It appears that only men are found living in isolation in the wilderness. Yet, we hear multiple accounts of men found in caves, or forests, by themselves, isolated from society for long periods of time. What is so different between men and women that only men choose this extreme lifestyle? 

A simple explanation could be that men are physically stronger, and are therefore better suited for the rigorous lifestyle associated with living on one’s own. Carrying logs, cutting wood, building shelter, hunting etc. are all physically-demanding tasks. This could make sense, but not all isolated males are physical specimens of ruggedness either. So, while there is some basic appeal to this argument, it fails to capture the full spectrum of answers. 

The other fairly obvious answer is that estrogen influences a woman’s desire to reproduce significantly, and isolating oneself in the wilderness betrays that reproductive urge so directly, that it tears the woman apart in a spiritual or holistic sense. One could argue that a postmenopausal woman therefore could be found in the wilderness, yet I doubt that a woman in her fifties would see the isolation and physical demands as comforting or desirable at this stage in her life. Testosterone, on the other hand, doesn’t carry with it such a strong urge to reproduce as estrogen does. Rather, it carries an urge to dominate, overcome, and control one’s surrounding. In fact, living in isolation can almost be seen as a way to have unchallenged control over one’s environment, especially if the individual is skilled in hunting, and has created a comfortable environment for habitation. While dominating a female partner may be ultimately more fulfilling, killing animals, masturbating, and building a warm shelter may satisfy many of man’s testosterone-filled urges. Thus, a man could live in accordance with his hormonal urges for the most part, while a woman would have to be postmenopausal to find such agreement. 

The last, and possibly more complicated reason for only finding men living in the wilderness, is due to the fatalistic and overwhelming failure and depression that may beset a man who struggles to create value in society. For example, a man must produce something of value, usually in the form of money, for nearly any woman to take him seriously and invest time or energy into him, let alone have sex with him. Sure, drug-addicts will sleep with a man for drugs, but in this case drugs are valuable, and therefore are exclusionary of these men. I’m talking about men who struggle to obtain money, value, or sustain a meaningful job. They may have a mental illness, a scarring childhood, or a learning disability. They may be a perfectionist, be hypersensitive, or find moral roadblocks at every turn. But, regardless of what prevents them from obtaining value, they are unable to do so in a meaningful way, and find that society is quite intolerant of single males in their thirties and forties who are unable to produce meaningful value to the world, or retain a reliable partner. This feeling of uselessness overwhelms them and pushes them away from society, where the pressures and judgments are distant and silent. Here, in the wilderness, the lone wolf finds solace and sanctuary in a world that makes sense. Survive, and you are victorious. Find food, build a shelter, and thrive. There is no other purpose here. No society to judge you or deem you worthless. You have value, because you are alive. It is so simple, so peaceful. Perhaps there is a way to facilitate more of this wilderness-living in a sustainable and safe way. It affords peace and serenity to the male, and also reduces the burden on the taxpayer for either paying for him in a penitentiary or through tax-supported benefits. Not to mention, his carbon footprint is minimal. 

It may seem crazy for some to imagine leaving all of society to live in the wilderness, but to those individuals, the choice was probably between suicide, imprisonment, homelessness, or a rough and tumble freedom where no one tells them what to do and where nature’s laws are the only ones that matter. What better sense of freedom than to redefine the rules that determine one’s value? I dare say that it’s almost a clever solution to an age-old problem.