> But that's exactly what I'm referring to. It cherry picks some examples to make men look "fragile", "sensitive", and "vulnerable".

It also ignores that women, generally speaking, have greater support networks than men. Men in America have generally been expected to handle far more things on their own. Plenty of women I know in their 30s and beyond still ask things of their parents whilst I don't know of nearly as many guys in my cohort who rely on their parents in any way.

In a sense, this is all victim blaming. Majority of homeless people are men? I guess they should have been as strong as women! /s

Could you please stop posting to HN in the flamewar style? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for, so we're trying for the opposite.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

The polar bear is more vulnerable and sensitive than the gazelle literally, that is why they're almost extinct. You seem to be confused about what people are talking about. Nobody is arguing whether polar bears or big hairy men are muscular and STRONG, we're talking about their resilience in the modern world and how well they have adapted. It is actually a good comparison but not in the way you thought it was.

There's nothing cherry picked about this, men do worse these days and are more vulnerable than women on a lot of very substantial metrics. It doesn't get more real and objective than looking at the rate of deaths of despair and the gender disparity there. I don't understand why you apparently perceive this as an attack om men.

This inability to acknowledge the vulnerability of men is, as the article points out as well, one of the reasons why there is comparatively little help for men.