I am a northie , but a regular consummer of Malayalam movies. I'd say Sushin Shyam is probably one of the best composers in India right now. He didn't do any movie in 2025 and this year only 2. He does only 2 movies per year. I think he deserves to get more offers.
Crime noir thrillers that are not "epics" in sense of the word , but more lean and mean with severe emotional stakes .
So this post is a response to a very recent viral Instagram reel whose screengrab has been making the rounds. The reel essentially argues that if not for arranged marriage, most Indian men would die single because they lack emotional intelligence, social skills, and are sometimes because of misogyny. While I partly agree with and understand where that sentiment comes from, I think there is a lot of context and nuance missing, and I’d like to use this as an opportunity to discuss India’s broader social culture—particularly its extremely narrow, underdeveloped dating culture. Let me start by saying that I come from a very privileged place: I was born into a comfortable, more-than-well-off family, with both my parents being doctors, and my sister and I had a pretty cushy childhood. I did my undergraduate degree in New York, spent some time as a digital nomad, and am currently based in Stockholm, Sweden. I’ve also spent around 2.5 years of my twenties in India and continue to travel back whenever I can, so I’ve experienced dating across several different cultural contexts, including India. I fully acknowledge my privilege, and politically I’ve always leaned liberal, even slightly left of centre on some issues. I mention all this because my perspective isn’t coming from a place of defending misogyny or dismissing the very real problems many Indian women face; rather, I think the viral reel captures a real phenomenon but strips away a huge amount of context about how Indian society actually socializes men and women around intimacy, relationships, and gender.
When I say the viral reel screengrab lacks context and nuance, I mean that expecting Indians, or specifically Indian men, to have the same dating skills as people from societies with an established mainstream dating culture misses a fundamental part of the equation. India has historically lacked a mainstream dating culture, while early heterosexual interactions—even basic friendships between boys and girls—have often been discouraged or heavily scrutinized. After 12 years of dating, I can confidently say that dating skills are largely learned behaviours, and culture plays a major role in teaching them. Things like developing an attractive personality, socio-emotional intelligence, grooming and personal style, confidence in talking to potential partners, and developing a progressive outlook on gender and sex aren't taught in a classroom; they are developed through repeated social interaction. In Western societies, dating culture itself often acts as an informal training ground, encouraging young people to interact, experiment, fail, and learn. My cousin, for example, was born and raised in New York and had prom last year, where there is a strong expectation that you have a date. Prom is also place where many of these couples , loose virginity. Boys are encouraged from an early age to ask girls out, socialize with them, groom themselves, develop a sense of style, and become comfortable with flirting and romantic interaction. By adulthood, they've potentially had years of practice navigating heterosexual relationships. You can't reasonably expect someone who grew up in a culture that discourages these interactions to have the same dating repertoire as someone who grew up in one that actively normalizes them. This doesn't excuse bad behaviour or mean Indian men are incapable of developing these skills; it simply means the cultural context has to be accounted for when discussing why those skills may be less developed.
I spent my years from 26 to 28.5 in India and having experienced dating in India and abroad I can confidently say : Indians, as a collective cannot date. And by Indians, I mean both men and women. I explained the context of men above, but my experience of dating women in these 2.5 years of being in India, for the lack of better word has been wierd. I have seen women treat Hinge dates as arranged marriage dates, asking explicitely my caste and gotra, women asking , very explicitely asking if I was a virgin (if you thought only Indian men were obsessed with virginity). One girl asked if I did drugs, because I have a tattoo on my neck. I even had progressive women defending purity culture saying pseudo-scientific things like "Sex is sacred". Instead of seeing sex as an act mutual affection and consensual-horniness(i just invented that term lol), we attach some wierd pedestal to it. This isn't inherently their fault , it's just how Indian society socializes men and women around intimacy, relationships, and gender.
Ultimately, the answer isn't to shame Indian men(though we must call out sexism and misogyny wherever we spot it) or blame Indian women, but to recognize that dating is a social skill, and Indian society has historically given people very little opportunity to develop it. If we want Indians to become better at relationships, we need a culture where men and women can interact freely, experience intimacy without excessive moralization, and learn through actual experience rather than social taboo.
Both the partners need clear boundaries, clear communication and terms on which their situationship would work on. When these agreements are agreed upon , I don't see why a situationship wouldn't work. This way, the " what are we" conversations don't have a chance to creep in.
Because there are objectively worst things that can happen to you. Everytime I meet someone whose worst fear is being cheated on , they've had pretty bad self esteem and thier sense of identity revolved around that relationship they're in and treated being cheated on as collapse of their self worth , which it isn't. Yes , infidelity hurts , I agree but it shouldn't be your worst fear .
Please read the whole post before up voting/ commenting, every word. Thanks.
Consider this post as a spiritual sequel(can y'all tell i'm a filmbro?) to my last post on this sub. My last post created a lot of discourse , some well intentioned shoutouts and some angry unwanted dms. But again , here we are supporting each other to do better , raising standards for each other in being more competent and resilient.
So that post addressed the context of over-arching hostile essentialist and pessimist content about men . This post is about how to counter that, not by retorting it with fragility , defensiveness or collapsing into identity crisis/ anxiety, but with staying grounded in knowledge of what feminism is and what it's goals have been , to large extent.
So here are some feminist book recommendations that I think every man should read
So shall we begin...
8 . Essays on motherhood by Audre Lorde : Audre Lorde a seminal feminist writer on raising her son Johnson.
Have I personally read these books? . Absolutely i have. Otherwise I wouldn't have recommended them .
The thing that keeps me grounded while being at the recieveing end of " man hating/misandry/ essentialist" content is the knowledge from these books . Though I ain't perfect by any means ..sometimes this content gets to me too. But knowledge helps me stay grounded . It has definitely helped me increase my resilience and competence. Here's to raising next generation of sensitive and gentle compentent and resilient boys.
Yes , Anirudhs music was the highlight. Lokesh was convincing. Wamiqa was good too. But Aruns visual literacy and his ability to stage scenes is second to none at the moment . The way he managed to make this straight forward script engaging must be commendable .
This song doesn't get the love it deserves . So unique , catchy and Dancy at the same time. Another one in
" ARR's great but underrated songs" list.
I , a certified bro, like lurking on r/BoyDinnerDiaries sub. I sometimes don't even look at the questions/ the paragraphs of the post written, and just look at the comments . It really warms my heart out to see men support other men, give advice and even sometimes call each other out.
But it leaves me with a question: "What's stopping boys/men to do this in real life?". If boys/men can be supportive of each other on keyboards , I think they can look face to face to each other in real life and say: "It's okay bro, it's gonna be alright!, I am with you".
I've listened to Sushin's body of work and he sounds a much more versatile than Anirudh and makes more atmospheric/ambient scores than him. His songs are also very unique, his albums like manjummel boys, Patriot, Aavesham, Kurup , kannur squad and balan are absolutely great. Ani's is more template-y, and more "massy", if that's your taste i have no issues with it. People keep comparing 90s and 2000s ARR with current Anirudh , i think that's absurd. I think a more accurate comparison would be with Sushin. I can't wait for his work in the next Suriya movie.
I'm curious how these couples/families where one or both spouses have careers that either involve frequent travels or extended period of travel away from home. I'm thinking of professions like the military, merchant navy, airline pilots and cabin crew, government or diplomatic service, the film and entertainment industry, tourism and hospitality, consulting, sales and marketing executives, offshore oil & gas, international NGOs, and any other jobs that require being away from home for extended periods or frequent business travel. I'd especially love to hear firsthand experiences—what your job is, how often you're away, what has worked well, what hasn't, and whether you'd choose the same lifestyle again if you had children.
This post has been a long time coming. I repeatedly came across posts from boys and men who said they were encountering content that was hostile towards men, overly essentialist, simply hateful, or just in general very pessimistic view of men and it's causing either extreme feelings of shame , anxiety OR for worse, feelings of bitterness and resentment. The responses are either - "Delete Social Media" , "Change your algorithm" , or just "talk to women in real life". While these responses are helpful, I don't think they're going to do anything to these boys and men consuming this content. Its important for boys and young men to understand why these situations happen and how to deal with them.
First, WHY - There has been a lot of events in the 12 years that have impacted gender relations - starting from the 2014 gamergate, the incel attack in the same year, 2016 1st Trump administration, 2017 Metoo movement, 2022 overturning of Roe vs Wade, Diddy trials, In 2024 Re-election of the 2nd Trump term, and finally, Epstein files. All of these cumulative events are bound to make women angry and that anger is legitimate. No questions. These events contributed to a broader political climate in which many women became more fearful, frustrated, or angry about gender relations, and social media amplified those emotions. The rise of social media also gives women a platform to vent, rant or just voice out their frustrations at the system at large. As with any emotionally charged online discourse, the most provocative, essentialist, or confrontational posts often receive the greatest engagement, making them disproportionately visible.Understanding this broader context is important because it helps explain why hostile or generalized statements about men have become more common online, even though they should not be mistaken for the views of every woman or for an accurate description of every man.
This type of content exists on spectrum, first type is the general critique of men(which is fine, and warranted against bad behaviour) , the second type of content is your critique mixed with rage-bait, "Men are ______ "(trash, pigs, scum, you-name-it),the third type is overt rage-bait hostile content("Kill all men", "Male suicide rates aren't high enough", "Men should be lonelier"). Fourthly, there is what I would describe as pessimistic essentialism: content that present very essentialist, factually inaccurate and overblown traits as inherent to male biology or masculinity itself, making claims such as "males are the secondary sex," "males are drone creatures," "males are incapable of equality," "males have womb jealousy," or "males are naturally submissive." Unlike critiques of behavior, this last category frames maleness itself as fundamentally flawed or irredeemable, often promoting an overwhelmingly bleak view of men and masculinity. The final category—and probably the most controversial—is what I'd call the "gender disappointment" genre of content. Across social media, there has been a noticeable rise in videos of expectant mothers expressing disappointment, grief, or even dread after learning they are having a boy , many of whom choosing the route of therapy to get over these feelings. The underlying message is difficult to miss: for many of these women, today's political climate and the visibility of the manosphere and red-pill culture have turned the prospect of raising a son from what is typically seen as a joyful, if demanding, experience into one marked by anxiety, pessimism, and fear. Whether or not that fear is justified in every case, the emotional shift itself is striking.
The way to deal with this type of content isn't to hide or totally avoid it. The way to deal with it is to understand the over-arching context of it...(as described in 2nd para), and exposing yourself mindfully that help build emotional resilience instead of re-enforcing fear or avoidance.The goal isn't to become indifferent to hostility or to excuse it(especially , the un-warranted essentialist ones), but to reach a point where sweeping statements about men no longer dictate your self-esteem or send you into shame, anxiety, or resentment. Why? Because this kind of content isn't disappearing anytime soon. Periods of major social change are often messy, emotionally charged, and full of rhetoric that can feel hostile or polarizing, and this content is one expression of that reality. Learning how to process it without letting it define your identity is work that ultimately falls on you—no one else can do that cognitive and emotional work in your place. Don't expect recognition, praise, or validation for doing it, whether from society, your parents, your feminist friends and other political movements. Do it because your own mental well-being is worth protecting, and because becoming psychologically resilient is ultimately for your benefit, not anyone else's.
Posts that inspired this post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/bropill/comments/1pbpx43/feminist_friendly_methods_of_coping_with_male/
https://www.reddit.com/r/bropill/comments/1tzcgmh/im_looking_for_resources_about_dealing_with_an/
https://www.reddit.com/r/bropill/comments/1uhepip/how_can_i_deal_with_shame_about_male_loneliness/
https://www.reddit.com/r/bropill/comments/1ecb1yf/how_to_deal_with_misandry_in_femaledominated/
https://www.reddit.com/r/mentalhealth/comments/1tq0cof/i_hate_being_a_man/
Note: I encourage people of all genders to engage in the conversation in the comments.
Anne-Marie Slaughter argues that the gender revolution remains only half complete. Society has encouraged women to pursue education, careers, and economic independence, but has not similarly encouraged men to become primary caregivers or to place their careers behind those of ambitious wives. She describes this as "men's liberation," suggesting that men, like women before them, need freedom from restrictive gender roles.
The comparison is rhetorically appealing, but it overlooks an important asymmetry. It forgets that world runs on the engine of Neo-liberal capitalism and being a career ambitious breadwinner and being a primary caregiver are not the similar choices.
Women's Liberation emerged as a struggle against structural dependence. Entering paid labour employment meant gaining income, bargaining power, legal and economic autonomy, and public recognition. It was a movement toward institutions that concentrated social power.
Men's greater participation in caregiving, by contrast, often requires moving away from those same sources of power. In neoliberal capitalist societies, paid market work is rewarded with wages, promotions, status, and independence, while caregiving—despite being socially indispensable—remains largely unpaid, privately organized, and comparatively invisible. The problem is therefore not that caregiving lacks meaning, but that capitalism systematically values it less than market labor.
This is why describing caregiving as inherently "liberating" can feel incomplete. Liberation usually implies gaining resources, options, or power. Yet becoming a primary caregiver frequently involves sacrificing career progression, earnings, professional identity, and economic leverage. The emotional rewards of caregiving may be profound, but they are not equivalent to the forms of power that market economies continue to privilege.
Supporters of men's liberation rightly argue that men should be free from the expectation that masculinity is defined by breadwinning alone. Expanding men's choices is a worthwhile goal. But freedom of choice exists within an economic system that heavily rewards one choice over the other. As long as caregiving carries significant financial and status penalties, asking more men to embrace it risks becoming less a project of liberation than an appeal for voluntary sacrifice.
The unfinished gender revolution, then, is not about persuading men to care more. It is also about transforming the political economy of care itself. Unless neoliberal capitalism begins to recognize and materially reward caregiving as socially productive work, professional ambition and primary caregiving will remain fundamentally unequal choices. Only when care itself receives comparable economic recognition and social status will the analogy between women's liberation and men's liberation become materially, rather than merely rhetorically, persuasive.
I spent some time in Tribeca for a college project and shocked that people there had personal assistants, cleaning people for their homes, nannys, au pairs etc. It felt all of their domestic work was outsourced. These people were living in a separate reality. I kept wondering what are the professions of these people/couples.
Many High earning couples have severely time demanding and stressful jobs. So, Is it common for High earning couples to outsource domestic chores like groceries, laundry ,cleaning etc?. If yes then what is the average income where couples feel comfortable enough to outsource the chores?
Married men are happier than single men. Married men live longer than their single counterparts. They are better off in every single metric than single men. The same might not always be true for women. If being in an institution is advantageous for men, it also brings with itself, a risk of being dependent on it. The disparity in the levels of happiness and emotional wellbeing of men is understandable when the axis of measurement is race, class, gender orientation, sexuality , because all of the above mentioned axes are real axes of inequalities and oppression that exist in the real world. But the disparity in levels of happiness and emotional wellbeing depending upon whether a man is either married or in romantic relationship doesn't make sense and it shouldn't.
Men should start building and very deliberately start investing in building support networks(emotional or otherwise) with other men. Community , belonging and strong relationships are recurring factors when it comes measuring happiness. The much talked about "male loneliness epidemic" (albeit i think the topic is slightly overblown) is about men lacking relationships with other men rather than romantic relationships. Men in marriages also tend to be happier because their wife is their default emotional support , and over the time , the wife starts feeling responsible for the happiness for their husbands and they ultimately end up being compassion fatigued. Nobody wants to be an unpaid therapist for the spouse. Which is why "man-keeping" was so trending last year. This (other than other political reasons) is also the reason for the heteropessimism and heterofatalism discourse on social media.
Depending on marriage/romantic relationship for emotional support is a risky gamble for men because marriage is losing centrality in society and culturally. We need to start support networks with other men for sense of community , belonging and for overall emotional-social fitness. We must also shed our internalized homophobia because there are still men who think deep supportive friendships between men is "gay".
Sources: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/jul/04/genderissues.uknews
https://www.artsci.utoronto.ca/news/new-study-finds-single-women-are-happier- single-men.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2025/jun/16/mankeeping-why-single-women-are-giving-up-dating (Mankeeping)
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/21/magazine/men-heterofatalism-dating-relationships.html?eafs_enabled=false (Heterofatalism)
To all my gay, bi, trans and gender non confirming bros , sorry for the heteronormativity here. I just wanted to address something to straight men from straight man's perspective because i felt they are severely lacking in this department.