MenAreGood
MenAreGood is a channel for men, boys, fathers, new fathers, grandfathers and women who want to learn about men and masculinity.  Are you tired of the false narrative of toxic masculinity?  Did you know there is a huge amount of research that shows the positive aspects of men, boys and fathers?  That is what we focus on here, being a source of good information and also a place to connect.   Join us!
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
May 01, 2022
Men are Players. Women are Prizes. part one

I received this email from a gentleman who expressed some views on the issue of men as players and women as prizes. I have to agree with his main thrust. What do you think? Tom

Dear Tom,

If I may cry on your shoulder about a particular observation I made in the recent past regarding various corners of the MRA scene . . . I think it's safe to say that most sane people understand that men are players and women are prizes. And yet, some time ago, I noticed that various MRAs were denying this truth while claiming that any man who believes men are players and women are prizes must be a self loathing mamma's boy with masochistic gynocentric fantasies.

Tragically, those are the same sorts of insults and lies that the feminists hurl against any man who discusses these concerns. Acknowledging that women are prizes and men are players is not a state of "pathological victimhood" as some MRAs have claimed. It's a recognition of reality, and it is a form of gaslighting when anyone says otherwise.
image.png

Clearly, when women act as players in the educational and economic spheres, women do so in order to compete against men. Equally clearly, when men act as players, men do so in order to impress women with their victories. These profoundly obvious widespread truths cannot be rationally refuted. We can't even begin to discuss the 80/20 rule or other problems facing men unless we begin by clearly explaining the male player/female prize dynamic. It's not primarily a social construct. It's a biological underpinning. Life is a game. Men are players. Women are prizes.

If there were one single truth that I would want to tell people to help them understand men and women, it would be the fact that men are players and women are prizes. The dynamic is similar to a football player and cheerleader dynamic. Of course a good player is a prize in his own right, and of course cheerleaders have internal competitions regarding who can be the prettiest, but only a first rate fool would claim that he doesn't understand the difference between a cheerleader (prize) and a quarterback (player). And yet, I recurrently run into various MRAs who actually have the nerve to play dumb and claim that the male player/female prize dynamic is actually reversible, or otherwise doesn't actually exist.

The unbelievable obnoxiousness of people denying the general human evolutionary truth that men are players and women are prizes is difficult to comprehend. The mere existence of prostitution points to this simple fact. Even on a microcosmic level, male sperm literally compete with one another to reach the egg.

The primary definitions of masculinity and femininity are rooted in the concept that men are players and women are prizes. After all, what traits make a good player? Stoicism under pressure, leadership skills, a competitive spirit, heroism, the capacity for innovation, tenacity, grit, brute force strength, skill, height, competency, shrewdness, genius, inventiveness, steadfastness, curiosity, a love of exploration, a gambler's heart, hand eye coordination, daring, good sportsmanship, respect for one's adversary, and an overwhelming desire to win. More advanced forms of masculinity include ideals such as the capacity to beat one's enemy only to then help them back up by extending a hand of forgiveness and reconciliation. Masculinity is what it means to be a player in the game.

As for women? Women are the prizes of the human race. Women have three primary powers to offer men: Sexual reward, childbearing, and maternal soothing. There's nothing else women have to offer men that men cannot basically do for themselves. Women are the mothers, sex objects, and cheerleaders of humanity. When women try to act like men, they use their newfound masculine powers to weaken, confuse, and devalue men. Not only does that not help men, it actively makes men's lives worse by placing the cart in front of the horse. That leads us to a controversial question: Given that women have generally proven that they will not play the role of hypogamous providers to hypergamous male dependents, even when they surpass men in matters of education and economics, do women really have any moral right to be competing against men for positions in either higher education or the economy in the first place? Men already radically overproduce, creating more goods and services in the monetized economy than we could ever possibly need. And men already create a rate of technological change that is so overwhelming that we can hardly even keep up as human beings. Not only is women's contribution to the monetized economy not needed, their involvement likely causes more harm than good.

We can't even begin to have a public conversation about sympathy for male needs unless we start by acknowledging that men are players and women are prizes. Only then can we discuss which rules and social norms would best facilitate proper male/female relations. Only then can we come up with a solution that balances the best elements of sexual competition and sexual compassion at the same time.
image.png

The player/prize dynamic cannot be inverted. However, if we are going to have sympathy for men in our society as men face their roles as the players of the human race, we must first begin by telling the truth: Men are players. Women are prizes. Calling anyone who says this a "self loathing mamma's boy with gynocentric mother issues" is basically a line of feminist psychological abuse rooted in obfuscation. There are few greater ways to sabotage either men or women than to lie to them about their roles as players and prizes.

I have listed some bullet points below laying out the claim that men are players and women are prizes. Nobody is saying the dynamic is 100% entirely black and white, so let's please skip over those sorts of comments if anyone wants to make such claims. The overwhelming evidence shows the dynamic is strongly slanted in that direction.

If we want to explain why women still complain about men being "too poor" even after women surpass men in matters of education and economic attainment, we have to acknowledge the fact that men are players and women are prizes. A "prize" (a woman) is still going to act like a prize even when she is also trying to act like a man at the same time. And even if she proves herself as a man, she's still not going to play the part of a provider to a male dependent. The hypergamous dynamic is widespread beyond any reasonable doubt. Women absolutely suck at playing the role of a provider to a male dependent. They are truly second rate men in this regard.
image.png
The reason this is so important to discuss is because once we all understand that men are players and women are prizes (roughly speaking), then we can actually discuss how to go about regulating social norms regarding what is and is not expected of either sex, all while creating both stigmas, and hierarchical systems of reward, unique to both sexes. This includes caveats for how to go about meeting the needs of those who rack up at the bottom of the male or female hierarchy so that those people don't implode. But we can't even begin to discuss those dynamics unless we begin with the male player/female prize explanation of human behavior.

And for those who say this is a gynocentric fantasy? No it's not, because a player is not any less respectable than a prize. Both categories come with their share of burdens and benefits. However, the difference is that male disposability is a dramatically greater problem specifically because men are players and women are prizes. But there's no way we can possibly even begin to have that discussion regarding how to go about helping men who rack up at the bottom unless we acknowledge that men are players and women are prizes.

It is a huge mistake to assume the player/prize dynamic is primarily "culturally constructed." That theory is as foolish as the theory that "capitalism causes inequality." The problem goes way deeper than that. It's a biological underpinning. It can be guided and managed in ways to make the game more or less civilized, but it cannot be erased entirely.

And before anyone says that some women chase men, so doesn't that disprove the male player/female prize dynamic? Not even remotely. That's an unbelievably foolish statement. Just because a cheerleader chases a footballer does not cause the male player/female prize dynamic to invert. I'm actually amazed beyond belief that so many people don't understand this.
image.png

For the game to be inverted, so that men were true prizes and women were true players, women would have to be competing with one another to see who could become rich, famous, and/or well educated, only to then marry and mate down in class while acting as though this dynamic was entirely natural. It's absurd that we even have to explain that, with rare exception, this is simply impossible.

I have seen so many grotesque distortions and bizarre hostilities regarding these basic underlying truths among various corners of the MRA scene at this point that I can hardly even believe it. At some point, among some MRAs, the desire to avoid victimhood began to look more like gaslighting victims by trying to distort reality in order to pretend that men are not suffering from real social challenges.

Believe it or not, the male player/female prize dynamic is not a social construct and it was not invented in medieval France. It has existed, more or less, since the dawn of man. Even the physical characteristics that women prefer, such as height and upper body strength, obviously point to the male player/female prize dynamic.

● Women reject men at a rate ten times higher than men reject women. This represents the fact that women are more selective than men in their mate choice. This also represents the male player female prize dynamic.

● The more socioeconomic power women get, the more women use that power to devalue husbands and fathers while becoming increasingly selective, demanding, and critical towards potential male partners. The more power men get, the more men use that power in order to impress women of comparatively lower socioeconomic status in hope of earning mating rights.

● Prostitution is generally a one way street. The male body, with rare exception, cannot be sold to women.

● Hypergamy is generally a one way street. Again, the male body, with rare exception, cannot be sold to women.

● Twice as many of our reproductively successful ancestors were female, not male. Regardless of whether or not this was largely due to accidental deaths, this piece of evidence still leans towards the male player/female prize dynamic because the species rolled the dice harder with men's genes.
image.png

● Women often care what kind of car a man drives. Vanishingly few men give a damn what kind of car a woman drives. Why might that be the case?

● Men are more likely than women to be turned down for sexual intimacy, even within their own marriages.

● Women judge 80% of men as below average while men judge 50% of women as below average.

● The concept of a female harem is well known. The concept of a male harem is laughable.

● Even on a microscale, the act of sex involves male competitors (sperm) racing towards a prize (the egg). This dynamic is representative of the male player/female prize evolutionary dynamic.

● In matters of sexual selection, women are more predominantly valued for their sexual purity (youth, beauty). Men are more predominantly valued for their worldliness, wealth, and social status (fame, education, competency, talent). Even when women gain educational and economic power, they are still reluctant to become hypogamous. This, again, suggests that the male player/female prize dynamic is largely biological. With rare exception, women appear to have a biological revulsion to hypogamy.

● Female incompetence is often a turn on to men (damsel in distress, woman in need). Male incompetence is most often a turn off to women.

● The concept of a man taking advantage of a woman for purposes of sexual gratification when that woman is in a vulnerable position is well known. The concept of a woman taking advantage of a man for purposes of sexual gratification when that man is in a vulnerable position is virtually unheard of.

● There are very few female comedians because women, with rare exception, are infamously unfunny. Many people theorize that this is because of the fact that there is no evolutionary motive for women to strive to win men over with humor given that women can rely almost exclusively on their biological power as womb bearers (sex objects) in order to seduce men and pass their genes on to the next generation.

● Inversions of the male hero/female damsel in distress narrative in women's romance literature are rare and comparatively unpopular.

● Female emotionality is more likely to be viewed as forgivable when it comes to matters of sexual selection. Male emotionality is more likely to be viewed as a sign of incompetence in matters of sexual selection. Again, this overwhelmingly points to the male player/female prize dynamic.
image.png

● The very fact that the weaponization of the insult of male sexlessness can even be used against men in the first place, while accusing men of being murderously resentful over their own alleged sexlessness, all while the inverted dynamic is entirely impossible, as no society accuses women of being murderously resentful due to their alleged sexlessness, reveals the male player/female prize dynamic in of itself.

Again, it's sort of insane and embarrassing that we even have to explain these biological truths to the masses these days. These are not primarily social constructs.

● Rape accusations tend to be a one way street, with women accusing men, not men accusing women. This is, yet again, what we might expect when examining a male player/female prize evolutionary dynamic.

● Complaints of sexual harassment also tend to be a one way street, with women accusing men, not men accusing women.

● Virtually all human societies define sex as "the woman giving something away" and the man "getting something" which may be symbolic of a male player/female prize evolutionary dynamic.

● With rare exception, women still remain unwilling to mate or marry down in class, even when women surpass men in terms of income and educational attainment.

● Those few women who do marry down in either educational or economic class are more likely, not less likely, to divorce their spouses.

● Western civilization's predominant public intellectual, Jordan Peterson, is a strong supporter of the male player/female prize theory of human behavior.

● Men are more likely to regret missed sexual opportunity while women are more likely to regret past promiscuity.

End part one --

Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
December 20, 2025
Bias Against Men and Boys in Mental Health Research

This video is a summary of the three studies we have examined the last three Saturdays. It’s a brief and relaxed look at the high points of those articles. Here’s a summary:

This video examines a pattern I’ve seen repeatedly in psychological research: when data complicates the familiar story of men as perpetrators and women as victims, the data about boys and men often disappears. Using three real studies—on teen dating violence, reproductive coercion, and “masculine norms”—I walk through how boys’ suffering is minimized, misrepresented, or erased as research moves from full reports to media headlines and public policy. What emerges is not just sloppy science, but a troubling bias that shapes how we see boys, men, and masculinity itself.

00:10:31
November 19, 2025
The Relentless War on Masculinity

Happy International Men's Day! It's a perfect day to acknowledge the relentless war on masculinity? Here we go!

In this video I sit down with four people I deeply respect to talk about a book I think is going to matter: The Relentless War on Masculinity: When Will It End? by David Maywald.

Joining me are:

Dr. Jim Nuzzo – health researcher from Perth and author of The Nuzzo Letter, who’s been quietly but steadily documenting how men’s health is sidelined.

Dr. Hannah Spier – an anti-feminist psychiatrist (yes, you heard that right) and creator of Psychobabble, who pulls no punches about female accountability and the mental-health system.

Lisa Britton – writer for Evie Magazine and other outlets, one of the few women bringing men’s issues into women’s media and mainstream conversation.

David Maywald – husband, father of a son and a daughter, long-time advocate for boys’ education and men’s wellbeing, and now author of The Relentless War on Masculinity.

We talk about why David wrote this book ...

01:05:19
November 17, 2025
Cancel Culture with a Vengeance

Universities and media love to brand themselves as champions of free speech and open debate. But what happens when those same institutions quietly use legal tools to gag and erase the very people who challenge their orthodoxies?

In this conversation, I’m joined by two of my favorite thinkers, Dr. Janice Fiamengo and Dr. Stephen Baskerville, to dig into a darker layer beneath “cancel culture.” We start from the case of Dr. James Nuzzo, whose FOIA request exposed a coordinated effort by colleagues and administrators to push him out rather than debate his research, and then go much deeper.

Stephen explains how non-disclosure agreements, non-disparagement clauses, and mandatory arbitration have become a hidden system of censorship in universities, Christian colleges, and even media outlets—silencing dissenters, shielding institutions from scrutiny, and quietly stripping people of their practical First Amendment rights. Janice adds her own experience with gag orders and human rights complaints, and ...

00:57:23
February 07, 2023
The Way Boys Play and the Biological Underpinnings

My apologies for the last empty post. My mistake. Let's hope this one works.

Tom takes a stab at using the podcast function. Let's see how it goes.

The Way Boys Play and the Biological Underpinnings
May 13, 2022
Boys and Rough Play

This is a short excerpt from Helping Mothers be Closer to their Sons. The book was meant for single mothers who really don't know much about boy's nature. They also don't have a man in the house who can stand up for the boy and his unique nature. It tries to give them some ideas about how boys and girls are different. This excerpt is about play behaviors.

Boys and Rough Play

Something men seem to do all the time that women seem to find extreamaly unlikely or impossible.

Made me laugh!!

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1AKtUoYg8x/?mibextid=wwXIfr

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1FwqtFuR2Z/?mibextid=wwXIfr

I have often made this connection. It’s a little too on point to not research and derstand better. I am fairly sure there is something to it.

This is a interesting show of male unity against a Person who thinks she represents others and thinks she as a member of her group is universally wanted. LOL!

December 29, 2025
post photo preview
2026 The Year of Men

This post is dedicated to my friend Mark Sherman, PhD., his sons, and his grandsons. Mark and I share a quiet hope — that we will live to see meaningful progress in the status of boys and men.

 


Every movement begins as an act of imagination. Before anything changes, someone has to picture what fairness would look like if we truly meant it. I wrote this piece to imagine that world — one where men are finally seen in full, with all their depth, strength, and vulnerability. Maybe we’re not there yet. But maybe 2026 could be the year we start to be.


2026 The Year of Men

Imagine that. 2026 becomes the year of men — a year when the conversation shifts from accusation to understanding. For the first time in half a century, men are discussed not as a problem to fix but as people to know. Their genius, their quirks, their flaws, and their quiet strengths are spoken of with the same nuance once reserved for others. College campuses devote programs to exploring men’s lives — their needs, their distinct ways of solving problems, their inner drives. Professors begin to ask questions that once felt off-limits: How have we misunderstood men? What happens when we stop pathologizing masculine traits and start appreciating them for what they are?

The change begins almost accidentally. A viral documentary follows several men through their daily lives — a father fighting for custody, a veteran mentoring fatherless boys, a young man navigating college under a cloud of suspicion.The film ignites something. People start talking about the thick wall of stereotype threat that has been built around men for the last fifty years, and how it quietly shapes everything — from the classroom to the courtroom. The wall doesn’t fall overnight, but it begins to crack.

Soon, the media joins in. Morning shows run thoughtful discussions about men’s emotional lives — how men experience feelings deeply but process them through action, purpose, and silence. Reporters highlight research showing that men’s stoicism, logic, and devotion to service are not deficiencies in empathy but expressions of it. Family court reforms begin to take shape; male victims of domestic violence are no longer turned away simply because they are male. It feels like a cultural exhale — the long-suppressed conversation finally given air.

At first, people are disoriented. After decades of being told that men’s pain doesn’t count, even fairness feels radical. But something shifts. Women, too, begin to see their fathers, husbands, sons, and brothers with fresh eyes. The conversation isn’t about blame anymore — it’s about balance. A new curiosity replaces old resentment. The year of men doesn’t erase anyone; it invites everyone to understand half of humanity that’s been caricatured for too long.

Could it happen? Could a culture so comfortable blaming men ever turn toward truly seeing them? Maybe not all at once. But every change in history begins the same way — with the simple act of imagining it.



What Changes During the Year of Men

The first signs of change come from the ground up. Teachers start noticing boys again — not as potential problems to manage, but as minds to cultivate. Schools experiment with programs that fit how boys learn best: movement, competition, hands-on projects, and purpose. Reading lists begin to include stories of male courage and vulnerability that go beyond superheroes or villains. Teachers are trained to see how boys’ energy isn’t disobedience — it’s engagement looking for direction. For the first time in decades, boys begin to feel that classrooms were made with them in mind.

On college campuses, the tone shifts from suspicion to curiosity. “Men’s Studies” — long a taboo phrase — finds a foothold. Seminars explore how fatherlessness, male shame, and status pressure shape young men’s mental health. Professors dare to say what was once unspeakable: that men have suffered, too. A handful of women’s studies professors even cross over, lending their voices to help create a balanced understanding of gender that includes both sides of the human story. The conversations are messy but alive — and that’s the point. Truth is finally allowed to be complicated again.

The media, too, begins to rediscover men. Documentaries appear about the quiet heroism of everyday fathers, about men mentoring boys in forgotten neighborhoods, about the millions of men who keep the world turning through labor, repair, and service. Morning talk shows, once filled with segments ridiculing male behavior, start inviting men to speak for themselves. The tone softens. People listen. A viral story circulates about a construction crew that raised money to send a coworker’s son to college after his dad’s death. “This,” one host says on air, “is masculinity too.”

Relationships begin to heal in small but powerful ways. Wives notice that when their husbands go quiet, it’s not distance but effort — a man trying to manage his emotions in the only way that feels safe. Sons start asking their fathers for advice again, and fathers rediscover how much they have to give. In counseling offices, therapists begin learning what clinicians have long said — that men process emotions through action, that their silence isn’t absence but presence in another form. Couples therapy starts to meet men halfway instead of treating them as defective women.

And then there’s mental health. The great unspoken epidemic of male despair finally becomes speakable. Instead of shaming men for not seeking help, society asks why the help offered has so little to do with how men heal. Clinics start experimenting with men’s groups centered around work, movement, humor, and camaraderie — not confession circles that make them feel judged. Suicide prevention campaigns stop using guilt and start using respect. The message shifts from “talk more” to “we see you.” And something remarkable happens: men begin to respond.




The Resistance

Of course, not everyone welcomes the Year of Men.
The early months bring a predictable storm. Certain media outlets call it a backlash. Activist groups issue statements warning that focusing on men will “set back progress.” Think pieces appear overnight insisting that “men already have enough,” as if empathy were a limited resource that must be rationed. A few universities cancel events after protests claim that discussing men’s needs “centers privilege.” But this time, something is different: the public doesn’t buy it. Ordinary people — men and women alike — begin asking simple, disarming questions: How is fairness a threat? How can caring for men possibly hurt women?

The resistance grows louder before it grows weaker. It feeds on fear — fear that empathy for men might expose hypocrisy, that the old narratives might not survive open scrutiny. For decades, the culture has run on a quiet formula: men are the problem, women the solution. Challenging that myth threatens a moral economy that has funded entire industries — from grievance studies to gender bureaucracies to the political machinery that profits from division. When men begin to speak, those who built careers speaking about men feel the ground shift beneath them.

In talk shows and social media debates, the same tired accusations resurface: that compassion for men means indifference to women, that noticing male pain is a form of denial. Yet the tone of the conversation has changed. This time, people have seen too much. They’ve seen fathers emotional pain outside family courts. They’ve seen male victims of abuse turned away from shelters. They’ve watched boys fall behind in schools that call them “toxic” for being active, assertive, or proud. The moral logic of exclusion begins to collapse under its own weight.

And then something unexpected happens: some of the loudest critics begin to soften. A few prominent feminists admit that they never intended for fairness to become a zero-sum game. Others, quietly at first, confess that they are mothers of sons — and they now see what men have endured through their children’s eyes. The resistance doesn’t disappear, but it loses its moral certainty. It becomes clear that opposing compassion for men requires something unnatural: denying reality itself.

The Year of Men doesn’t crush opposition; it transforms it. It doesn’t argue so much as invite. It reminds people that love of men isn’t hatred of women — it’s love of humanity. The movement doesn’t demand anyone’s permission to exist. It simply tells the truth with calm persistence until the shouting fades and listening begins again.



The Renewal

By the end of the Year of Men, something subtle yet profound has changed. The culture feels calmer, more honest, more whole. The anger that once filled every gender conversation has lost its fuel. People have begun to see men not as adversaries or caricatures but as essential parts of the human story — the builders, protectors, thinkers, and dreamers whose lives are as sacred as anyone’s.

The public learns what therapists have known for decades: that men’s silence is often love in disguise. That the man fixing the leaky faucet before anyone wakes is saying thank you in his own language. That the husband who works overtime, the son who restrains his tears at a funeral, the firefighter who risks his life for strangers — all are expressing something profoundly emotional, though the culture has lacked the ears to hear it.

In this new climate, men begin to relax their shoulders. They laugh more easily, reconnect with friends, and find meaning again in work, fatherhood, and service. Fathers feel free to be the masculine dad that they are, and boys no longer learn that masculinity is something to apologize for.

The walls that once separated men and women begin to crumble, replaced by curiosity, gratitude, and humor — the natural bonds of people who have finally stopped competing for moral high ground and started building a shared one.

Women, too, find a surprising sense of relief. Freed from the burden of constant grievance, they rediscover what they always loved about men — their steadiness, their generosity, their willingness to stand in harm’s way. The battle of the sexes gives way to partnership. In homes and classrooms and workplaces, people start asking a forgotten question: What are men for? And the answers are not defensive anymore. They are joyous.

By the time December arrives, commentators summarize 2026 as “the year empathy grew up.” It’s not the end of the story, only the beginning — the moment when society realized that healing half of humanity heals the whole. The Year of Men becomes not just a cultural milestone but a mirror, reminding us that progress isn’t about trading one group’s dignity for another’s. It’s about finally understanding that men are good — and always have been.

Men Are Good.

Read full Article
December 25, 2025
post photo preview
A Quiet Thank You to Men, Today
Merry Christmas!


A Quiet Thank You to Men, Today

Today isn’t a day for debate.
It’s a day for gratitude.

So I want to pause and offer a quiet thank you to men — especially the ones who are easy to overlook.

To the men who showed up quietly.
Who didn’t announce their presence or demand recognition.
Who simply did what needed to be done.

To the men who carried financial stress without complaint.
Who worried in silence about providing, about bills, about futures — and still tried to keep the mood light for everyone else.

To the men who fixed, drove, cooked, shoveled, assembled, paid, and planned.
Who solved problems behind the scenes so the day could feel smooth and warm for others.

To the men who swallowed loneliness so others could feel joy.
Who sat at the edge of gatherings, or weren’t invited at all, yet still sent gifts, made calls, or showed kindness where they could.

To the men who didn’t get thanked — and didn’t expect to.

And today, I also want to acknowledge men who carry heavier, quieter burdens.

Men who have been falsely accused, and discovered how quickly the world can turn away from them.
Men who have been divorced and still worked relentlessly to father their children in a hostile environment, where their love was questioned and their access was constrained.
Men who have felt dejected and misunderstood, not because they lacked care or effort, but because the story told about them left no room for their humanity.

Men who have been trying — sometimes desperately — to do the right thing in systems that seemed stacked against them.

Men whose goodness has gone unnamed.

Christmas has a way of highlighting what is visible — gifts, decorations, smiles — but it often misses what is held. The restraint. The responsibility. The endurance. The quiet decision to keep going.

So today, this is simply a thank you.

Thank you for the ways you show love through action.
Thank you for the strength that doesn’t ask to be admired.
Thank you for the steadiness that makes joy possible for others.

You matter. Your efforts count.

Men have always mattered — today is a good day to say it out loud.

Merry Christmas.  Men Matter. Men Are Good.

Read full Article
December 22, 2025
post photo preview
What Men Bring to Christmas


Women are often the heartbeat of the social side of Christmas — the cards, the gatherings, the baking, the presents, the details that make everything glow. But what men bring to Christmas is just as essential, even if it’s quieter and less visible.

Men bring structure. They’re the ones hauling the tree, hanging the lights, fixing what’s broken, driving through the weather, making sure there’s wood for the fire and fuel in the car. They create the framework that holds the celebration up — the unspoken foundation that allows everything else to happen.

They bring steadiness. When things get tense or chaotic — when someone’s late, or the kids are bouncing off the walls — it’s often the calm presence of a man that settles the moment. That quiet “it’s all right” energy grounds the room and restores a sense of safety and ease.

They bring tradition and meaning. Many men are the keepers of ritual: the same breakfast every Christmas morning, the drive to see the lights, the reading of ’Twas the Night Before Christmas. Their constancy ties the present to the past. It gives children a sense that they belong to something enduring.

And men bring humor — the kind that doesn’t just entertain but heals. When the wrapping paper piles up or the cookies burn, it’s a man’s grin or a playful remark that resets everyone’s mood. Men’s humor carries wisdom; it says, let’s not take ourselves too seriously. It reminds us that Christmas isn’t about perfection — it’s about joy.

Finally, men bring quiet joy. They find it not in the spotlight but in watching the people they love — a partner’s smile, a child’s laughter, the flicker of the tree in the dark. Their satisfaction is in knowing they helped create that warmth, often without needing credit for it.

When I worked as a therapist with the bereaved, I saw this again and again after a father’s death. Families would describe a subtle shift — not just grief, but a loss of containment. Without dad, things felt looser, more chaotic, less certain. The house might look the same, but the emotional gravity had changed. What they were missing was that quiet, stabilizing force men bring — the invisible boundary that holds the family together without needing to be named.

It’s one of the paradoxes of men’s contribution: you don’t notice it when it’s there, only when it’s gone.

Women make Christmas sparkle, but men make it stand. Together they form the harmony that makes the season whole — love expressed in different languages, both necessary, both beautiful.

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals