Loneliness Is Not Gender-Specific

 

By Frank Filocomo

The loneliness epidemic has hit us all hard, regardless of our immutable characteristics: race, gender, ethnicity...

While there has been talk of a "male loneliness epidemic," I've largely - if not completely - steered clear of using the term, for, from what I've read over the years, both men and women have been impacted. 

But, in the Left-wing outlet BuzzFeed - an unserious, clickbait-driven site that I honestly thought was now defunct - staffer Dannica Ramirez documents what the women of Reddit think about male loneliness. 

While some of the responses were thoughtful, drawing attention to the fact that men historically have been hesitant to open up to their friends and be vulnerable - most comments were nasty, saying that the male loneliness epidemic is largely "self-inflicted," with one user writing that "about 85% or more of the men complaining about it do it to themselves."

Another Reddit user wrote that "It's evidence that even men think most other men are not a joy to be around."

One commenter, however, wrote that "loneliness is something we’re all really struggling with, regardless of gender." 

That's exactly my feeling, too. From the data I've consumed - and, trust me, I've read a lot about this issue over the past few years - loneliness is an equal opportunity killer: it does not discriminate based on any single criterion. 

Thus, combating loneliness and social isolation ought to be a gender-inclusive battle, wherein both men and women can take actionable steps to foster community. 

The issue of loneliness need not be another point of division between the sexes; we have politics for that.

Let this be a joint struggle. 

How Men Lose Themselves in Relationships

 

By Christopher Turturro

Men need the companionship of the fairer sex to go through life, but they also need friends, particularly of the same sex, who function as indispensable support systems. 

My intention here is to address the role that men play in their own downfall when it comes to relationships, and what I've learned from my experience with dating.

Some men, it should be noted, are voluntarily stepping away from dating and marriage altogether due to financial and emotional concerns. They are, of course, free to make their own choices, and I would say the topic of conversation here doesn't much apply to them. Rather, I'm speaking to men who are lonely and looking for love. 

This is what I personally believe they should do to give themselves better chances.

Around the age of 30, people start to focus more on meeting a long-term partner and starting a family.

As a man who just recently turned 30, I've noticed many changes around me, especially in my circles. People start to have priority-shifts, different interests, and different goals. Life is no longer solely about careers, friendly get-togethers, and fun. Around the age of 30, people start to focus more on meeting a long-term partner and starting a family.

This is all a part of life. Generally speaking, it's what most people want to do: get married, start families, live happily ever after, etc. This is all fine and good, though I see a major issue with how men change their personality and entire identity when they date. 

Often when men start to date, their entire disposition changes: they neglect their friendships, hobbies fall by the wayside, and they make their whole personality about making their significant other happy. I vehemently disagree with this, and I'll tell you why. When someone meets you and takes an interest in you, they like you for who you are and the hobbies you have in life, whether that be reading, fitness, traveling, or whatever. So often men are completely willing to give it all up to make their wives/girlfriends happy. While doing this may come off as sweet and caring, it also shows that you have no backbone or structure and are willing to bend at any second to appease your partner at the expense of your friends.

Women do not respect that, and most often will find it unattractive (That's been my personal experience, and many others' I've witnessed). As a man, you need to be able to prioritize yourself and your needs in a healthy way, without being selfish. The truth is that there are some things that women will never understand when you try to speak to them about your issues, just as there are some things that us men won't be able to understand when our girlfriends try to speak with us about women-specific issues. This is why maintaining a good, healthy social circle is so beneficial: it provides us with a support system of like-minded individuals. Again, this is something women are phenomenal at, and men lack completely.

If you come to depend entirely on one person, you're in for a rude awakening if things fall through. 

I've also observed that tons of men are very afraid to live their life on their own. They feel the need to have a partner by their side every step of the way. They won't take time off and vacation alone, they won't go out and have a bite to eat alone, or basically explore life while single alone. All these things help you identify who you are, find what makes you happy, and give you stability to not solely lean on your partner as your entire source of happiness. If you come to depend entirely on one person, you're in for a rude awakening if things fall through. 

For whatever reason, tons of men just can't get this through their head, or perhaps they allow their partners to control certain aspects of their lives. Again, as a man, you have to be able to put your foot down and set standards and boundaries for yourself. 

Men, after all, deserve happiness, dignity, and the empowering feeling of independence and self-actualization. 

Christopher Turturro, born and raised in Brooklyn, NY, is an HVAC mechanic and 

U.S. Air Force veteran.

Southern Italy and Amoral Familism

 

By Frank Filocomo

Last week, I wrote the following article for RealClear Books & Culture: 

"Why America Must Not Turn into Southern Italy"

It's a provocative title, for sure, but I doubt many southern Italians would disagree with the thesis.  

In a nutshell: Americans are increasingly distrusting, not only of our institutions, but of each other, and societies that are typified by distrust - there is no better example than southern Italy - are stunted by the constraints of their own ethos. If America continues to abandon its Tocquevillian tradition, it will begin to look and feel more like southern Italy, and that's not a good thing.

From the article:

In our semiquincentennial year, Americans must look to southern Italy as a blueprint for what not to do. That is not to say that southern Italy is not breathtakingly beautiful (just Google images of Roccella Ionica, where my father was born), or that its inhabitants aren’t a good and decent people. It is to say, however, that their lack of institutional and neighborly trust, if adopted here, would further erode our country’s civic fabric.

Give it a read, and let me know what you think.

P.S. My friend, Madison, whom I met through her online series, Can it Third Place?, interviewed me for her Substack. You can read that here. 

Credit for above image: Kaye, George Frederick, 1914-2004. Italian peasant women cook on open fires while transport passes on 5th Army Front, southern Italy, World War II - Photograph taken by George Kaye. New Zealand. Department of Internal Affairs. War History Branch :Photographs relating to World War 1914-1918, World War 1939-1945, occupation of Japan, Korean War, and Malayan Emergency. Ref: DA-05233-F. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/22754865

Why Cultural Difference Matters

 

By Frank Filocomo

"Culture counts," writes Samuel Huntington in his widely-cited work, The Clash of Civilizations, "and cultural identity is what is most meaningful to most people."

This is indisputable. Our culture, whatever it might be, gives us a sense of greater belonging. Without it, we are nothing but a hodgepodge of free-floating, tetherless individuals. 

Thus, when disparate cultures encounter each other, there is often tension and conflict. And tension and conflict do not create fertile soil for civil society. 

In the U.S. and in Europe, unprecedented levels of non-Western immigration have fundamentally changed the cultural character and identity of Western countries. 

In Governing, Alan Ehrenhalt highlights this phenomenon:

There's no doubt that places affected by heavy in-migration are losing a civic culture that once was their leading source of pride. Old-timers walk down their town’s Main Street and hear conversations in languages they can’t understand. They are exposed to culinary customs they had never experienced before and confronted with foods that taste strange to them. There are new and unfamiliar religious practices. All of this is unsettling, to say the least, and for some long-time residents, a source of profound anxiety.

That isn't to say, of course, that there aren't profound benefits to cultural mixing. 

I was recently watching Concert for George, the live tribute to George Harrison from 2002. As a kid, I always loved the rendition of Harrison's The Inner Light, featuring Jeff Lynne of ELO on guitar and vocals, Anoushka Shankar on the sitar, and a traditional Indian ensemble behind them. 

I would describe that as a remarkably successful encounter between the East and West. If you haven't already experienced it, you're missing out.

Not all inter-cultural encounters, however, result in something beautiful. In fact, most don't. 

The reason for this is actually pretty simple: culture - which is defined by a people's norms, behaviors, traditions, and so on - vary from place to place. The West and non-West present us with two very different outlooks on life. 

For instance, Huntington writes that "both Westerners and non-Westerners point to individualism as the central distinguishing mark of the West." Few will actually debate this. "For East Asians," Huntington continues, "success is particularly the result of the East Asian cultural stress on the collectivity rather than the individual."

Such different temperaments, which are so deeply rooted, make coexistence difficult, if not nearly impossible. 

Some in academia have landed themselves in hot water for making such assertions. 

In a December 2021 interview with the great Glenn Loury, University of Pennsylvania Law School Professor Amy Wax asked the following about Asian students in academia: "Does the spirit of liberty beat in their breast?" 

Wax was underlining the cultural difference between Westerners, who have a long tradition of maximizing liberty and individual autonomy, and non-Westerners, who are much more deferential and collectivistic. 

In response to the interview, Theodore Ruger, then the dean of UPenn's law school, called Wax's remarks "xenophobic and white supremacist."

Wax, it should be noted, is Jewish and thus will probably not be welcomed at many so-called "white supremacist" meet-ups.

Amy Wax on The Glenn Show

And YouTuber Nick Shirley, who in December of 2025 shed light on the rampant Somali fraud in Minnesota, hasn't had an easy go of it either. Shirley, who made no racial claims, showed viewers what a non-Western takeover of a great American state looks like. In the video, the Somalis of Minnesota are referred to, by himself and locals, as "close knit." That is, they are insular, hostile to outsiders, and unwilling to assimilate to their host country. 

Shirley, in response to the video - which, to date, has accrued nearly 4 million views on YouTube and likely led to Governor Tim Walz suspending his reelection bid - was called a white supremacist and accused of creating "political propaganda."

The point: cultural difference is real, and calling it out is real dangerous. 

To be clear, both Western and non-Western temperaments have their strengths and weaknesses. This is not a battle of the cultures. That's not something I care to engage in. The bottom-line, though, is that making the distinction and articulating the drawbacks of multiculturalism shouldn't be taboo.