One idea from Dialectical Behaviour Therapy that tends to stick with people is this: two things can be true at the same time even when they seem to completely contradict each other.

It sounds simple, but in practice it’s not. Most of us are much more comfortable picking a side, especially when something feels personal or emotionally charged.

You can see this pretty clearly in a lot of current conversations about gender, often framed as “manosphere vs feminism.”  The positions can become quite fixed with each side feeling not only right, but certain the other side is wrong (and wronging others) in a fundamental way.  Once things get that rigid, it’s hard for anything new to get in.

Watching Louis Theroux speak to men with more extreme views in his recent documentary brings this into focus in an interesting way.  His style is quite calm and curious, and when he asks simple, open questions, you sometimes start to see small cracks in what first looks like total certainty.

Someone might come across as very confident displaying being clear in their views, not bothered by what others think.  But then, in the same conversation, they’ll mention that some of what they say online is for attention, or you’ll see a different side of them in how they relate to a partner or a parent.  It doesn’t neatly line up.

It’s tempting to jump to a quick explanation an example could be that “it’s just insecurity underneath” but this reduces and dismisses a lot.  A more balanced view would probably hold a few possibilities at once.  It could be insecurity, and performance, and genuine belief, and the influence of the environment they’re in.  People are rarely just one thing.

On the other side, the reaction to these views can also become quite fixed.  It’s easy to see comments that dismiss these individuals entirely or reduce them to something simplistic. That reaction can feel justified, especially if the views are offensive or harmful.  But it can also shut down any chance of understanding what’s actually going on underneath.

This is where that DBT idea becomes useful. Instead of asking “which side is right?”, it shifts and opens the question slightly: what might each side be getting right, and where might each be getting stuck?

For example, some men speaking in these spaces may be expressing real feelings such as confusion, rejection, or a sense of losing their place and expressing those feelings in ways that come out as hostility or blame.  Both can be true.  

At the same time, feminist perspectives may highlight very real issues around inequality and harm, and sometimes come across in ways that feel dismissive or shutting-down to others.  Again, both (and more) can be true.

The “middle path” here isn’t about splitting the difference or pretending everything is equal.  It’s more about staying open enough to hold complexity.  You can disagree with someone’s views and still be curious about how they got there.  You can stand firmly against something and still avoid reducing the person to a label or attacking. 

In reality, that middle space is a bit uncomfortable.  It asks you to give up the certainty that comes with being fully on one side.  It also tends to be where more thoughtful, less reactive conversations can happen.

And that’s really the point of the dialectical approach, not to dilute perspectives, but to widen them just enough that something new can emerge.  To allow and accept that more than one part of a concept exists, both in society and within ourselves.