Why We Keep Calling Midlife a “Crisis”

…and why it doesn’t show up the same way for men and women

Even with all the talk about redefining midlife, I still hear the word “crisis” a lot. It gets used like it explains everything, and it really doesn’t. And on the flip side, there’s the “it’s not a crisis, it’s clarity” version (which, fine, I’ve probably said myself once or twice), and that doesn’t explain much either.

Most of the time, it’s just a label we use so we don’t have to look too closely at what’s actually happening.

The version people picture is the one I keep seeing play out around me. It’s the obvious one: something happens, it’s visible, a little disruptive, and more often than not it follows a very male-coded version of midlife. A sharp left turn that people around them can point to and say, “there it is.”

One of my favorite publications, The Midst, shared a stat that stuck with me: only about 23% of people actually experience something that qualifies as a true midlife crisis. Which means the version that gets labeled so quickly isn’t what most people are actually living through.

We’re using one word to describe two very different experiences, and mostly noticing one of them.

Put two people in the same relationship, and that difference gets a lot harder to ignore.

(PS: If you want a more grounded breakdown of how this is being defined and where that 23% actually comes from, that piece is worth reading here.)

From what I’m seeing, it doesn’t come with a clean headline. It builds over time and shows up in how things land long before anything on the outside changes. For women especially, it rarely follows that obvious, dramatic arc, so it often gets reduced to stress, mood, or hormones instead of being taken seriously for what’s actually shifting underneath.

When I find something gets overused like this, I go back to the definition. A midlife crisis isn’t really about the behavior everyone points to. It’s about tension: the gap between the life someone thought they’d have and the one they’re actually in. That gap creates pressure, and the difference shows up in where that pressure goes.

Lately, I’ve been noticing how differently that plays out. For a lot of (not all) men, it moves outward. Something feels off and the instinct is to fix it by rearranging something around them: where their attention goes, how they see themselves, what they’re doing. It doesn’t always make sense from the outside, but it’s easy to spot.

For a lot of women, it moves in the opposite direction at first. It stays internal and shows up as more questioning, more noticing, and a sense that something doesn’t quite fit the way it used to. Nothing is necessarily broken, which is part of why it gets overlooked.

There’s a version of a relationship I’ve been seeing more clearly. The kind that runs for decades because it’s built on roles that both people understand without ever really spelling them out. It keeps going because it functions. There’s enough structure, shared responsibility, and momentum to keep everything moving forward.

Then midlife strips just enough of that away to reveal what’s been there all along.

The kids grow up. The schedules open. The constant motion that once held everything together starts to ease up. What’s left is the relationship itself, without as much around it to absorb the friction. That’s when it starts to feel different, even if nothing has technically changed.

A therapist friend of mine (and our resident expert), Charles Bauman, said it in a way that stuck. “A lot of men won’t go build real friendships or reach out to other men. So their partner becomes everything by default: companion, sounding board, social life, all of it.” He sees it constantly. It works as long as someone is willing to carry that weight.

Over time, that imbalance becomes harder to ignore. And often, that’s where the responses often diverge. One person starts looking more closely at what’s actually there, while the other is trying to ease the discomfort without necessarily examining it. Both are responding to the same thing, just in completely different ways.

They’re in the same stage of life, but it just doesn’t land the same way.

Something’s Gotta Give Gets It

I’ve always loved Something’s Gotta Give. It’s one of those movies (like Bridesmaids, Sisters, and My Big Fat Greek Wedding) that’s always in rotation for me.

I just rewatched it, and it hits different now. What stood out this time was the contrast between the two main characters.

Jack Nicholson plays the version everyone recognizes. Older, successful, still surrounding himself with much younger women (including the daughter of the lead played by Diane Keaton) and moving through the world like nothing really needs to change. When something feels off, he looks for a way to fix it outside himself. It’s visible, easy to point to, and quick to label.

The experience of Diane Keaton’s character moves in a completely different direction. Nothing about her life looks broken from the outside, but the way she sees it starts to change. There’s a recognition of what she’s been accepting and what no longer feels like enough. It doesn’t come with a big moment, but it changes what she’s willing to stay in.

That’s the part that gets lost when everything gets labeled a crisis.

The focus stays on what’s easiest to see instead of what’s been changing all along. The story becomes that something suddenly went wrong when, for many women, something has been quietly building for years.

Maybe that’s why so many conversations about midlife miss the point.

---

#RealGirlsGuidetoMidlife #MidlifeCrisis #MidlifeWorkbook

We’ve earned every wrinkle. Might as well make more laugh lines together.
Books | Website | Instagram | Facebook | LinkedIn

---

And if you’ve read my first book and loved it, a quick review on Amazon helps keep it moving!