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
August 02, 2025
Engineered Fatherlessness Creates Chaos

This 2021 video explores the growing issue of fatherlessness, questioning whether it’s been deliberately engineered or simply allowed to happen. It exposes the fact that we knew even in the 1960’s the devastating impact of not having fathers in the home. It shows some little known, and basically ignored research about this issue. Yes, Dan Quayle was correct!

Social Structure and Criminal Victimizationhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022427888025001003

Moynihan Reporthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Family:_The_Case_For_National_Action

McClanahan researchhttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3904543/Murphy Brownhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_Brown

00:09:35
July 24, 2025
How Ideology Defeats Truth: The Hand That Rocks The World

Tom Golden and David Shackleton explore the key themes of David’s book The Hand That Rocks the World. The conversation begins with a look at how both sexes use power, with a particular focus on women's power—how it operates, and why it so often goes unseen or unacknowledged. David outlines three distinct forms of female power, each with both positive and negative expressions. The discussion then shifts to human maturity, examining how personal growth can be stalled by ideological identification. And there's much more—insights that challenge conventional narratives and invite deeper reflection.

David’s book The Hand that Rocks the World
https://amzn.to/3TSR80H

00:56:37
July 21, 2025
AI Books

We now have a new section that is accessible in the top navbar of the substack page titled AI Books. It contains links to numerous books on men's issues that each have an AI app that is able to answer detailed questions about the book. The above video gives some ideas of how to use these.

https://menaregood.substack.com/s/ai-books

The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell
Fiamengo File 2.0 Janice Fiamengo
Taken Into Custody - Stephen Baskerville
The Empathy Gap - William Collins
The Empathy Gap 2 - Williams Collins
The Destructivists - William Collins
Who Lost America - Stephen Baskerville
The New Politics of Sex -- Stephen Baskerville
Understanding Men and Boys: Healing Insights - Tom Golden
Boys' Muscle Strength and Performance - Jim Zuzzo PhD
Sex Bias in Domestic Violence Policies and Laws - Ed Bartlett (DAVIA)
The Hand That Rocks The World - David Shackleton

Links below

Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell

The Myth of Male Power - documents how virtually every society that survived did so by persuading its sons to be disposable. This is one of the most powerful books...

00:11:44
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
July 28, 2025
DAVIA Press Release: Around the World, Feminists Have Become the New Extremists

This is the latest press release from DAVIA, a coalition of 192 organizations across 35 countries dedicated to bringing balance to a domestic violence system that too often ignores male victims. DAVIA regularly issues press releases shared globally and has become a strong voice advocating for male victims of domestic abuse. You can find all of their press releases here: https://endtodv.org/press-room/

https://endtodv.org/pr/around-the-world-feminists-have-become-the-new-extremists/

post photo preview

Has Feminism ruined the Philippines? It seems that the vilance against women and children law in the Philippines can land a man in Jail or prison for 6 years just for arguing (verbal violence) with you girl friend or wife. It can often be used to extort money from the man to drop the charges.

I was tooling around on Youtube and found this: just a moment of positive male role model.

July 30, 2025
post photo preview
Why Is Masculine Maturity So Hard to Talk About Today?


Why Is Masculine Maturity So Hard to Talk About Today?

In the early 1990s, you could walk into a bookstore and find entire tables devoted to the male journey. Robert Bly’s Iron John was a bestseller. Sam Keen, James Hillman, Michael Meade,​ Robert Moore, Richard Rohr — all were offering soulful, intelligent takes on what it meant to be a man. It wasn’t about domination. It wasn’t about “reclaiming power.” It was about emotional honesty, growth, and purpose. In other words: maturity.

Fast forward to today, and you’ll find… almost nothing. Talk about masculinity now and the conversation quickly turns to toxicity, privilege, or fragile male egos. Where once there was myth, poetry, and psychology, we now get slogans and shame.

Why did this happen? Why is masculine maturity such a neglected subject?

Here are a few answers — and a couple of stories that may help explain why the silence around men runs so deep.


1. The Cultural Suspicion Toward Masculinity

Over the last fifty years, masculinity has been treated less as a stage of growth and more as a problem to be managed. Many institutions — academic, psychological, media-driven — have become allergic to the idea that men might have unique struggles, let alone a need for support. Masculinity is often reduced to a stereotype: aggressive, emotionally stunted, dangerous. So it’s not surprising that serious explorations of mature masculinity are viewed with skepticism — or simply ignored.

I experienced this firsthand when I joined the American Psychological Association’s Division 51, the group supposedly devoted to studying men and masculinities. Initially, I was welcomed. A few of the men there had read Swallowed by a Snake, my first book, and treated me with respect.

But over time, it became clear this wasn’t a group focused on men. It was a feminist-aligned group focused on monitoring men. That would have been fine if it had also been balanced — but it wasn’t.

One moment still sticks with me. I asked the group — these were top psychologists, many regularly quoted in national media — if they had ever heard of Robert Moore, the Jungian analyst who literally co-wrote King, Warrior, Magician, Lover, one of the most influential models of the mature masculine ever created.

Not one of them had heard of him.

These were the gatekeepers of psychological discourse around men, and they had never encountered one of the most insightful thinkers on the subject. That’s when I realized: this wasn’t a field seeking to understand men — it was a field managing a narrative about men.

They later kicked me out of the group.


2. The Disappearance of Mentorship and Male Space

The maturation of men has always required something very simple but essential: older men guiding younger men. That doesn’t mean domination or militaristic hierarchy — it means real mentorship. Time together. Shared wisdom. A hand on the shoulder.

But today, male-only spaces are either disappearing or treated with suspicion. Most institutions that once created these bonds — churches, trades, father-son traditions — are either crumbling or feminized. Men don’t know where to go, and the culture doesn’t really care that they’re drifting.


3. The Mythopoetic Movement Was Shamed Out of Existence

In the 1990s, the Mythopoetic Men’s Movement made a serious attempt to give men a space to grow, reflect, and feel. Men gathered, sometimes in the woods. They drummed. They told stories. They cried. They got honest.

They did exactly what the culture — and women — had been begging men to do for decades: engage emotionally, get their priorities straight, and connect with other men in a non-competitive, supportive environment.

So what happened?

The media mocked them. Relentlessly. Headlines rolled out: “Men Go Into Woods to Beat Drums and Take Off Their Clothes.” Late-night shows made jokes. These men weren’t harming anyone. They were healing. But that seemed to frighten people — especially the idea that men were coming together in a community that wasn’t controlled or mediated by women.

Instead of being praised, they were ridiculed and dismissed. The movement, shamed out of existence, faded.


4. No Urgency for Male Development

When girls or women face emotional hardship, society responds — with programs, policies, and public empathy. But when boys or men face disconnection, despair, or aimlessness, the response is often: “Toughen up.” Or worse: silence.

There’s a deep-rooted empathy gap when it comes to men. The assumption seems to be that men don’t need emotional depth, spiritual development, or mentorship. They just need to behave. This assumption is not only wrong — it’s dangerous. Because without maturity, all you get is drift, anger, or collapse.


5. Fear of Being Labeled

Today, if you talk too much about men’s needs, you risk being labeled “anti-feminist” or “reactionary.” Even well-meaning men tiptoe around the topic for fear of being misunderstood. As a result, the public conversation is cautious, shallow, or entirely missing.

And yet, quietly, the hunger remains.

Men are looking for guidance — not from social media influencers or political ideologues, but from grounded voices who actually understand what male development looks like from the inside.


So Where Does This Leave Us?

We’re in a strange place. The world criticizes men constantly, but offers no real path to growth. It tells men to “do better,” but doesn’t explain how — or even what “better” means, other than being more like women.

Masculine maturity isn't about dominance, nor is it about submission. It's about becoming whole — integrating strength with compassion, solitude with connection, responsibility with joy.

That journey still matters. In fact, it may matter now more than ever.

And those of us who have walked part of that road — and seen its value — need to keep the conversation alive.

Even when it's inconvenient.

Even when it's mocked.

Even when it's lonely.

Because the silence around men has never been a sign of health. It’s a sign that something sacred has been neglected.

And it’s time we returned to it.

Read full Article
July 25, 2025
post photo preview
Heterofatalism: or How to Blame Men For Everything


This is a response to a recent New York Times article by Jean Garnett titled The Trouble With Wanting Men. The subtitle says it all: “Women are so fed up with dating men that the phenomenon even has a name — heterofatalism. So what do we do with our desire?”

Sometimes, the best response is a little humor while flipping the script. See what you think.




"Heterofatalism: Or How to Blame Men for Everything, Even Our Socks"

Ah, “heterofatalism” — the brand-new term coined for the collective exasperation of women who, after navigating the complex world of dating, come to the conclusion that men are the root of all relationship woes. You see, the issue isn't just that men are occasionally anxious, emotionally distant, or a little too obsessed with their sports teams; no, the real problem is that these poor souls — with all their confusing desires, communication issues, and tendency to occasionally ghost you after a couple of drinks — are making it impossible for women to live happily ever after.

Who needs "old-fashioned man-woman stuff," right? We should really just get rid of men altogether, except... well, hold on. It seems like the author might still enjoy the idea of men, as long as they’re perfectly self-deprecating, emotionally available, not so needy, and able to decode all of her mood swings without missing a beat. Apparently, we’re supposed to be sweet, gentle, and constantly checking in with how she feels — but also not too available, because that would make us “needy.” Are you keeping up, men? No? It’s okay, because we aren’t expected to.

What If We Flipped the Script?

Now, imagine if the shoe was on the other foot. What if a man had these same expectations of you Jean Garnett? What if you had to live up to these impossible standards every time a relationship or date rolled around?

For example, let’s say you’re trying to date someone, and he expects you to be emotionally available all the time, always knowing exactly what he’s feeling, always ready to discuss his feelings — at his convenience. Now imagine if you were the one constantly apologizing for not responding to text messages in 90 seconds flat because you were busy with life, work, or, you know, anything else. Or imagine being told you were "too anxious" to handle a simple conversation because you were stressed over your busy schedule. Does it seem fair that men are expected to always be the ones to “man up” emotionally, while women are allowed to retreat into their own anxiety and demand validation from men?

Also, here’s a fun thought experiment: What if, as a man, you had to hear all the time about how you were the problem in every dating situation? Imagine your date explaining how she loves the “good guy” archetype but constantly finds him lacking because he doesn’t meet every single emotional need immediately. The “good guy” who’s gentle, sweet, and not too self-deprecating — just enough to make you feel like a glorified emotional ATM. It’d be pretty exhausting, wouldn’t it?

Emotional Labor: A Two-Way Street

Let’s get real for a moment. The whole concept of emotional labor often gets pinned solely on men — the idea that women are somehow left to pick up the emotional slack in relationships. But if we take a closer look, we see a different picture. If the standard is that men should always be emotionally available, always interpret every word and gesture in the right way, shouldn’t women also take on the responsibility of understanding the emotional needs of their partners? Isn’t it unfair to expect men to constantly decode the mystery of “how you’re feeling” without giving them the same space to feel confused, anxious, or uncertain about what’s going on in the relationship?

What if men were to complain about the “hermeneutic labor” they had to perform just to keep a relationship afloat? Imagine if men spent every conversation analyzing why you were saying one thing and meaning something else. If men constantly had to decode your emotional signals — every pause, every silence, every hint — would we be quick to dismiss it as just part of being a man? Or would we call it what it is: exhausting?

Isn’t It Time for a Little Empathy?

Now, let’s circle back to that romantic ideal — the “good guy” who wants to be loved, but can’t seem to get it right because he's “too anxious,” “too confused,” or “too emotionally unavailable” when it matters. But what if, just maybe, the problem isn’t his inability to meet her needs, but the sheer weight of the unrealistic expectations placed upon him? Imagine being a man, constantly told that you are too much or not enough at the same time — one minute, you need to be emotionally open, the next you’re told you’re too emotional.

Let’s flip the script.
Imagine you’re the one who needs a little breathing room — just some space to think.
But your partner won’t let it go:
“Why can’t you just communicate like a grown-up? What are you, emotionally stunted?”
And when you finally admit you’re anxious or overwhelmed, you’re slapped with labels like “needy,” “hysterical,” or “too sensitive.”
Then he runs off to his buddies, and they all have a good laugh at your expense:
“Aww, poor little fraidy-cat princess. Guess she ​just can't woman up.”
Sound familiar?
Because that’s exactly what you and your friends did to him.
Doesn’t feel so good when the joke’s on you, does it?

Rewriting the Narrative

Maybe it's time to see men as humans rather than stereotypes. Men don’t exist just to fulfill emotional needs, and relationships should be about mutual respect, not endless demands. If we really want to evolve into better relationships, we need to recognize the emotional labor on both sides and give each other the space to be imperfect — without judgment.

Here’s a radical idea: instead of blaming men for the failures of the modern dating scene, let’s take a step back and realize that maybe we’re all a little messed up. And that’s okay. You don’t need us to “man up” — you just need us to be real, and we need the same from you.

And if we’re not perfect? Well, at least we’re not trying to make every relationship a philosophical debate about what does it mean to love and how can we both be completely vulnerable and emotionally invulnerable at the same time.

Pro tip: next time your man shows up with a little emotional confusion, give him a break. Men are not puzzles to be solved; we’re just humans trying to navigate a world that often doesn’t make sense to any of us.

And for the record: ​Men Are Good.

Read full Article
July 14, 2025
post photo preview
Why Men Struggle to Stand Together
How competition, culture, and gynocentrism keep men from standing together

It’s no secret that men and women are different—but one of the lesser-known differences, and one of the most socially consequential, is found in how each sex relates to their own group.

Women consistently show strong in-group bias. They support each other socially, emotionally, and politically. They instinctively identify with the struggles of other women. This solidarity forms the backbone of movements, activism, academic departments, and public policy. When a woman sees another woman being mistreated, her response is often immediate: “That could’ve been me.”

Men, by contrast, tend to show weaker and more conditional in-group bias. Their loyalty to other men is context-dependent, usually tied to shared purpose or external threat. A man will stand with another man on the battlefield, on the job site, or on the basketball court—but outside of those types of goal-oriented bonds, that sense of male unity often fades.

Why is that?

Part of it is biological and evolutionary. For men, life has always been a mix of coalition and competition. Throughout history, men had to work together in tribes or hunting parties—but within those groups, they also competed for rank, dominance, and access to mates. That means male bonding has always existed alongside male rivalry. The result? Male loyalty is real, but fragile.

Even today, many men see other men as rivals first, allies second. If another man struggles—loses his job, breaks down emotionally, or gets mistreated in a custody battle—he may not get support. He may get silence. Or worse, blame. Because in the male psyche, weakness often reads as threat. It disrupts the unspoken expectation that men must be strong, self-reliant, and in control. In male hierarchies, weakness can be seen as a liability—something that drags down the group or exposes it to risk. And for many men, seeing another man suffer can stir up buried shame or fear about their own vulnerabilities, leading them to distance themselves rather than lean in. It’s not cruelty—it’s biology and conditioning.

This fragile in-group bias creates a massive hurdle for any effort to advocate for men. Men’s rights movements, fatherhood initiatives, male mental health campaigns—they all struggle not just because society ignores them, but because men themselves often fail to show up for one another. And this problem isn’t just internal. It’s magnified by something even larger: gynocentrism.


Gynocentrism: The Cultural Blind Spot

Gynocentrism is the cultural tendency to prioritize women’s needs, feelings, and safety—often at the expense of men. It’s not just a personal bias; it’s institutional, ideological, and deeply embedded in our narratives about right and wrong. From early childhood, boys are taught to protect girls, to defer to their emotions, and to take responsibility for female wellbeing. “Never hit a girl.” “Be a gentleman.” “Sacrifice for your wife.” These messages, ​no matter how well-meaning, train boys to associate virtue with serving women. They are rarely taught to protect or serve each other. This conditioning only deepens with age. In politics, education, and media, men gain status by defending women—not by defending men. A man who speaks up for women is seen as noble and progressive. A man who speaks up for men is seen as angry, bitter, or fragile—even by other men.

In a gynocentric culture—where women’s needs are prioritized and viewed through a moral lens—advocating for women is seen as virtuous, while advocating for men is viewed with suspicion or hostility.

🟣
 

“Women’s advocacy is empathy”

When women advocate for women (or when men advocate for women), the culture responds with compassion, validation, and support. It’s framed as morally good, emotionally sincere, and socially necessary. Example: “We need to hear women’s voices.” “Support women’s mental health.” “Believe women.”

“Men’s advocacy is grievance”

When men advocate for men, it’s often framed as whining, resentment, or a push to reclaim lost power. Instead of evoking empathy, it triggers defensiveness, mockery, or accusations of misogyny. Example: “Why are you complaining?” “This sounds like toxic masculinity in disguise.” “You just want to take us back to the 1950s.”

Say the phrases out loud “We need to hear men’s voices“ or maybe “Believe men.“ Can you feel the difference?

⚖️
 

So the double bind is:

  • Women can talk about their pain and gain moral authority.

  • Men talk about their pain and risk losing moral credibility.


    In other words:

    If you advocate for women, you’re seen as compassionate.
    If you advocate for men, you’re seen as angry.

    That’s the trap—the double bind—created by gynocentrism. So male in-group bias—already fragile—is further fractured by gynocentric incentives.


The Costs of Division

This has enormous consequences.

When a man is falsely accused, other men don’t rally to his defense—they distance themselves.

When a father loses access to his children, he’s often blamed rather than supported.

When men talk about depression or suicide, they’re often met with discomfort, not compassion.

Meanwhile, female solidarity flourishes. Women have entire university departments, legal protections, and billion-dollar initiatives devoted to their advancement. And they have what men lack: a deep, culturally accepted instinct to care for each other.

The result is a lopsided world: female pain is collectivized and acted upon; male pain is individualized and ignored. It should now be obvious that working as a men’s advocate, a fatherhood proponent, or in any male-focused cause is an uphill battle—while those promoting women’s causes are coasting downhill with cultural tailwinds, institutional funding, and moral permission at their backs.

 

Rebuilding Male Solidarity

If men are to thrive—not just as individuals, but as a group—they must begin to reclaim something long buried: a sense of mutual loyalty. A belief that other men are not your enemy. That another man’s pain is not a sign of his failure, but of a culture that has failed us all.

This doesn’t mean abandoning competition or suppressing masculine traits. It means building solidarity around them. Men’s greatest strength has always been in what they can do together—on the battlefield, in a brotherhood, on a team. The challenge now is to transfer that loyalty into emotional and cultural arenas, where men are bleeding quietly in the shadows.

Men don’t need to become women to support each other. They just need to recognize that being on the same team means protecting the players who are getting crushed—by courts, by culture, by silence.

Male pain is real. Male sacrifice is real. Male disposability is real.

But male brotherhood can be real too—if we decide to make it so.

Men Are Good

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