‘Happy wives, happy social lives?’ Men are more emotionally disconnected than women – what can be done about it?

Many of us are worried about loneliness and isolation, and both decade-old^[1] and recent data^[2] suggest they impact men more than women.

Loneliness predicts health outcomes including early mortality^[3], greater psychological distress^[4], and more cardiovascular, metabolic and neurological problems^[5].

New research also links loneliness to more intolerant attitudes towards women^[6].

These findings raise concerns over the causes and impacts of men’s loneliness and isolation.

A deep dive into loneliness

I recently analysed more than 50 indicators from a decade of data collected by the Australian Social Attitudes Survey^[7], from 2011–12, 2015–16, 2017–18, and 2022–23.

My statistical models produced results for (self-identified) men and women, after controlling for the impacts of age, employment and partner status.

I confirmed that Australian men are more likely to be socially and emotionally disconnected than women. I also found some reasons why this might be the case.

I found men appear to focus their emotional energies primarily on their nuclear families and partners. Consequently, they over-rely on their female partners for intimate support and develop more distant, limited and transactional relationships with other people – and other men.

Men are more emotionally disconnected

The data show men continue to lack emotional support on a range of indicators. This puts them at greater risk of health impacts and potentially encourages more toxic attitudes towards women.

A significantly greater proportion of men than women reported:

• receiving no support from their closest friend
• receiving fun/practical advice over emotional support from close friends
• having less contact with a close friend
• not having anyone for emotional support
• not feeling “very close” to their closest friend
• not feeling “love” as their most commonly experienced emotion in the last week.

Men have more distant, transactional relationships

Why are men in this situation?

Masculinity roles are clearly influential.

Traditional masculinity encourages men to appear capable, controlled and independent, avoid displays of “vulnerable” emotions or male-to-male affection (like hugging, touch or crying), and embrace the hetero-normative ideal of male provision and leadership.

Such norms have been found to constrain male intimacy by disallowing vulnerability^[8].

My data show men tend to develop looser, transactional ties with more distant people. This may reduce the quality of the connection and its potential to reduce loneliness.

I have found men are more likely than women to:

• think it is OK to befriend someone just because they’ll make a “useful” contact
• feel obligated to repay favours immediately (foregoing longer-term connections)
• be kind to others because they “value doing the right thing”, rather than because they empathically connect with or care about the person
• give and receive kindness from strangers (rather than more familiar people)
• seek help with household jobs from more distant family or friends
• seek practical support (money, advice) from private and commercial sources (rather than friends or family)
• not seek help from family or friends for emotional, sickness or care issues.

This means many men retain an individualist masculine desire to remain emotionally aloof.

Appearing in control but becoming dependent?

So where do men turn for intimate, emotional connection?

Most often, their families.

Prior studies show partnered men are less lonely than single men^[9]. My data show men revere the nuclear family institution and the core supportive role of women and female partners.

Men are more likely than women to:

• believe having children increases their social standing
• believe family is more important than friends
• rely on family over friends for support
• have mixed-gender friendships (in contrast to womens’ predominately female friendships)
• see their (predominantly female) partner as their closest friend
• emotionally support their (predominantly female) partner ahead of supporting others.

However, the masculine desire to be a “good nuclear family man” can both support and impede^[10] men’s social connection.

Partnered men might feel less lonely but that doesn’t mean they give or gain sufficient emotional support from their nuclear families.

My data show men are less likely than women to:

• plan or organise social and family activities
• have at least weekly contact with non-nuclear family or friends
• emotionally support their friends, family or children ahead of their partners
• have their partner support them ahead of others (women were more likely to support their children first).

This raises several issues.

If men cling to the notion that their primary role is to provide for and support their (female) partner – while she in turn emotionally supports everyone else – they risk becoming personally isolated through diminished networks and outmoded expectations.

In this context, men who believe they should earn more than their partners are lonelier^[11] than other men.

It also risks pushing the burden of maintaining social and emotional connections onto women and partners^[12], and men becoming socially and emotionally dependent on them.

And it can “bake in” hetero-normative family-to-family interactions (organised by female partners) as the most “legitimate” form of socialising for men.

This can be highly exclusionary for LGBTQIA+ people, along with single men and single fathers, who register among the highest rates of loneliness in Australia^[13].

How can men become more emotionally connected?

Feelings shouldn’t be seen as just a “female thing”^[14].

Younger men’s more inclusive masculine attitudes can allow them to subvert the “rules” of masculinity^[15], express emotion and embrace “bromances”^[16].

Men can also connect emotionally with other men through jokes and humour^[17] and participating in shared activities that allow incidental communication^[18], like Men’s Sheds.

The following initiatives may well help men broaden their intimate networks beyond the nuclear family. We could:

• help men into caring roles through more family friendly employment and care-leave policies^[19]
• support initiatives such as Movember Men in Mind^[20] that encourage men to seek help, and improve their emotional expression and support skills
• encourage partnered, heterosexual men to broaden and diversify their intimate networks beyond the nuclear family bubble, and be more inclusive of single men, single fathers, and LGBTQIA+ people. Men’s Table initiatives^[21] could be of great value here
• encourage the development of more online safe spaces^[22] to form intimate bonds while avoiding toxic online masculine spaces.

References

1. ^{^} decade-old (theconversation.com)
2. ^{^} recent data (www.relationshipsnsw.org.au)
3. ^{^} early mortality (journals.sagepub.com)
4. ^{^} psychological distress (hqlo.biomedcentral.com)
5. ^{^} cardiovascular, metabolic and neurological problems (www.nature.com)
6. ^{^} more intolerant attitudes towards women (bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com)
7. ^{^} Australian Social Attitudes Survey (www.acspri.org.au)
8. ^{^} by disallowing vulnerability (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
9. ^{^} less lonely than single men (bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com)
10. ^{^} can both support and impede (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
11. ^{^} are lonelier (theconversation.com)
12. ^{^} women and partners (www.harpersbazaar.com)
13. ^{^} the highest rates of loneliness in Australia (www.relationships.org.au)
14. ^{^} “female thing” (www.harpersbazaar.com)
15. ^{^} subvert the “rules” of masculinity (theconversation.com)
16. ^{^} “bromances” (theconversation.com)
17. ^{^} jokes and humour (theconversation.com)
18. ^{^} that allow incidental communication (theconversation.com)
19. ^{^} family friendly employment and care-leave policies (theconversation.com)
20. ^{^} Movember Men in Mind (meninmind.movember.com)
21. ^{^} Men’s Table initiatives (thephn.com.au)
22. ^{^} safe spaces (theconversation.com)