research & analysis
shehjaar kaul
fight club india foundation · pilot report · bangalore · april 2026
generations.
A structured generational dialogue in the form of a debate, bringing Gen Z, Millennials, and Gen X into one room to discuss three position statements on men's mental health, tracking what shifts when they do.
72.9%
of all suicide deaths in India are men
NCRB 2023, figure used at the event.
Updated NCRB 2024 figure: 73.6%
10
debaters across two generations
3
propositions debated
33
audience members, live polling throughout
introduction

what happened,
and why.

On Sunday, 26th April 2026, Fight Club India Foundation organised a structured generational dialogue in the form of a debate. This event, called "generations," brought together 10 individuals across generations, and prompted them to discuss three position statements about men's mental health from the perspectives of Gen Z versus Millennial lived experiences. These statements were based on statistical data contextualised to Indian men, rooted in aspects of emotional expression, the manosphere, and overused therapeutic language.

About 50 people were present in the room, 33 of whom were audience members. The audience voted on each position before and after the conversation. Additionally, all those present also filled an 8-item survey before and after the event. The debate was moderated by the founder of Fight Club India Foundation, Ayesha Syed Asif.

The primary intention behind the debate, the voting, and the survey was simple: to understand if and how structured dialogue about generational perspectives on men's mental health would shift opinions, particularly in terms of how people relate to and/or empathise with men and their experiences with mental health across generations.

50
people present in the room in total
33
audience members who voted live before and after each round
10
debaters across two generations, plus one Gen X presence
8
survey items matched by unique participant PINs
who was in the room
gen z side · 5 debaters
A therapist, a mental health professional, a creative professional, an AI engineer, and a tech entrepreneur, representing the generation that grew up with psychological language but is simultaneously the most likely to hold rigidly masculine attitudes.
millennial side · 5 debaters
An F&B founder, a tech solutions co-founder, the CEO of a mental health platform, a mental health researcher, and a lawyer. The generation that began questioning the old script without always finding new answers.
One Gen X voice was seated on the Millennial side, representing the legacy script both younger generations were actively debating.
Moderated by Ayesha Syed Asif, founder, Fight Club India Foundation
the research instrument

the eight
statements.

All participants completed an 8-item attitude survey before and after the debate. The instrument was gender-branched: men responded from their own lived experience, while women and non-binary respondents answered based on their perceptions of men in their lives. Items were rated on a 1–5 scale (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree).

men’s version · self-report
B1
i find it hard to show care or affection to other men.
B2
a man who openly talks about his emotions is seen as weaker by other men.
B3
most men i know would judge me for showing vulnerability.
B4
i do not like to show my emotions to other people.
B5
i think about my mental health more than the men around me realise.
B6
i believe other men experience similar emotional struggles to mine, even if they don’t show it.
B7
i would feel comfortable being emotionally honest in a room of men i don’t know well.
B8
men in my generation are more emotionally aware than the generation before us.
women’s version · perception of men
B1
i believe the men i know have difficulty expressing their tender feelings to other men.
B2
a man who openly talks about his emotions is seen as weaker by other men.
B3
most men i know would judge another man for showing vulnerability.
B4
i believe the men in my life do not like to show their emotions to other people.
B5
i believe the men in my life think about their mental health more than they let on.
B6
i believe men experience more emotional struggles than they show.
B7
i believe men would feel comfortable being emotionally honest in a room of men they don’t know well.
B8
men in my generation are more emotionally aware than the generation before us.

B1–B4 draw from the Gender Role Conflict Scale Short Form (GRCS-SF) Restrictive Emotionality subscale. B5–B8 are custom pluralistic ignorance items designed for this study. Items B2 and B8 use identical wording across both survey versions.

01 / debate proceedings and live polls

three
propositions.

The event was divided into three rounds of discussion, each prompted by one of three position statements. The audience was provided two minutes to poll their opinion on the respective proposition, before and after each round. Polling used a 1–5 Likert scale (Strongly Disagree / Disagree / Neutral / Agree / Strongly Agree).

proposition 01
therapy-speak
data context: Between 2018 and 2021, urban Indians' willingness to seek mental health treatment rose from 54% to 92%. In the same period, the treatment gap held steady at over 80%.
"therapy-speak has made men better at talking about feelings and worse at actually having them."

The floor was opened to the Gen Z debaters. The issue was laid down as follows: men of the present generation have access to psychological language now, after generations of men feeling emotionally closed off. Now that the channel is open, several issues and disturbances are coming up. The debaters pointed out that it isn't that men never had disturbances, they just have the means to verbally express them now. Millennial debaters added a two-pronged point. While psychological language is very important in order to be able to name emotions and verbalise feelings, too much therapy-speak leads not just to destigmatisation, but also overpathologisation.

Other debaters countered that men from previous generations, particularly Gen X or Millennials, had other channels of emotional expression, such as sports, shared activities, alcohol, etc., and therefore it wasn't fair to believe they did not adapt to the channels available to them. How helpful they may or may not be should be understood on a spectrum, and not in a binary.

Millennial debaters further stated that the all-or-nothing tendency within therapy-speak, exacerbated by Gen Z's use of social media to create categories, pushed towards overpathologising. Gen Z debaters conceded, adding that finding a middle ground between categories of expression and help-seeking tends to cause discomfort. The all-or-nothing attitude is safe, but also isolating, which is what is happening with men lately.

live poll, agreed / strongly agreed
75.0%
pre
50.0%
post
Agreement dropped 19.2 points. Many voters shifted to Neutral, recognising that language itself is not the problem; its impact depends on how it is used.
proposition 02 / highest volatility
the manosphere
data context: A study of 9,205 Indian men found the youngest (18–24) held the most rigidly masculine attitudes. Gen Z men are twice as likely as Boomers to believe a wife should obey her husband (Ipsos, 2026).
"the manosphere exists because millennials failed to give gen z men something better."

The floor was opened to Millennial debaters. One debater stated that Millennials questioned several things regarding mental health and masculinity, but did not really find the answers, and while there is some honesty in not knowing, certainty is easier to live with, which may prompt Gen Z men to align with the position of the manosphere. Millennials didn't fail to answer questions, but perhaps Gen Z never wanted to question things.

Gen Z debaters put forth their perspective on the same, stating that the manosphere is deeply rooted in isolation within suffering. When men question themselves alone on why they are suffering, the manosphere answers that the world is the problem, and not the man. The red pill exists because it has a strong argument, irrespective of correctness. The blue pill doesn't have a strong argument, but it could, in vulnerability.

Millennial debaters also raised issues pertaining to lack of clarity within men, anonymity in the manosphere online, the fear of accountability among men, and the pressure on men to be their own role models without external support. The eventual consensus was that while the responsibility of choice with regards to the manosphere falls on Gen Z, it would be much harder to achieve without the generational support Millennials provide through face-to-face interactions.

live poll, disagreed before debate
54.8%
pre
35.7%
post
Disagreement fell from 54.8% to 35.7%. Neutral rose from 19.4% to 32.1% — the room moved from a firm stance to a more complex, relational reading of the issue.
proposition 03
loneliness
data context: In 2022, 1,22,724 Indian men died by suicide (72.9% of all suicide deaths), a 56-year high. 43% of Indians report feeling lonely, third-highest globally. One in five unmarried men under 30 report having no close friends.
"men today know more about mental health and are lonelier than any generation before them."

Gen Z opened the debate by stating that the path of healing for men today tends to include some sense of accountability, which inevitably makes it a lonely journey. Millennial debaters countered by stating that loneliness has always been present for men; greater awareness of loneliness among men today seems to have amplified the phenomenon. It was also stated that social media appears to contribute to this phenomenon, encouraging loneliness and discouraging repair by pushing forward agendas of "cutting off" people that one may have problems with.

Gendered comparisons between how people are raised were also brought up; one debater pointed out that boys are raised to be "boys" and girls are raised to be "women", nurturing, caring, looking out for others as a responsibility. It is therefore important to teach men too that mental health, rather than showing up in grand ways like therapy, actually shows up in smaller ways, such as reaching out when someone is low, staying in touch with loved ones, and seeking help without shame or guilt.

Some debaters pointed out the fact that men today know more about therapy-speak rather than mental health itself, which lets them shrug off accountability without stepping outside their comfort zone. Real growth, however, happens in discomfort and today's world doesn't create opportunities for discomfort as much as it used to.

live poll, agreed / strongly agreed
56.2%
pre
41.9%
post
Agreement fell from 56.2% to 41.9%. Disagreement rose from 31.2% to 41.9%. Responses spread across the full scale — the proposition was complicated, not rejected.
02 / pre-post survey and analysis

the illusion
of isolation.

All those present for the debate, be it crew, debater, or audience, were asked to complete a voluntary 8-item attitude survey to understand how men's emotional behaviour is perceived, and whether structured peer dialogue shifts those perceptions. The survey was in the form of a 1–5 Likert scale (Strongly Disagree / Disagree / Neutral / Agree / Strongly Agree).

All those invited to fill the survey were appropriately briefed about the purpose, ethical risks and benefits, and use of the data, and informed consent was collected for the same. No identifying data was collected, apart from age group, gender, and generation. Pre- and post-survey data was identified and matched by unique 5-digit PINs created by the participants themselves.

Pre-debate survey suggests that the room did not enter the conversation as a blank slate; participants already appeared to hold fairly developed views about men's emotional lives. The strongest pre-existing agreement was related to hidden emotional struggle. Item B6 had a high pre-debate mean of 4.23, with 87.1% selecting Agree or Strongly Agree.

pluralistic ignorance
Men don't stay silent because they want to. They stay silent because they mistakenly assume they are the only ones in the room who want to drop their guard. The survey data reveals this pattern precisely, and shows that structured dialogue, in real time, is capable of breaking it. When men hear other men speak honestly across generations, the assumption of isolation collapses. What remains is recognition.
the hidden majority
93.8%
Post-debate agreement that men experience similar or greater emotional struggles than they show outwardly. Up from 87.1% before the debate.
the gen z baseline
55.6%
Male Gen Z who believed before the debate that a man who speaks openly about emotions is seen as weaker by other men.
after one conversation
11.1%
Male Gen Z who held that same belief after the debate. Down from 55.6%, in a single 90-minute structured conversation.
"Space for vulnerability. Acceptance at the core, validation versus solutions, as men are often simply told to be strong and emotionless." open-ended pre-debate survey response · participant anonymous
pre-debate analysis

not a
blank slate.

B5, which focused on men thinking about mental health more than others realise, also leaned towards agreement, with a pre-debate mean of 3.69 and 68.8% selecting Agree or Strongly Agree. This implies that before the debate began, those in the room already recognised that men may have rich internal emotional lives that are not always visible externally.

However, participants were less uniformly agreed on whether this hidden struggle was caused by men being judgemental, emotionally closed off, or uncomfortable with vulnerability. Pre-debate agreement was lower on B3, related to men judging vulnerability, where the mean was 2.97 and only 31.3% agreed or strongly agreed.

Gender shaped the starting point of the room in visible ways, though these comparisons must be read carefully because the survey was gender-branched: men answered from self-experience, while women answered from their perceptions of men in their lives. Female Gen Z respondents showed the strongest pre-debate belief that men struggle with vulnerability. In contrast, Male Gen Z and Male Millennial respondents showed lower means on restrictive emotionality items, especially B1, where both groups averaged close to disagreement: 2.11 for Male Gen Z and 2.22 for Male Millennials.

87.1% pre93.8%
Men experience similar or greater emotional struggles than they show
B6
68.8% prehigh
Men think about mental health more than others realise
B5
43.8% pre25.0%
A man who openly talks about emotions is seen as weaker by other men
B2
31.3% pre18.8%
Men would judge another man for showing vulnerability
B3
2.97 pre2.62
Combined restrictive emotionality mean (B1–B4)
B1–B4
4.00 pre3.29
Gen Z is more emotionally aware than the generation before (Female Gen Z mean)
B8
pre-post matched analysis

who shifted,
and how.

Across the full sample, the pre-post change suggests a movement away from a simple "men are emotionally closed off or judgemental" framing. The combined mean for B1–B4 decreased from 2.97 before the debate to 2.62 after. The clearest movement appeared on B3, where the mean dropped from 2.97 to 2.47, and agreement reduced from 31.3% to 18.8%.

male · gen z
vulnerability felt less socially risky.

Among Male Gen Z respondents, the most noticeable shift was in how they viewed judgement between men. Before the debate, this group leaned more towards the belief that men who speak openly about emotions may be seen as weaker by other men. Their mean on B2 fell from 3.33 to 2.56, and agreement dropped sharply from 55.6% to 11.1%.

Their B7 mean rose from 3.33 to 3.89, with agreement increasing from 66.7% to 77.8%. B6 remained very high, with 100% agreement both before and after. This suggests that, for Gen Z men, the debate may have made male vulnerability feel less socially risky or unacceptable. Hearing other men speak honestly in a structured setting may have helped shift emotional struggle from something private and isolating towards something more shared, recognisable, and speakable.

55.6% → 11.1%
B2: emotional openness seen as weakness
66.7% → 77.8%
B7: comfort with emotional honesty in male spaces
male · millennial
other men's lives became more visible.

For Male Millennial respondents, the shift had a slightly different quality. This group did not begin with a strong belief that men judge emotional openness or that vulnerability is necessarily seen as weakness, so there was less movement to be made on those items.

Instead, their clearest shift was towards recognising that other men experience similar emotional struggles, even if they do not show it. B6 increased from a mean of 3.56 to 4.22, with agreement rising from 55.6% to 88.9%. Notably, B5 decreased from 3.67 to 3.11, which may suggest that after the conversation, some Male Millennial respondents felt less alone or less exceptional in thinking about their mental health.

55.6% → 88.9%
B6: men experience more struggle than they show
3.67 → 3.11
B5 mean: feeling less exceptional in private struggle
female · gen z
men's silence reframed: context, not cruelty.

Among Female Gen Z respondents, the most striking change was a movement away from seeing men as judgemental of other men's vulnerability. Before the debate, this group showed relatively strong agreement with the idea that men would judge another man for showing vulnerability; after the debate, none of the respondents agreed with that statement (B3 dropped from 3.86 to 2.14).

This is not to say that their concern for men's emotional struggles reduced. In fact, their belief that men experience more emotional difficulty than they show remained very high. Female Gen Z respondents also became less certain about the idea that their generation is more emotionally aware than the one before them (Mean B8 fell from 4.00 to 3.29). The intergenerational format challenged a straightforward "younger is more aware" narrative.

3.86 → 2.14
B3 mean: belief men judge vulnerability in each other
4.00 → 3.29
B8 mean: Gen Z is more emotionally aware
female · millennial
from fixed perception to layered understanding.

For Female Millennial respondents, the post-debate shift suggests a softening of more fixed perceptions of men as emotionally restricted. Their responses moved downward on items related to men struggling with tender feelings, seeing emotional openness as weakness, and avoiding emotional expression.

However, they continued to strongly endorse the idea that men think about mental health more than they let on and experience struggles they do not show; B5 stayed at a post-debate mean of 4.00, and B6 remained high at 4.29. The shift was not away from empathy or concern for men, but away from a more static view of men as simply emotionally closed. The debate may have allowed some Female Millennial respondents to see men's emotional lives as shaped by uncertainty, cultural expectations, limited modelling, and the availability, or lack thereof, of honest relational spaces, rather than by unwillingness alone.

4.29
B6 post-debate
4.00
B5 post-debate
in their own words

what participants
wrote.

All quotes are anonymised open-ended survey responses.

pre-debate · open-ended survey
"Space for vulnerability. Acceptance at the core, validation versus solutions as men often are simply told to be strong and emotionless."
pre-debate · open-ended survey
"Normalising experiences and emotions every time they open up or are vulnerable."
post-debate · open-ended survey
"Overpathologising mental health can do more harm than good."
post-debate · open-ended survey
"What stayed with me was 'yes it takes a village to raise a child, but if the entire village is saying the wrong thing, it wouldn't be of any help to the child.'"
03 / implications and further directions

what the pilot
shows.

The findings from this pilot study show that structured dialogue can meaningfully shift how people think about men's mental health, particularly when the conversation is designed to hold multiple generational perspectives in the same room. Across both the live poll data and the matched pre-post survey, the shifts were not always dramatic or one-directional. Participants often moved away from fixed positions and towards more nuanced, reflective, and context-sensitive understandings of men's emotional lives.

A key implication of the findings is that Fight Club India's dialogue model appears to create the conditions for perspective shift without relying on persuasion in the conventional sense. The debate format did not appear to push participants towards a single "correct" view. Instead, it allowed them to sit with contradiction: that therapy-speak can both enable and limit emotional awareness; that the manosphere may be harmful but also emotionally persuasive to isolated men; that men today may not be uniquely lonely, but may be more able to name loneliness.

Across the full sample, B6 increased from 87.1% agreement to 93.8% agreement, while B3 decreased from 31.3% agreement to 18.8% agreement. The shift does not suggest that participants stopped believing that men struggle. Instead, it suggests that participants may have moved from "men struggle because men are closed off or judgemental" towards something closer to "men struggle, but this struggle is layered, relational, and shaped by environmental context."

The pre-post survey also showcases that the dialogue may have refined empathy rather than simply increasing or decreasing it. Participants did not leave the room dismissing men's emotional struggles. In fact, belief in men's hidden emotional struggle remained high and strengthened slightly. The shift occurred in the explanation attached to that struggle. Participants became somewhat less likely to frame men as simply judgemental, emotionally closed, or unwilling to express themselves, and more likely to view men's emotional lives as shaped by social context, modelling, safety, shame, generational learning, and the availability, or lack thereof, of honest relational spaces.

Overall, this pilot suggests that Fight Club India's structured debate model has strong potential as both an intervention format and a research tool. The model offers a valuable way to study men's mental health as a social and relational issue, rather than only as an individual psychological concern.

The next step is to run this debate structure across multiple cities with larger and more diverse samples, in order to build a dataset substantial enough to make more definitive claims. Future iterations could compare shifts across age groups, gender identities, cities, and prior exposure to mental health conversations.
further directions
01
multi-city expansion
Run the debate structure across multiple cities with larger and more diverse samples. Build a dataset substantial enough to move from pilot-level insights to stronger evidence about how structured intergenerational dialogue affects attitudes towards men's mental health in urban India.
02
ethics clearance
Ethics clearance from an institution with an Independent Ethics Committee is being pursued before Phase 1 city expansion. The Bangalore pilot data informs Phase 1 instrument design.
03
thematic comparison
Examine whether themes such as therapy-speak, loneliness, male friendships, social media, role models, or help-seeking produce stronger shifts than others, and tailor interventions accordingly.