Hustle Culture Is Burning Men Out

This is part two of a five-part series entitled "The Silent Collapse of Men in the Smart Phone Era". It's based on a series of discussions I've had with men who are friends or relatives. The men's ages range from 23 - 51 years old. I'd love your feedback.

Nobody talks enough about what smartphones and social media are doing to men because male dysfunction usually gets disguised as “normal behavior.”

A man isn’t always crying when he’s depressed. Sometimes he’s just staring at sports clips for four hours, scrolling through millionaire lifestyles he’ll never reach, gambling on games he doesn’t care about, watching pornography instead of connecting with his partner, or mentally checking out while sitting three feet away from his family.

Modern men are not simply distracted. Many are emotionally sedated. Social media didn’t invent male insecurity, but it industrialized it.

Every day, men consume an endless stream of:

• richer men
• stronger men
• taller men
• more successful men
• men with luxury cars
• men with “perfect” relationships
• men claiming to make $20,000 a month doing nothing

After enough exposure, regular life starts feeling like failure.

A man with a decent job, loving children, and a stable home can suddenly feel inadequate because some influencer rented a Lamborghini for a weekend and filmed motivational speeches in front of it. Civilization, huh?

The internet constantly tells men:

• work harder
• sleep less
• grind more
• dominate
• never relax
• never be satisfied

Rest is treated like weakness.

Average men now feel guilty for having ordinary lives, even though most meaningful lives are ordinary. Raising children. Paying bills. Showing up consistently. Being dependable. None of those things trend online because stability is boring content.

The algorithm rewards extreme wealth, extreme anger, extreme fitness, extreme opinions...

Moderation doesn’t go viral. As a result, many men feel permanently behind in a race they never agreed to join.

Part 1: Pornography and Emotional Numbness

Part 3: Sleep Is Being Destroyed

Social Media's Favorite Sport Is Hating People

A couple of days ago, I watched a video of a fight inside of a sports bar. Nothing unusual there. Human beings have been arguing over alcohol, sports, and wounded pride since someone invented fermented fruit and competition.

But the video claimed the fight happened at a Walk-On's restaurant in Madison, Mississippi.

The people that were fighting were white.

The comment section immediately turned into what comment sections always become: a tribal war.

Some people used the video to criticize Madison. Others used it to defend Madison. 

Some tried to connect the behavior of two individuals to an entire city. Before long, people weren't discussing a fight anymore. They were discussing race, politics, morality, intelligence, crime, culture, and every other topic that social media can drag into a mud pit.

The funny thing is this: the video wasn't recorded at a Walk Ons restaurant in Madison. Heck, there isn't even a Walk Ons in Madison which leads me to believe this was originally posted by someone not even from the area. The video isn't even from Mississippi. It appears to be a two- or three-year-old video from a Buffalo Wild Wings in Hoover, AL. A fight that happened during March Madness years ago.

This seems to happen more and more every day.

Videos are constantly being shared with misleading locations, misleading dates, misleading context, or completely fabricated backstories. A fight in one state suddenly becomes proof of a social problem in another. An old video resurfaces as "breaking news." A random crime becomes evidence that an entire race, city, or political party is somehow defective.

And millions of people hit "share" without spending thirty seconds verifying any of it.

Why?

Because the truth is boring. The truth usually sounds something like this: "A small number of people behaved badly."

That's not exciting. What gets engagement is: "These people are all like this."

Social media rewards outrage the same way casinos reward gambling. The platform gets traffic. The creator gets clicks. The audience gets emotional stimulation. Everyone wins except society.

Around central Mississippi, there has long been tension between people in Madison and people in Jackson. Some residents of Madison point to crime and dysfunction in Jackson as evidence that Jackson is failing.

Some residents of Jackson point to examples of bad behavior in Madison and use them as evidence that Madison's self-image is undeserved.

Both groups spend enormous amounts of time collecting evidence against the other side. It's become less about solving problems and more about winning arguments. The internet has turned many people into amateur prosecutors. Nobody investigates their own side. Everyone investigates the opposition. 

A black person commits a crime. Someone posts it.

A white person gets arrested. Someone posts it.

A liberal says something foolish. Someone posts it.

A conservative says something foolish. Someone posts it.

Then thousands of people conclude that one example represents millions of people.

It's like seeing one bad driver in a Nissan Altima and deciding everyone who owns an Altima can't drive.

Yet people do it every day when race and politics are involved. Bad news grabs our attention. Negative information sticks in our memory.

We remember the insult more than the compliment. We remember the scandal more than the success story. We remember the fight more than the thousand ordinary interactions that happened peacefully that same day.

Social media algorithms understand this better than most psychologists. They know anger keeps people scrolling. They know resentment keeps people engaged. They know fear keeps people clicking. And they know that nothing spreads faster than content that tells people their enemies are worse than they imagined.

This is why your feed is full of outrage and rarely full of context. Most people don't want information.

They want confirmation. They want evidence that the people they already dislike are exactly as bad as they suspected.

A misleading video becomes useful because it reinforces an existing belief.

Once that happens, fact-checking becomes inconvenient.

The result is a society where everyone is carrying around a digital bag full of stories about how terrible the other side is.

Republicans. Democrats. Black Americans. White Americans. Men. Women. All have something.

Everyone is collecting grievances like Pokémon cards.

Meanwhile, millions of decent people from every race, political party, and neighborhood are living ordinary lives, going to work, raising children, helping neighbors, paying bills, and never appearing in a viral video.

But ordinary decency doesn't trend. Who wants to see that?

Closure Is Overrated in Breakups

We’ve all heard it — “I just need closure.” It sounds evolved. Grounded. Emotionally intelligent. But if we’re being honest, most of the time closure isn’t about healing. It’s about control.

It’s the quiet hope that if we can just get one more conversation, one more explanation, one more perfectly worded apology, the ending will feel different. Cleaner. Fairer. Less humiliating. We tell ourselves we want understanding, but what we really want is to edit the last chapter. We want to adjust the tone. Add context. Maybe even sneak in a plot twist where they suddenly realize our value.

Life doesn’t work like that.

Not every relationship gets a final speech. Not every breakup ends with mutual insight and cinematic clarity. Sometimes the lesson is the ending. Sometimes the way someone walks away is the explanation.

We struggle with that because incomplete narratives make us uncomfortable. Our brains crave resolution. We want the missing piece. The why. But good decision-making — the kind that actually leads to peace — requires tolerating ambiguity. It requires accepting that you may never fully understand someone else’s motives, and that you don’t actually need to.

You don’t need a beautifully structured apology to move forward. You don’t need them to admit they were wrong. You don’t need them to validate your version of events. What you need is acceptance — not of what they did, but of what is.

There’s a difference.

Chasing closure often means staying emotionally attached to someone who already showed you their character. We ignore what was demonstrated and obsess over what might be explained. But explanations don’t override behavior. If someone left carelessly, that carelessness is the closure. If they avoided hard conversations, that avoidance is the answer. If they chose convenience over commitment, believe the choice.

Here’s the part no one likes to admit: sometimes we seek closure because we want reassurance that we mattered. We want proof the relationship was real. But your worth was never dependent on their final text message. 

Peace doesn’t arrive in a perfectly crafted paragraph from them. It arrives in a decision from you.

The final decision to stop rereading old messages.
The final decision to stop rehearsing imaginary conversations.
The final decision to accept that not every story gets tied up neatly (see "The Sopranos").

Closure isn’t something they give you. It’s something you practice.

Most of the time, it looks less like a conversation — and more like moving on without one.

Then of course, some of you claim to want closure because you want one more argument.  LOL! That's a blog post for another day.