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
October 02, 2025
Father Custody: The Solution to Injustices Against Men?

In this conversation, I sit down with Stephen Baskerville and Rick Bradford to explore a provocative idea: could father custody be the key to addressing many of the injustices men face? Both men are leading experts in this area, and together they examine some fascinating angles. One insight is that the legal contract of marriage doesn’t just unite two people — it’s also the mechanism that legally creates fathers. Yet when that contract is dissolved through divorce, the law often strips fathers of their rights, reducing them to mere “visitors” in their children’s lives. This and much more is unpacked in our discussion.

We also point to Rick’s and Stephen’s books (linked below) and to AI tools that allow you to interact with their work directly. (also linked below)

If you’ve ever wondered why custody is such a defining issue — not just for fathers but for the future of men’s rights and well-being — this dialogue offers insights you won’t want to miss.

Men are good, as are you.

Books...

01:18:10
September 25, 2025
Dr. James Nuzzo Cancelled for Challenging Feminism and DEI

Join me as I talk with Janice Fiamengo and researcher Dr. James Nuzzo about the shocking story of his academic cancellation. What begins as one man’s ordeal soon reveals how woke ideology and radical feminism are undermining science, silencing dissent, and eroding academic freedom. Thoughtful, eye-opening, and at times heartbreaking, this video exposes what really happens when universities put politics before truth.

Dr. Nuzzo's GoFundMe
https://www.gofundme.com/f/ChildStrengthResearch

Dr. Nuzzo's Donorbox
https://donorbox.org/the-nuzzo-letter

https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/

Previous Interviews with Dr. Nuzzo on MenAreGood
grip strength https://menaregood.substack.com/p/childhood-sex-differences-in-grip

sex differences in strength https://menaregood.substack.com/p/sex-differences-in-strength-and-exercise

bias against women in exercise research? https://menaregood.substack.com/p/bias-against-women-in-exercise-research

childhood sex differences in strength ...

01:01:31
September 10, 2025
Diary of a CEO's Debate on Feminism: Our Response

This video will be presented in two parts and is a joint venture between MenAreGood and Hannah Spier’s Psychobabble. Hannah’s standard approach is to make the first half free for everyone, with the second half reserved for paid subscribers. To align with her process, I’m setting aside my usual practice of making all new posts free and following the same format for this release.


Janice Fiamengo, Hannah Spier, and Tom Golden respond to a YouTube video on The Diary of a CEO channel, which features three feminists debating the question: “Has modern feminism betrayed the very women it promised to empower?”In their response, Hannah, Janice, and Tom have a lively discussion, highlighting inconsistencies, omissions, and a variety of other notable observations.

Men Are Good

00:36:02
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

New voice that did her PHD theses on female psychopaths. She has some good stuff

September 18, 2025
Jim Nuzzo Cancelled

I’m sure many of you are familiar with Jim Nuzzo’s work on exercise and strength training. A frequent guest on this channel, Jim offers valuable insights into exercise science. I often call him my favorite researcher—and he truly is!

Jim studies boys’ uniqueness and the differences between boys and girls in exercise approaches and physical traits. He has also exposed distortions in claims that past research was biased against women. In doing so, he broke two “rules” of the woke: celebrating boys’ strengths and challenging feminist disinformation. For this, he was effectively cancelled.

Using the Freedom of Information Act, Jim obtained emails revealing the hate behind his cancellation. This post details that story, and Janice and I will do a video with him next week—so there’s more to come.


https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/my-academic-cancellation-story

October 27, 2025
post photo preview
Never Date a Feminist: Here’s Why


Never Date a Feminist: Here’s Why

Something precious has been lost between men and women. You can feel it in the awkwardness of modern dating, the cold negotiations of marriage, and the way so many couples approach each other with suspicion instead of trust. What used to be a natural partnership—rooted in complementarity and mutual respect—has been reframed through a political lens that sees power, not love, as the central dynamic.

That shift didn’t happen by chance. Feminist ideology, as it evolved from the 1960s onward, carried a moral story about men and women: that men were the oppressors and women their victims. What began as a call for fairness hardened into a worldview that mistrusts men, glorifies grievance, and turns intimacy into an ideological battlefield.

So when you date a feminist, you’re not just meeting a person—you’re often meeting a worldview that sees you as suspect before you’ve even opened your mouth.


1. The Collapse of Trust

No relationship can thrive without trust, yet feminism has steadily eroded it. When men are portrayed as potential abusers and women as perpetual victims, how can either side relax into genuine affection?

Young women today are taught to approach men as hazards—to “believe all women” and “trust no man.” The presumption of male guilt seeps into dating itself. A man’s simple gestures—holding a door, offering a compliment, expressing interest—are filtered through suspicion. Men, in turn, retreat into silence and self-protection. Many simply stop trying.

Intimacy dies when both sides are afraid of each other.


2. The Pathologizing of Masculinity

For decades, men have been told that something essential about them is wrong. Assertiveness, stoicism, competitiveness, and strength—the very traits that once formed the foundation of male contribution—are now branded “toxic.”

The tragedy is that these traits, rightly directed, make men reliable partners and protectors. A man who masters his aggression and channels his drive is the kind of man a woman can count on. Yet feminism teaches women to distrust those qualities and teaches men to suppress them.

Date a feminist, and you’ll often find yourself apologizing for being masculine at all. She’s been told to want a “strong man,” but only if he never acts like one.


3. From Partnership to Power Struggle

Love used to mean two people combining strengths to face the world together. Feminism recast that partnership as oppression. Marriage became a “patriarchal trap,” commitment a limitation, and dependence a weakness.

In the feminist frame, dating is a negotiation over power. Who pays? Who leads? Who compromises? Every act becomes a political calculation instead of a moment of grace.

But love cannot flourish in an atmosphere of scorekeeping. The best relationships aren’t 50/50 trades but 100/100 offerings—each giving their best without fear of exploitation. Feminism trains women to guard their independence and men to apologize for their strength. No wonder so many couples today feel like opponents instead of allies.


4. The Loss of Gratitude

Healthy love thrives on gratitude—the simple act of appreciating what the other brings. But when one gender is cast as the historical oppressor, gratitude becomes taboo.

Feminist teaching encourages women to expect rather than appreciate. Men are told that whatever they give—income, loyalty, protection—is merely payment on a debt. When giving becomes obligation, affection turns transactional.

That loss of gratitude leaves both sexes empty. Women feel perpetually unsatisfied, and men feel invisible. The dance of masculine offering and feminine appreciation has been replaced by mutual resentment.


5. The Devaluation of Marriage and Family

Feminism’s contempt for traditional roles has devastated family life. Marriage was recast as control, motherhood as limitation, and fatherhood as irrelevant.

A generation of women were told happiness lies in career success and sexual freedom, not in building a life with another person. Many believed it—only to find themselves lonely, overworked, and wondering where all the “good men” went.

Meanwhile, men were told they weren’t needed. Popular culture mocked fathers as fools, and courts treated them as visitors to their own children. The result: rising fatherlessness, falling marriage rates, and a generation of children growing up without stability.

Feminism calls dependence weakness. But love—real love—depends on mutual reliance. It’s not submission; it’s unity.


6. Shame and Fear in Intimacy

Dating used to carry a spark—flirtation, pursuit, playfulness. Feminism replaced it with fear. Men now hesitate to show desire lest it be called predatory; women second-guess their femininity lest it be called weakness.

Sex itself has been politicized. Every gesture is scrutinized through the lens of consent workshops and power analysis. Feminism promised liberation but delivered anxiety. Both sexes now overthink what used to come naturally.

If you date a feminist, don’t be surprised if attraction turns to debate. Ideology kills chemistry faster than rejection ever could.


7. The Weaponization of Blame

In today’s relationship culture, when something goes wrong, the narrative already knows who’s to blame—the man.

Whether the problem is emotional distance, poor communication, or conflict, men are told they must “do the work.” The female perspective is validated automatically; the male one is pathologized. Even therapy has absorbed this bias, treating men as problems to fix rather than people to understand.

Feminism’s “emotional labor” myth—claiming women bear all the relational burden—adds insult to injury. The quiet, reliable men who serve, provide, and protect are invisible to a worldview that only sees female effort.


Final Thought

Dating a feminist often means dating someone who has been taught to see you not as a partner but as an opponent. You can love her, but you’ll be fighting ghosts—the patriarchy, “toxic masculinity,” and every man who ever hurt her.

If you want a relationship built on trust, respect, and admiration, find a woman who believes in men, who sees differences as gifts, not threats.

Never date a feminist—not because you fear her strength, but because you value love too much to let ideology poison it.

Men Are Good.

Read full Article
October 23, 2025
post photo preview
W​omen’s Studies was Never About Study

W​omen’s Studies was Never About Study

For decades, Women’s Studies has held a privileged place in academia. From its earliest days, it was never a neutral or exploratory field—it was born out of activism, not inquiry. The goal was not to ask open questions about gender, but to advance a political framework that saw women as oppressed and men as privileged. It promised to give women a collective voice and to expose the “hidden structures” of patriarchy, but from the beginning, its conclusions were already written into its premises.

From Activism to Orthodoxy

Women’s Studies emerged in the late 1960s as an explicitly ideological project, shaped by the political currents of second-wave feminism. Its founders were activists first and academics second. The programs they built were not designed to test ideas but to institutionalize a belief system—that society was organized around male domination and that liberation required dismantling it. Rather than studying whether patriarchy existed, Women’s Studies set out to document how it did, embedding the theory of oppression into every syllabus. What began as political conviction soon became academic dogma.

A Closed Loop of Certainty

Once the framework of oppression was installed as unquestionable truth, the field began to police its own boundaries. Dissent was not debated—it was pathologized. To question the narrative of systemic male power was to “uphold patriarchy.” To suggest that men face distinct forms of hardship was to be told you were shifting attention away from women — that you were “making it about men.”​ Even sympathetic scholars who urged more balance found themselves marginalized. In time, Women’s Studies became a self-reinforcing system—its theories generating its evidence, its evidence confirming its theories. The goal was no longer discovery but preservation of the ideology itself.

Theory Without Tether

Much of the writing in Women’s Studies rests on sweeping abstractions: “patriarchy,” “privilege,” “internalized oppression,” “toxic masculinity.” These terms are often treated not as hypotheses to be tested but as truths to be applied. Shulamith Firestone declared that “the goal of the feminist revolution must be… the elimination of the sex distinction itself.” bell hooks wrote that “patriarchy is the single most life-threatening social disease assaulting the male body and spirit.” Such claims are not evidence-based conclusions; they are moral declarations — proclamations of belief.

When theory replaces evidence, conversation dies. Instead of exploring how men and women differ in complex, sometimes complementary ways, Women’s Studies tends to flatten the picture into one story: oppressors and oppressed.

The Disappearing Male

Ironically, as the field expanded into “Gender Studies,” men nearly vanished from the picture except as symbols of privilege or threat. Rarely do these programs explore male pain, fatherhood, or the male experience of relational loss, shame, or sacrifice. When male suffering is acknowledged, it’s often reframed as a symptom of “toxic masculinity” — as though men’s pain merely confirms the theory rather than complicates it.

If academia truly cared about gender, it would study men as carefully and compassionately as it studies women. But in the current climate, even suggesting that balance is considered suspect.

Power, Not Understanding

Modern Women’s and Gender Studies have largely shifted from studying what is to prescribing what should be. The core pursuit is no longer knowledge but power — the power to define social norms, influence policy, and shape language. As a result, universities now graduate students steeped in theory but poorly equipped to engage with those who don’t share their ideological framework. The field’s inward focus breeds division rather than understanding.

Why It Matters

This isn’t just an academic squabble. The ideas born in Women’s Studies now drive policies in media, law, education, and corporate culture. They shape how we talk about men and women, how we define fairness, and how we teach our children about themselves. When a discipline insists that one sex’s narrative of oppression defines the truth, it narrows empathy for the other half of humanity.

A truly balanced study of gender would ask harder questions — not how to dismantle men, but how men and women can understand each other more deeply. Until that shift happens, Women’s Studies will remain less a study of truth than a sermon about power.

Men Are Good


Note:
Next week, Janice Fiamengo, Jim Nuzzo, Hannah Spier, and I will be releasing a video discussion titled “The Evolution of Women’s Studies and Its Terms.” We’ll take a deeper look at how Women’s Studies developed, examine course materials and degree trends, and unpack the language it has generated—terms like microfeminism, antinatal feminism, compulsory heterosexuality, internalized misogyny, and kin-keeping. It should be a lively and revealing conversation.​

Read full Article
October 20, 2025
post photo preview
Reproductive Rights End at Ejaculation: How Men Lost Control Over Parenthood


Reproductive Rights End at Ejaculation: How Men Lost Control Over Parenthood

It’s one of the most unspoken truths in modern life: once conception occurs, men have no reproductive rights. A woman can choose to keep a pregnancy or end it. She can decide to raise the child or place it for adoption. A man, on the other hand, is bound—socially, legally, and financially—to whatever decision she makes.

That imbalance is so normalized that few even notice it. When the topic arises, most people reflexively defend the status quo. “Well, it’s her body.” Of course it is. But what’s rarely considered is that while women have control over their bodies, men have no control over their futures.

“The man’s genetic material, his emotional capacity, his finances, and his lifelong identity as a father or a stranger—all of it hangs on someone else’s choice. A woman’s responsibility is conditional; a man’s is absolute.

And this asymmetry is defended not as a moral dilemma to be resolved, but as a settled truth.


The Silent Consent Trap

We’ve been taught to think that when a man consents to sex, he consents to everything that might follow. But when a woman consents to sex, she still retains the right to decide afterward whether to become a mother.

This moral sleight of hand is stunning once you notice it. One person’s consent is treated as final and binding; the other’s is treated as provisional and revocable.

And yet this assumption—so old it feels invisible—forms the bedrock of modern reproductive law.

If a pregnancy occurs and the man doesn’t want to be a father, the system tells him, “Too bad. You should have thought of that earlier.” If the woman doesn’t want to be a mother, society says, “She has a right to choose.”

Both positions can’t be reconciled under any serious notion of equality.


The Price of Powerlessness

For many men, the consequence isn’t only financial—it’s existential.

Imagine discovering that someone chose to bring a child into the world with your DNA, against your will, and that you’ll now spend 18 years paying for the decision you didn’t make. Imagine learning that a partner deceived you about contraception, or tampered with protection, and you’re told by the court that none of that matters.

Your body, your consent, your word—irrelevant.

The state considers you responsible for what someone else decided to do with your biology.

The irony is brutal: men are lectured about “taking responsibility,” but responsibility without consent is not morality—it’s servitude.

And while precise numbers are impossible to know, the scale of this problem is enormous. Countless men quietly accept pregnancies they would have preferred to avoid—not because they chose fatherhood, but because the law left them no voice in the matter. For every man who speaks out, many more simply submit to a fate decided by someone else. And this imbalance cuts both ways. Just as some men are forced into fatherhood they didn’t choose, others are denied fatherhood they deeply want. Many have stood by helplessly as a pregnancy they hoped to cherish was ended—not because they were careless or uncommitted, but because the law gave them no voice. For them, “her choice” becomes their grief, and that grief is treated as if it doesn’t exist.

And beneath that larger injustice lies an even starker reality: a measurable percentage of pregnancies begin with deliberate deception. Studies conservatively estimate that 1–3% of fathers are unknowingly raising children who are not biologically theirs. Men who uncover the truth and challenge paternity are often ordered to keep paying anyway, because “it’s in the best interest of the child.”

In other words, the legal system tells men that even being lied to about fatherhood doesn’t matter—your wallet still belongs to the child, and by extension, to the mother who deceived you. It’s her body, her choice—and your wallet, her choice too.


Moral Courage and the Empathy Gap

Why is there so little outrage about this? Because when men suffer, empathy tends to vanish.

We can see this in how society responds to female pain—mobilizing instantly, funding shelters, rewriting laws—and how it responds to male pain—with indifference, mockery, or moral lectures.

A man who feels trapped by fatherhood he didn’t choose is told he’s irresponsible or immature. A woman who feels trapped by motherhood she didn’t choose is seen as courageous for seeking control. And when a man feels trapped by abortion—when he longs to protect the life of his own child but is powerless to stop its ending—his pain is dismissed as interference in someone else’s right.

This empathy gap runs so deep that even discussing male reproductive rights feels taboo. People worry it undermines women’s freedom, as if equality for one sex must come at the other’s expense.

But fairness isn’t a zero-sum game. Equality doesn’t mean less compassion for women—it means more honesty for everyone.


The “Financial Abortion” Idea

One idea, sometimes called “paper abortion” or “financial abortion,” proposes that men should be able to relinquish legal parenthood within a set time early in pregnancy—mirroring a woman’s right to choose abortion or adoption.

Critics say it lets men “walk away from their responsibilities.” But this criticism misses the point: responsibility must follow consent. You can’t demand moral or financial duty from someone who had no voice in the decision that created it.

If women can legally choose parenthood, men should at least be able to choose not to be one.

Otherwise, what we call equality is really a kind of gendered servitude—freedom for one sex, obligation for the other.


Consent and Control

At its heart, the issue of reproductive rights for men isn’t about sex. It’s about consent, autonomy, and the meaning of equality.

In every other area of life, consent without control is invalid.
If someone borrows your car without permission, you don’t owe them gas money because “the trip already happened.” If a doctor performs a surgery you didn’t consent to, it’s malpractice—even if they believed it would help.

Yet when it comes to reproduction, we abandon that principle completely.

Men’s consent ends at ejaculation. From that moment on, everything that follows—the pregnancy, the birth, the lifelong obligation—is out of their hands.

And society calls this justice.


The Deeper Consequence

When men feel they have no control over one of life’s most defining events—whether or not they become a father—it fuels a quiet kind of despair. It teaches them that their choices don’t matter, that their voices are disposable, that their role in reproduction is purely mechanical.

It also weakens trust between men and women. True partnership depends on mutual agency and mutual accountability. When one side holds all the power, resentment grows.

This isn’t just a legal problem; it’s a relational one. Many young men today fear relationships precisely because they sense this imbalance—because they know that in the eyes of the law and culture, they have no reproductive rights, only responsibilities.


A Culture That Values Both Sexes

Reproductive fairness shouldn’t be controversial. If we truly believe in equality, then both sexes deserve the same moral and legal respect for their choices.

That means we need to have the courage to ask hard questions:

  • Should men have the right to decline fatherhood when women can decline motherhood?

  • Should paternity testing be standard, to protect both fathers and children from deception?

  • Should reproductive coercion—like lying about birth control—be treated as seriously as forcing a woman into pregnancy?

Equality isn’t about punishing women or freeing men from moral duty. It’s about aligning rights with responsibilities, and recognizing that both sexes have an equal stake in the creation of life.

Until that happens, we’ll keep pretending that justice exists where it doesn’t—and men will keep paying the price for choices they didn’t make.

Because in our culture, reproductive rights still end at ejaculation.

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