Men Aren’t Looking for Mothers. They’re Looking for Margin.
- Teralyn Lumley-Bolyard
- May 9
- 4 min read
Updated: May 9
Why modern men aren’t committing, and what women — and our sons — need to understand before it’s too late.
What happened was…
I saw another IG reel that made my teeth itch.
A Boomer-age man, chest puffed with conviction, tells the camera that Millennial and Gen Z men are looking for “mothers” instead of wives. That these modern guys want women to serve them. That men are supposed to serve women.
Now maybe — maybe — he meant open doors, pull out chairs, don’t let her carry the Costco haul alone. But the video cut off before he could redeem himself with nuance. And what was left was a pile of comments from women furiously nodding in agreement.
“They want to be coddled.”
“They can’t lead.”
“They’re babies in men’s bodies.”
Sure. Some are. We’ve seen the wreckage, it’s real. But we’re missing the point entirely. So let me clarify something:
Provision is not servitude.
A man who provides is not a man who grovels. A woman who nurtures is not his replacement mother.
This isn’t 1950 cosplay. It’s field logic. No little girl dreams of marrying the castle’s servant. She dreams of the man who conquers. Who hunts.
Who returns with something to show for it.
When a man brings the metaphorical beast home, yes — he gets nurtured. Not because he’s helpless, but because she respects what he built, what he risked, what he returned for.
And here’s what nobody wants to admit:
The modern man can’t hunt like he used to.
Not because he’s lazy. Because the field has been compromised.
The economy is shot. Inflation’s out of control. He didn't do this. But he has to take responsibility for it nonetheless. And sadly, he is told to stand down.
Masculinity is demonized unless it’s neutered.
And “commitment” now means signing a contract where half your value can be taken in court — by someone who promised to build with you.
So men… aren’t building. They’re not stupid. They’re strategic. They’re opting out because the cost of legacy has outpaced the margin of survival.
It’s not necessarily weakness. It IS necessary risk assessment. It’s what they were wired for..
Where women, wired for survival, look to men and say: “Where are the providers?” But men, wired for logic and future mapping, look at the system and say: “Why would I offer legacy to a world that punishes me for trying?”
This isn’t war. This is mismatch.
Men aren’t abandoning the field. They’re trying to reset it. Quietly. Strategically. Subconsciously.
But women, seeing the absence of commitment, label it selfishness. They think it’s immaturity. They miss that it’s actually grief.
Men don’t need mothering.
They need margin. They need to know that building something won’t get them destroyed. Until then?
They’ll withhold commitment.
Not to be cruel. But because they still have enough logic to know that bonding without stability is just delaying inevitable outcome.
And if we don’t give men the language for this soon — The suicide stats will keep climbing. The birth rates will keep dropping. And the reels will keep getting louder, while the signal dies in silence.
To the Women: This Isn’t About Losing Men. It’s About Losing Sons.
You can roll your eyes at men who won’t commit. You can call them weak, soft, selfish.
But understand this:
Every time we tell a man he’s worthless unless he serves…
Every time we shame him for assessing risk before offering love…
Every time we call leadership “control” and silence “immaturity”…
From their emotions. From their futures. From themselves.
We are turning men into ghosts before they ever get the chance to stand in their full form.
And when our sons grow up in a world that punishes their instincts, that gaslights their leadership, that tells them they’re broken for asking hard questions about legacy — Don’t act shocked when they exit the field.
Not just from love. But from life.
So here’s the call:
When a man hesitates, it’s not weakness—it’s awareness.
He’s not stalling. He’s thinking. He still believes that building something matters.
Stop demanding servitude and calling it strength. Start asking how we create a world where caution isn’t punished and honor isn’t ridiculed.
There are men who will start families without the means to support them—if that’s what you want, they’re out there. But the ones who are trying to reset the field? Let them. That’s strength, too. Not all men are wired for it.
There are many forms of strength. We need them all. If a man isn't ready to commit, find one who is. But know this:
Chances are, you’ll have to work alongside him. Share the load, apply for the aid, stretch every resource. That’s not necessarily shameful. That’s conscious partnership.
And if he chooses that path, respect it, and do not shame him for needing financial help.
Just as we must respect the man who says no—not because he doesn’t care, but because he understands the cost of getting it wrong.
There are fewer men now who can support a family alone, but some still dream of being that kind of provider while others would rather lean on help than walk this life by themselves.
Neither is shameful. Both are human.
The goal isn’t to get men back.
It’s to build a world where our sons never have to leave.
That’s how we win. That’s how we heal. That’s how we return.
Together.
Comments