We learn a lot of hard lessons growing up: Santa isn’t real, you can’t always get what you want, and dreaming big means losing big if you can’t reach the finish line. Most lessons are common to both boys and girls, but some are exclusive to one or the other. Girls learn to stay safe from men, boys learn to protect themselves and others. Girls are taught to communicate, boys are taught to take action. Girls are told that it’s okay to be vulnerable, and boys are told that no one will come to save them when they’re at their lowest. Observers may say it’s harmful to tell a boy he’s on his own, but it’s better taught by a parent’s gentle hand than the slap of reality. There’s a male loneliness epidemic, men end their lives at four times the rate of women in America, and men are significantly more likely to be victims of violent crime — as well as the ones committing the crime. Male role models respected by men and women embody independence, while one of the most common dating tips for men in dating is to just be confident and avoid seeming hesitant. Every lesson a boy is taught on strength was deemed necessary because of male lived experiences and what the world has told men repeatedly. Despite that, some associate these teachings with toxic masculinity and the manosphere. Feminist scholar Gloria Jean Watkins, pen name “bell hooks,” argued that the male crusade against vulnerability was a pillar of the patriarchy. Some modern feminists have gone even further and tried to reverse the damage by telling men to be more open about their feelings. Just as one would be skeptical of a man’s view on what’s best for women, it also applies the other way around. Even if the intent is noble, a more appropriate method to understand how men function at an individual and collective scale would be a scientific one. A leading hypothesis is the Precarious Manhood theory, which suggests that womanhood is intrinsic while manhood is earned and must be constantly maintained. Studies have deduced that this reality encourages male anxiety and maladaptive behavior. Boys are taught masculine norms because they are not considered masculine by society if they stray from those norms. Men are complicit in reinforcing these norms, but that is done out of self-preservation and conforming with societal expectations. One response to male maladaptivity is that men need to change how they view masculinity, but that won’t happen until they are fully convinced that their manhood will be accepted unconditionally by both men and women. Many women will say they oppose gender roles in public yet uphold them in their private lives. Oftentimes if a woman wants to insult a man, she’ll call him weak, emotional, or put his manhood under the microscope. Height, a common indicator of masculinity, is something many women prefer, and men under an arbitrary height threshold may be emasculated and ridiculed. Meanwhile, a Harvard study found that men without full-time jobs were 33% more likely to be divorced due to their failure to meet the gender norm of being the breadwinner. Commentators have made all these sweeping claims about the patriarchy and how men need to do this or that, but they say to go left and men’s experiences say to go right. The manosphere exploded in popularity because men don’t want empty platitudes from people who don’t get what it’s like to be a man. It doesn’t take a research paper to know that constant vigilance and self-consciousness is a slow poison that kills the spirit, and men have known this for a long time. Now they get advice from bad men and grifters who use that isolation against them. A father is a boy’s best teacher because he can teach him the hard lessons of manhood from a place of love. Whenever a man lets the mask fall or his shoulders sag, he remembers what he learned so long ago and the ways that lesson was proven right in the years since. Observers can rack their brains, run their numbers, and make their claims about how men need to change, but until society changes its expectations of them, more boys who swore to be good men will be found going dark. Acknowledgement: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author, not necessarily Our National Conversation as a whole
By Amaan Bhimani
Photo Credit: PR NEWS On October 31, 2026, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) suffered a stroke after experiencing numbness in his arm while attending his son’s hockey game. He was subsequently transferred to Johns Hopkins Hospital for treatment. Although Murphy was not running for reelection during the 2026 midterm election cycle, he had been traveling across the country campaigning for other Democratic candidates, including Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont and Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan, before his stroke interrupted those activities, according to the Associated Press. His absence illustrates how a medical emergency can affect a politician’s involvement in elections, including beyond their own candidacy. This is not the first time a politician’s campaign activities have been interrupted by a medical crisis. On May 13, 2022, Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) suffered a near-fatal stroke just four days before Pennsylvania’s Democratic Senate primary. His hospitalization prevented him from participating in campaign appearances during the primary period. He subsequently underwent surgery to implant a pacemaker and defibrillator to regulate his heartbeat. After nearly three months away from the campaign trail, Fetterman returned to public campaigning on August 12, 2022, as he prepared to face Republican opponent Mehmet Oz in the November general election. A more recent example occurred during the 2026 Texas Senate race. Democratic nominee James Talarico was diagnosed with the flu and stayed away from in-person campaign appearances for nine days. His absence attracted criticism from Republican opponent Ken Paxton, whose campaign questioned his whereabouts and demanded proof that Talarico was still actively campaigning. President Donald Trump also criticized Talarico’s absence during a rally in San Antonio. Talarico explained that he was recovering from the flu and working remotely with his campaign team. He returned to public appearances on October 9, 2026, at the Austin City Limits music festival. These examples demonstrate how an illness can temporarily limit a politician’s visibility, interrupt campaign activities, and provide political opponents with opportunities to attract media attention. However, the effects vary depending on the candidate’s circumstances, the length of the absence, and the campaign’s ability to maintain communication with voters. A good example is Joe Biden, who contracted COVID-19 during the 2024 presidential campaign. After Biden was diagnosed on July 17th, 2024, he canceled his scheduled campaign appearance in Las Vegas. He returned to Delaware to quarantine in his home. On July 21st, 2024, Biden announced he was withdrawing his presidential candidacy after facing mounting pressure from the Democratic Party to do so. Kamala Harris announced her candidacy instead and would run against Donald Trump. On July 18, 2024, Donald Trump gave his Republican National Convention speech as the Republican presidential nominee at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. This media coverage boost did a favor for Trump. In November 2024, Trump won the presidential election for a second time, becoming the 45th and 47th president of the United States. When a candidate is forced to shift away from the spotlight and suspend campaign appearances, this can dampen chances for a candidate among voters. The coverage becomes focused on the rival candidate, who can frame the debate on how the absent candidate should be perceived. Although a candidate’s illness can create opportunities for political opponents to gain media attention, it does not necessarily result in a loss of voter support. John Fetterman’s 2022 Senate campaign demonstrated that social media and digital advertising can help maintain a candidate’s visibility while recovering from a serious medical condition. Despite spending nearly three months away from major campaign events following his stroke, Fetterman defeated Mehmet Oz in the November 2022 election. This suggests that a candidate’s ability to maintain communication with voters may be just as important as their physical presence on the campaign trail. A similar example occurred during the 2026 Texas U.S. Senate race, when Democratic candidate James Talarico spent nine days away from the campaign trail while recovering from the flu. His absence prompted criticism from President Donald Trump and Republican opponent Ken Paxton, who questioned his whereabouts and used his absence to attack his campaign. Despite the criticism and time away from public appearances, Talarico defeated Paxton by approximately 12 percentage points in the 2026 Midterm elections. His victory demonstrated that a candidate’s temporary absence from the campaign trail does not necessarily prevent them from maintaining voter support and winning an election. A candidate’s absence from the campaign trail still creates opportunities for political opponents to receive greater media attention and influence the public conversation. However, maintaining visibility is not limited to traditional campaign appearances. Social media, televised interviews, and direct communication with voters allow politicians to remain part of the political conversation even when they are unable to attend public events. President Donald Trump provides an example of how politicians use social media to maintain a consistent presence in the news cycle. Trump frequently makes headlines for his political decisions and outspoken criticism of his opponents. He also responds to media coverage through his Truth Social account, where he regularly challenges unfavorable reporting and criticizes members of the press. This demonstrates how political figures use direct communication platforms to respond to news coverage and maintain their public presence outside traditional media appearances. For candidates recovering from medical emergencies, these alternative communication channels help maintain visibility and keep voters informed while they are away from the campaign trail. Ultimately, an interruption in public appearances does not necessarily mean a candidate loses voter support, particularly when their campaign can continue communicating with the electorate. This interaction between political figures and the press becomes particularly important when a candidate experiences a medical crisis that limits their public appearances. When a politician steps away from the campaign trail, media attention could shift toward their opponent, creating opportunities to shape the public narrative. As the examples of John Fetterman, James Talarico, and other politicians demonstrate, an extended absence may affect how voters perceive a candidate and how their campaign maintains public visibility. However, reduced media exposure does not necessarily translate into lost voter support. Acknowledgement: The opinions
By Felipe Cisternas
Today marks the end of an era—and thank god for that. Elon Musk announced Cybertruck production will wind down by mid-2027. Not only will we no longer suffer from staring at that hideous thing they call a motor vehicle, but also no longer be dealing with the personality of Cybertruck owners. The whole vehicle just gives off a disgusting, sweaty “gym bro” energy that we don’t need further permeating our streets. So, thank you Musk for increasing public safety by getting rid of that abhorrent eyesore. P.S. You will not catch me getting into your Cybercab.
By Adrihanna Collins
Follow Us