craftsmanship, fatherhood, service, etc. Every culture depends on healthy masculine traits. If we only talk about masculinity as a problem source, we further embed these biases in our collective consciousness and systemic structures.
Coaching
In psychology, we have become more aware that people don’t operate in isolation. They operate inside systems. Family systems. Economic systems. Cultural systems. Institutional systems. Structural forces shape behavior more than individual patterns or willpower.
Coaching has been moving in the same direction. We’re far more aware now of how strongly social and structural conditions affect mental health and human thriving. Stress load, economic insecurity, social roles, status expectations, belonging, exclusion — these are not side variables. They are often central drivers.
We know we need to apply this lens and be aware of systemic factors when we work with clients. I’m suggesting we bring that same maturity of thinking into how we talk about men’s issues.
Not to remove personal responsibility. Not to deny agency. But to look at the whole person within a whole system. Because when the frame is too narrow, the solutions are partial.
As we continue to hold the idea that women’s struggles are shaped by systemic structural inequalities, we can hold the same possibility for men, without turning it into a contest and without dismissing anyone else’s reality.
Why I’m writing about men's issues
You may wonder why a coach is writing about systemic issues that men face.
I work with men who are caring, thoughtful, and trying. Many of them are carrying pressure, confusion, and a sense that something about their experience isn’t fully recognised by society. When their struggles keep getting framed as personal failure or because they are a man, this limits their potential. We need to bring greater awareness and acceptance of the structural issues that men face.
I'm also commited to growing a more inclusive, loving society. Part of this process is being willing to look at what isn’t being looked at. Questions that feel slightly uncomfortable even within professions that pride themselves on awareness. This feels like one of those areas. Especially as we are a profession in which women are the majority.
I see this as shining light — not to accuse or provoke for provocation's sake — but to help us see more clearly. And seeing more clearly is the first step toward acting more wisely.