Stoic philosopher Epictetus taught that some things are up to us, and some are not. What is up to us, he argued, is our intention, our judgment, and what is of our own doing. And yet, for generations, Western culture has been shaped not by the wisdom of Epictetus, but by the mythologist Joseph Campbell’s concept of the “monomyth”, the Hero with a Thousand Faces. This narrative blueprint frames the mostly male hero as one who undertakes a quest in response to changing external circumstances, overcomes external obstacles through force, and is rewarded by an external price often depicted as female desire.

The resulting male stereotype, though, depicts masculine traits predominantly as dominance and violence. It is therefore of no surprise that social studies about gender stereotypes in the United States list male traits as, dominant, violent, emotionally suppressed, individualistic, and externally validated by winning the fight. It turned out, that the prevalent monomyth has lead to the “Hollow Hero” and ingrained a specific and damaging stereotype of masculinity into the social consciousness. Attributing toxic masculinity to a social media persona like Andrew Tate distracts from the reality that even a self-proclaimed misogynist got his misguided ideas from somewhere. Even though Western society at large may not agree with toxic masculinity influencers they are just another face of the hollow hero mythos.

The cinematic fantasy of the male monomyth, dominance demonstrated through violence and the relentless pursuit of external validation, has real-world consequences that amount to a tragedy of the hollow hero: It presents young men with a blueprint for frustration by teaching them that problems are solved with aggression, that showing emotions is weakness, and all validation must come from the outside. This creates a performance-based identity where a man’s self-worth is perpetually tied to his external success. It teaches young men to emphasize control over empathy which then contributes to a pervasive loneliness that no amount of worldly success can cure. And indeed, if you search the internet for “loneliness epidemic” you will find that even the WHO recognizes it as a public health concern backed by clear evidence. The misguided quest for dominance, control, emotional suppression, and external validation hollows out the hero from within.

The mythos poisons relationships by defining a transactional script for both genders. It teaches men that their value lies in acquiring three things: money, status, and power. These things are used as a proxy for being the hero because the mythos establishes the hero through dominance, violence, and external validation. Consequently, the mythos teaches women that they should desire in a man three things: money, status, and power. Why? Because these are the hallmarks of the hollow hero. The hollow hero reduces the sacred potential of a partnership to a crude exchange: his performance for her admiration. It creates a dynamic where a man feels valued for his function as a provider and protector, and a woman is encouraged to chase the security of a successful performer, undermining the possibility of authentic connection.

Empirical studies on relationships are overwhelmingly clear: Men break up with women when they feel emotionally unsatisfied. It would be tempting to blame the woman, but the truth is, how can a man find emotional fulfillment by exercising dominance, control, and suppress emotions? Besides, how can a relationship grow when the man hasn’t developed much because of emotional suppression?

Escaping the hollow hero myth starts with defining the meaning of masculinity in line with reality. The stoics state that the male role seeks confidence from within based on what is up to him and that healthy masculinity gravitates around responsibility. And that is what most women see as positive traits in men. The notion of responsibility is echoed in the teaching of Jordan Peterson who overwhelmingly resonates with you men who, after having experienced the failure of the hollow hero mythos, seek a healthy, realistic, and more natural way to conceptualize male identity.

But as men begin this journey, they encounter a landscape shaped by a parallel tragedy. For generations, there was an unspoken but clear transaction: the man, as a provider, offered resources and security; the woman, as a homemaker, offered stability, care, and emotional support. Both roles required immense contributions from both. None could be achieved without the other. However, the same cultural forces that created the Hollow Hero also created his counterpart: the Hollow Princess. She is the prize the Hero is taught to win. She is taught that her value lies not in her character, competence, or contribution, but in her desirability.

Social media rushed in to amplify the problem. While the hollow hero with a thousand faces seeks external validation through his career, the Hollow Princess seeks attention through a thousand likes. A Hollow Princess seeks validation through carefully curated images posted on social media aimed to perfect perception of her, then lament the difficulty of finding an authentic connection, not seeing the tragic irony that the validation she seeks fundamentally undermines the connection she needs. This is the source of so much frustration in modern life: men, tired of being judged on their performance, encounter women who seem to offer little beyond drama and unreasonable demands.

Unreasonable demands too often gravitate around the single greatest source of conflict and subsequent divorce: money. The problem is that the Hollow archetypes are incapable of navigating it because the monomyth has no answer to the question of how to structure finances together when the hero is supposed to go out and capture the gold? Their hollow myth cannot hold the answer to all the nuanced questions of finance because it already starts from a simplistic and shallow premise. Complicating the matter further, financial equality rightfully liberated women from economic dependence, but within the old script, this created a vacuum of perceived purpose; she was no longer required to provide traditional non-financial contributions and the Hollow Princess chose to drop her part of the equation while conveniently expecting the man to uphold his part of the old equation. A subtle but noticeable imbalance that causes much frustration, but because of the financial equality both can easily walk away instead of holding each other accountable. A loose-loose situation.

Then, women seek stability in a relationship and financial certainty is a large part of felt stability. Furthermore, it’s a biological reality that when women reach pregnancy at some point regular work will not be possible any longer therefore having the man in a strong financial position remains vital to the woman to establish a family. And there is no argument on either side on the fundamental reality of life. Rather, the conflict over finances arises long before maternity becomes a topic. When the man is designated to provide financially, then he will raise the question of what he will get in return. And that is what a woman must answer otherwise she has no right to claim.

And for good reasons, because the man is looking for someone to dream, build, and then sail the relation-ship. If you have no dream, then where do you go? If the dream is not shared, why do you need a boat? If there are no resources available, then how can you build? If the partner can’t withstand the first storm, why continue?

Answering these questions will unrevealed two different kinds of people: The Passenger and The Co-Builder.

The Passenger reveals their nature immediately. Their language is one of entitlement and abstraction. The conversation revolves around the security and lifestyle they expect to receive, framing their partner as the primary source of provision. They see money as a resource to be consumed and their partner as the instrument for its acquisition. Their focus is relentlessly on what they will get.

The Co-Builder reveals their nature with equal clarity. Their language is one of teamwork and concrete planning. The conversation revolves around our financial future, our shared goals, and how we can most effectively combine our resources—time, income, skills—to achieve them. They treat money as a tool to be managed and a partner as a teammate in that management. Their focus is consistently on what we can build.

The passenger eventually leaves the ship, either by choice or by being pushed off board and left behind. The Co-Builder remains.

It all starts with a shared dream to believe in and make it happen. When the builder who can’t dream meets the dreamer who can’t build, a true source of existential synergy forms, and the mystery that can only be discovered begins. And yet, a truly evolved relationship is not transactional; it is a synergy and, at times, a symphony. It is about two co-architects, co-builders, and sailors who decided to sail the boat they build together.

Therefore, the ultimate escape from the Hollow Hero mythos is the creation of a new mythos that brigs both on board. That is the entire crux, doing so required honesty and the humility to acknowledge to dream, build, and sail using the combined strength of two complete people choosing to build something that neither could create alone. And for those who managed to build the boat together, who weathered storms and are still sailing: A heartfelt congratulations for having achieved an enormous challenge in a profoundly misguided world. For those who struggle, feel free to drop the passenger, and get a proper co-builder.

Marvin F. L. Hansen

History:

• First published: July 12, 2025
• Minor edits: July 13, 2025