Men aren't actually 'allowed' to be angry

TheGuyWhoTalksShit · 2026-06-13T05:26:08+00:00

Anger is seen as threatening/toxic. Doesn't matter if you're not a violent person and don't direct your anger at innocent people, or if you're angry for completely justified reasons. Just being visibly angry around certain types of women is enough to get you labeled emotionally unstable.

Punder_man · 2026-06-13T09:36:32+00:00

Damned if we do, damned if we don't..

If we let our emotions out we are "Trauma Dumping" or "Saddling women with emotional labor"
If we bottle up our emotions we are exhibiting "Toxic Masculinity"

We literally can not win here.

Fantastic-Secret-744 · 2026-06-13T10:19:57+00:00

I don't want to be that person who brings in Love Island - but after watching an episode I was thinking the same thing. A black man has just been evicted from the island, and he was a pretty reactive person and maybe not as emotionally mature as the other contestants, and would be rude in his reactions. But a lot of the comments around him where that he had anger problems. For me, anger problems would be: throwing things, shouting, anger would be out of proportion to the problem - and he did none of these things. He would react straight away and sigh and get into arguments easily with others. Some people have pushed back on it because they didn't like the immediate linking of anger problems to a black man. But it just showed me that people really don't like any sign of anger/frustration from a man in social situations (society probably likes anger in a man in dangerous situations). I think at the moment we encourage women showing anger - which I agree with, if you feel angry you should be able to express it. I just think it would be really hard if I was a man and I knew that showing anger would have me labelled as having anger problems.

In another episode the guys were annoyed at some double standards by the girls, and as a result they went and sat away from them and didn't speak to them. The girls came over and said it was weird and pathetic and the things that they were annoyed about were embarrassing, and made no attempt to try and understand what they were annoyed about. It's like the guys weren't allowed to be annoyed at anything. Which kinda illustrated why the men didn't feel like approaching it head on - why would you want to air your issue with someone when you know you are going to get dismissed.

Made me realise how much men have to toe the line, which I don't think is good for anyone

GrandElemental · 2026-06-13T11:42:22+00:00

If anything, men get judged more for showing anger than women do. It's just that nobody says anything about it directly because they are afraid that the confrontation can turn violent, so the judgement is silent.

Karmaze · 2026-06-13T05:56:26+00:00

I wouldn't say it's anger. I think it's more inconvenient emotions period. As someone who grew up and still deals with a lot of shame and guilt for being male, I think in general there's a lot of stigma surrounding talking about it and having these feelings accepted.

Anger, like all other emotions is fine if it's productive and validating. That's the real answer. We're not allowed to have non-productive, non-validating emotions.

diagnosissplendid · 2026-06-13T07:17:59+00:00

This is an interesting take. I've always seen this as a trap: anger is both prohibited and the only emotion which doesn't emasculate us in other people's eyes.

Independent-Band-861 · 2026-06-13T12:54:57+00:00

Yeah, now that you mention it "anger is the only emotion men are allowed to show" sounds like smuggling in misandry into a conversation about male suffering, which is a pattern I see a lot: like "Oh, men aren't allowed to show emotion, huh? But men are angry, violent monsters so they're allowed ro show that aren't they?" It reminds me of how conversations about men's "emotional flaws" always has to come back to men: "men are emotionally stunted because of football coaches. Men learn not to listen because of sports where someone has to yell to get your attention." Meanwhile, when I bought into that discourse and got into my first relationships, these things were vectors of control and excuses for them to not have to take accountability: I must have been the bad communicator because I was the man, they didn't have to consider my feelings because women inherantly already must have because they are women, any argument got DARVO'd. I was emotionally abused by women, physically abused by women, and I come out of it and if I ever say I get "you sharing your story means you are silencing women", or female therapists saying I must not have trauma because I am a man, minimizing and minimizing. No, I'm not allowed to show anger, but when I show anger it can sometimes please people because it gives them an excuse to dehumanize me.

Powerful-Act3516 · 2026-06-13T12:02:59+00:00

"sharing your emotions" is often harmful instead of helpful. No wonder men won't do it even when they could.

Anger is one where it often makes more sense to show it around people (not as a "cry for help", etc, but because someone else did something or you're done keeping on the mask for others. The context where you cross that threshold into anger is one where you're more likely to be interacting with people. Different than sadness, guilt, and even being enamored, etc)

aslfingerspell · 2026-06-13T17:11:21+00:00

Thank you. It's such a cliche/redditism to say "The only emotion men are allowed to express is anger." but...no?

I work a public facing job that deals with people's problems. Men get anxious, insecure, cry, etc. all the time. We deal with tons of trauma and nobody comes to us if they're having a good day.

Do you know what gets security or police called?

Male anger.

zoonose99 · 2026-06-13T10:11:20+00:00

In the way that one prefers a sunny day, society as a whole, our economic system, and plenty of individuals would prefer if you crawled into a hole and died — they world doesn’t think about you, but if it did it would put you in the ground without a care.

We’re fodder. That’s just how it works. It’s not personal. Nobody’s giving out permission to feel emotions — the general rule is shut the fuck up. There are exceptions, of course, but only to reinforce the rule. (Notice how, when we do see an exception, the first instinct is hostility).

The main thing men here can learn from the boogeyman of feminism is that there’s a way to persist and thrive even when the world is happy to see you dead.

sunyata150 · 2026-06-13T16:31:18+00:00

Men are allowed to express anger and other emotions that validate gyno-centrism and misandry if expressed in a beneficial way for woman.

If a man gets angry at his partner because she broke his console then he will get demonized.
If a man gets angry and kills another man that tried to break into his home and sexually assault his wife then he will probably be praised for it.

HiggsFieldgoal · 2026-06-13T15:12:43+00:00

Paper sees rock.

Paper gets burned all the time.

Rock never seems to get burned.

So paper theorizes that rock must not get exposed to matches as much.

The riddle lies in the question: “why do girls dress sexy when they are not trying to attract men?”.

That might seem counterintuitive. It did to me. Eventually I figured it out. For a woman, feeling attractive was often a core pillar of their self-esteem, entirely removed from wanting to attract men.

That’s the point.

And that difference in perspective helps decode riddles like this.

The word “allowed” doesn’t mean the same thing. Allowed doesn’t mean “encouraged”. Allowed means “culturally considered normal”, reflecting on a sense of social pressure that is invisible to us.

I’ve sometime seen posts “why aren’t women allowed to have big noses”, or “why aren’t women allowed to have an amateur soccer team”.

And you look at those statements, and they sound nuts… women are absolutely allowed to have big noses or to start sports clubs. No one will try to stop them. There is no law against it.

From a man’s perspective, that’s allowed. So, what are women talking about when they say that?

And they’re talking about this sense of social expectation that men are just not as tuned into.

You see the same thing when women theorize that men must be being raised to exhibit all of the socially distinct male behaviors.

“I act this way, and men act this other way, so parents must be raising their kids to act that other way”: to the paper, it’s easy to assume the rocks are merely being protected from fire.

The truth is, men are not allowed, raised, or encouraged to express anger.

To women, men expressing anger anyways implies that they must be, because it’s hard for women to imagine men being impervious from this sense of social propriety influencing their actions.

That’s part of why Reddit seems like such a misandrist shit hole. A lot of that content is women searching for validation.

“Is it okay to not shave my arms and legs?”

A man who doesn’t want to do some culturally expected thing… we’ll say, somebody who doesn’t want to shave or groom their facial hair at all. We have a word for it. It’s a “neck beard”. And he’s just going to do that without telling anybody.

But women, again, seem to feel the need for much more social validation. And they sort of have this system where somebody posts “am I allowed” and a bunch of women fling platitudes “of course you’re allowed”.

Taking turns using these spaces as an engine for digital reassurance.

I hope that makes sense.

Women assume men are allowed to show anger because they show anger and therefore infer that it must be allowed.

This is the wrong assumption. It’s just as wrong an assumption as presuming women dressing up are trying to attract men.

It’s a “if I did that it would be because”, which loses the script when people behave differently than you would.

PassengerCultural421 · 2026-06-13T21:52:55+00:00

Heck even Conservatives associate anger with toxic masculinity too.

Male anger is interpreted as aggression or "toxic masculinity." Male sadness is interpreted as weakness. Male loneliness is interpreted as entitlement. Male frustration is interpreted as complaining.

Men today face a societal catch-22 regarding emotions. They are criticized for showing any emotion outside of happiness or contentment at the expense of others—anger is labeled “toxic masculinity,” sadness is “weakness,” frustration is “whiny.” The result: the only socially “safe” emotion left for men is indifference.

Indifference, however, comes with its own backlash. Men who withdraw from social interactions, avoid approaching women, or disengage from work are subtly criticized for failing to fulfill expected gender roles or societal obligations. Unlike the “complaining man,” whom society can mock or pathologize, the indifferent man presents a paradox: he does nothing actively harmful, yet still frustrates societal expectations simply by not participating. Men are hated for showing emotion by both the right-wing and left-wing. And both men and women. Angry = toxic masculinity. And sadness = weak. And frustration = being a little whinny b*tch.

But again society still hates male indifference. Because male indifference also means less men adhering to male gender roles like approaching women. But saying this quiet part out loud might make a certain demographic of people look bad or suspicious.

Unlike the complaining man. You can't say that an indifferent man is doing something bad to women. You can't say the indifferent man is harassing women, being violent to women, feeling entitled to women, etc.

In essence, male indifference is a form of silent rebellion. It exposes the double standard: men are shamed for feeling or acting in ways society dislikes, but the only remaining “acceptable” stance—emotional detachment—cannot be effectively punished. It is both society’s frustration and men’s freedom wrapped in a paradox.

You can always say "I told you so" when the boy burn down the village.

You can always say "He is entitled" when boy complains about the village not loving him.

But there isn't any way you can attack the boy for not caring about the village love in the first place though. Even if that still pisses you off. You can't attack him without exposing your cakism.

The last option often frustrates people because it removes leverage. The village can't argue with someone who has stopped caring about the village's approval.

In conclusion: My point here is that men are only allowed to show "happy wife, happy life" emotions in society. Any emotion outside is considered toxic masculinity, entitlement, or selfishness. And they hate male indifference, because becomes harder to shame men back into having "happy wife, happy life" emotions.

Nymanator · 2026-06-14T13:44:51+00:00

It's not about patriarchy and capitalism, it's about gynocentrism. "Your emotions don't matter; get the fuck out of here with them so we can focus on the emotions of the people that do".

AdOtherwise3824 · 2026-06-14T20:23:51+00:00

I disagree with a fair few of your articles, but this one is fairly decent. Men aren't allowed to be angry. I wouldn't even say it's tolerated because it does lead to shaming and it does lead to avoidance from others. It's just because men are so constricted in how they can be that anger is the only emotion that breaks through the mask. And then people don't really do anything about that, thus the anger persists. Essentially, because every emotion is shamed, the one that cannot be silenced rises to the top.

ashen-dawn_7980 · 2026-06-13T15:44:29+00:00

Something interesting that I've observed from a few decades of living as a man is that anger, sadness, terror, and so on, however strongly or softly I expressed them or even suggested them (my mannerisms are identical to most of the other women on my mother's side of the family) were generally only permitted based on usefulness to others and what they were trying to achieve or obtain. Otherwise, it was just "you are insane".

Something I also wanted to bring up is that it isn't just a double standard with men at the bottom vs men at the top and the range of emotions they are judged or not judged for showing, but that these hierarchies exist and are enforced on a much more personal level as well, and are basically "informal" because what even separates me from another person just like me aside from other people suppress my emotional range of expression but allow it for another? And good luck trying to have a discussion with the people in my life about "hey, why to you allow these friends of yours to yell and throw things and threaten people but I'm not even allowed to be upset over another damn police shooting or another damn drone strike?"

whoisaname · 2026-06-13T08:03:23+00:00

Hmmmm...maybe it is my years of therapy and/or I don't give any fucks on what society thinks about me on something like this, but my take on emotions for everyone is that you can be angry, sad, scared, ashamed, etc. and be vulnerable and show those, but it is how you handle those emotions that is important. And whether it is done in a healthy way. If ANY emotion is clouding my judgement, I am allowed express that I am that emotion and to step away from the situation and process that emotion before returning to address it with whomever is the cause (if a particular person(s) is the cause). Sometimes it is situational, and that situation needs processed and addressed internally. It's fine to tell someone you're angry with them, or having any emotion towards them, and why (especially with reframing/I statements) Sometimes it needs talked about. That anger usually stems from something deeper, and taking the time to find what that root is and then addressing it can be very productive. Sometimes physical catharsis is needed and just letting it go. Hell, that's a big chunk of the reason why I work out and run. They're great for my mental health. Crying is another positive physical catharsis. As are physical actions like hugging someone.

For me it boils down to this, we're all human. We're going to have emotions, and we're going to have things happen to us that cause us to have emotions. For any person, it is not a fault for having those emotions, however, it is your responsibility on how you handle them. It's not okay to direct them at another person in a harmful way (there's some nuance here, but reddit and ToS isn't the time or place). It's not okay to use those emotions as an excuse for doing something irrational or harmful to yourself.

A good question to ask oneself is if the emotion is controlling my reactions or is my reaction controlling the emotion. Some people like to talk about stoicism negatively. As if all it means is bottling up and suppressing emotions. That's not being stoic. It is actually completely the opposite of being stoic. Being stoic is a very positive trait when it is handling emotions how I am describing. It is about mastering them, and the mental preparation for them. Embracing them and having the tools to address them.

As for society...society shames people for all sorts of things it shouldn't, especially being vulnerable. Society isn't exactly healthy.

AutoModerator · 2026-06-12T13:51:08+00:00

Thank you for posting to r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates. All new posts are held for manual review and may take up to 48 hours to be approved. Please don’t message the moderators, we’ll make sure to review your submission as soon as possible. If this is your first post, be sure to review our rules to ensure it meets our criteria.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

ESchwenke · 2026-06-13T12:59:43+00:00

Anger is thought of as properly masculine but not socially acceptable in most contexts.

etymoticears · 2026-06-13T07:29:19+00:00

I like the sentiment and agree but it's a shame that it is written by ai

Title	Men aren't actually 'allowed' to be angry
Author	futuredebris
Upvotes	138
Comments	27
Date	June 12, 2026 1:51 PM UTC (1 month ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/1u3vv2d/men_arent_actually_allowed_to_be_angry/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/men-arent-actually-allowed-to-be-angry.1582712 https://theredarchive.com/post/1582712

Comments