What Equal Accountability Would Look Like in Practice

If accountability were truly equalized, several familiar institutions would begin to look—and behave—very differently.

Therapy Would Stop Pathologizing Male Restraint

Today, many men enter therapy already on the defensive.

A man who pauses before speaking, who thinks before he feels, who regulates himself under stress is often labeled avoidant, emotionally unavailable, or disconnected. His restraint is treated as pathology rather than capacity.

Meanwhile, emotional flooding, volatility, or verbal escalation—more often expressed by women—are framed as authenticity, trauma responses, or justified expressions of pain.

Equal accountability would mean: Therapy would stop trying to turn men into more emotionally verbal women—and start helping couples understand different but equally valid regulation styles.

Schools Would Begin to Recognize Female Aggression and Social Cruelty

In schools, aggression is still defined almost entirely in male terms.

Boys who shove, yell, or act out are disciplined.
Girls who exclude, humiliate, gossip, provoke, manipulate friendships, or orchestrate social punishment are often ignored—or worse, excused as “drama.”

Teachers routinely intervene in boys’ conflicts while dismissing girls’ relational aggression as normal social behavior.

Equal accountability would mean:

• Recognizing ostracism, rumor-spreading, and reputational harm as real aggression

• Intervening when girls weaponize friendships or authority

• Teaching that cruelty doesn’t require physical force to be damaging

• Holding girls to the same behavioral standards of fairness and restraint

This wouldn’t punish girls.
It would protect children—especially quieter boys who are often invisible victims.

Workplace Policies Would Acknowledge Relational Aggression

Most workplace harassment policies are built around overt misconduct: yelling, threats, sexual advances.

What they rarely address is relational aggression:

• Undermining colleagues through insinuation

• Using complaints as leverage

• Social exclusion and coalition-building

• Reputational sabotage framed as “concerns”

Men are often blindsided by HR actions because they don’t recognize these tactics as aggression until it’s too late.

Equal accountability would mean:

• Scrutinizing patterns of complaint-making, not just the accused

• Distinguishing harm from discomfort

• Requiring evidence rather than emotional assertion

• Acknowledging that social power can be weaponized quietly

A fair workplace doesn’t protect feelings at the expense of truth.
It protects process.

Media Narratives Would Stop Moral Typecasting

Our media runs on a familiar script:

Men are agents.
Women are victims.

When men do harm, it’s framed as character.
When women do harm, it’s framed as context, trauma, or reaction.

Female wrongdoing is softened.
Male wrongdoing is essentialized.

Equal accountability would mean:

• Reporting women’s abuse, coercion, and manipulation without euphemism

• Allowing men to be complex without default suspicion

• Ending the reflexive framing of women as morally passive

• Assess harm by power and leverage, not gender.

Only then could we speak honestly about female power—social, emotional, institutional—without pretending it doesn’t exist.

Why This Matters

A culture that refuses to hold women accountable does not elevate women.

It keeps them morally frozen—protected, but not respected.

And it leaves men carrying responsibility without authority, regulation without recognition, and restraint without credit.

Equal accountability wouldn’t erase difference.

It would finally allow truth to replace myth—and adulthood to replace ideology.

Where the Accountability Gap Becomes Impossible to Ignore

The absence of equal accountability isn’t just theoretical. It shows up most starkly in the places where power, fear, and consequences converge—domestic violence systems, family courts, and criminal sentencing.

These are not edge cases.
They are the places where unequal accountability changes lives.

Domestic Violence: When Relational Aggression Is Erased

Domestic violence is often framed as a simple morality play: violent men, endangered women.

But anyone who has worked clinically with couples—or listened carefully to men—knows the reality is more complex.

Relational aggression frequently plays a role in violent episodes:

• Chronic shaming

• Threats of abandonment or child loss

• Provocation followed by moral reversal

• Escalation without physical contact until a breaking point is reached

None of this excuses violence.
But ignoring it prevents understanding.

Yet domestic violence services are almost entirely gynocentric—built on the assumption that women are victims and men are perpetrators. Services for men are rare, underfunded, or nonexistent. Male pain is treated as either irrelevant or dangerous to acknowledge.

Equal accountability would mean:

• Acknowledging relational aggression as part of the violence ecosystem

• Offering services for male victims—not as an afterthought, but as a necessity

• Providing off-ramps before desperation turns into catastrophe

• Replacing ideology with reality

A system that cannot see male suffering cannot prevent violence.
It can only react after it’s too late.

Family Courts: Presumed Guilt, Invisible Loss

Family courts operate on one of the most damaging accountability asymmetries in modern life.

Men are routinely presumed responsible—even when they have done nothing wrong.

Fathers are:

• Separated from their children without evidence of harm

• Treated as risks rather than resources

• Required to prove innocence rather than have wrongdoing proven

• Held accountable for outcomes they do not control

Women, by contrast, are rarely held accountable for:

• Gatekeeping

• False or exaggerated allegations

• Alienation behaviors

• Using the system itself as leverage

Equal accountability would mean:

• Evidence-based decisions rather than gendered assumptions

• Consequences for false allegations

• Recognition of children’s need for fathers as a developmental necessity

• Treating parenting as a shared responsibility, not a maternal entitlement

When courts fail to hold women accountable, children lose fathers—not because those men are dangerous, but because the system cannot imagine female misuse of power.

Criminal Courts: The Sentencing Gap No One Wants to Discuss

In criminal courts, the accountability gap becomes numerical—and undeniable.

Women receive significantly lighter sentences than men for the same crimes. Judges routinely cite:

• Caretaking roles

• Emotional distress

• Perceived vulnerability

• Likelihood of rehabilitation

Men committing identical offenses are treated as more dangerous, more culpable, and more disposable.

Equal accountability would require:

• Sentencing based on behavior, not gender

• Acknowledging that harm caused matters more than who caused it

• Ending the practice of moral leniency rooted in infantilization

Holding women accountable in criminal courts wouldn’t be anti-woman.
It would be pro-justice.

The Throughline

In each of these systems, the same pattern appears:

• Male power is exaggerated

• Female power is denied

• Male suffering is moralized

• Female suffering is absolutized

This isn’t compassion.
It’s gynocentrism masquerading as justice.

A culture that cannot hold women accountable must distort reality to survive.
And those distortions accumulate—until families break, violence escalates, and trust erodes.

Equal accountability wouldn’t solve every problem.

But it would finally allow us to see clearly—and act like adults in the places where it matters most.

Men Are Good.

 

​

What Would Happen If Women Were Held Accountable?

It’s a provocative question, and one we’re usually not allowed to ask without being accused of hostility or resentment.

But it’s worth asking—not to attack women, and not to excuse men—but because accountability is not evenly distributed, and that imbalance quietly shapes modern culture, relationships, and institutions.

If women were suddenly held accountable in the same way men are, the world wouldn’t become harsher. In many ways, it would become more honest.

The Moral Language Would Change

Much of our moral language today is asymmetrical. Men are expected to explain themselves. Women are often allowed to feel their way out of responsibility.

Emotions matter—but in our current culture, women’s feelings frequently function as moral trump cards. “I felt unsafe.” “I was hurt.” “I was overwhelmed.” These statements don’t just describe an experience; they often end the discussion.

Equal accountability wouldn’t invalidate emotions. It would simply mean that feelings no longer substitute for responsibility. That shift alone would raise the level of adult discourse.

Relationships Would Become More Stable—and Initially More Difficult

Many modern relationships operate on an unspoken rule:

Men must regulate themselves; women must be accommodated.

Men are expected to stay calm, absorb escalation, de-escalate conflict, and tolerate shaming—all in the name of maturity. Women, meanwhile, are often excused from examining how they escalate, provoke, withdraw, or punish.

If women were held accountable for:

• Escalation

• Shaming

• Relational Aggression

• Double standards

• Weaponized vulnerability

• Using social or institutional power to avoid conflict

Relationships would feel more confrontational at first.

But over time, they would become more grounded and more real.

Intimacy requires mutual responsibility. Right now, many men experience intimacy as liability without authority.

Victimhood Would Lose Its Automatic Power

Accountability would force a distinction we currently blur:

Being harmed is not the same thing as being right.

Some women are victims—genuinely.
But victimhood would no longer function as a permanent moral exemption.

This would dramatically reduce:

• False or exaggerated claims

• Social pile-ons

• Casual reputational destruction

• The quiet fear men carry about being misunderstood or accused

Ironically, real victims would be taken more seriously, not less—because the category would no longer be diluted by misuse.

Institutions Would Have to Grow Up

Many of our institutions—education, therapy, HR, media—are structured around shielding women from accountability while demanding relentless self-examination from men.

If accountability were equalized:

• Therapy would stop pathologizing male restraint

• Schools would begin to recognize female aggression and social cruelty

• Workplace policies would acknowledge relational aggression

• Media narratives would stop moral typecasting

We would finally be able to talk about female power without pretending it doesn’t exist.

Women Would Become More Free—Not Less

This is the part almost no one acknowledges.

Lack of accountability infantilizes.

When women are shielded from consequences:

• Growth slows

• Self-awareness dulls

• Agency is quietly undermined

Accountability is not punishment. It is recognition of moral adulthood.

Some women would initially resist it.
Many would later feel relieved by it.

Men Would No Longer Be Required to Absorb the Chaos

Men are often expected to:

• Absorb emotional volatility

• Take the blame to keep the peace

• Stay calm while being provoked

• Be strong without being heard

Equal accountability would mean men are no longer required to be the emotional shock absorbers of modern life.

That change alone would reduce male withdrawal, bitterness, and despair.

The Deeper Truth

A culture that cannot hold women accountable is not pro-woman.

It is gynocentric—and gynocentrism ultimately harms everyone.

Accountability isn’t about blame.
It’s about reality.

And when reality is finally allowed back into the room, it has a way of making everyone more human.

A Brief Vignette

Mark and Lisa come to couples therapy after yet another “blow-up.”

Mark admits he raised his voice during an argument. He’s remorseful, embarrassed, and quickly accepts responsibility. The therapist explores his anger, his triggers, his tone.

Lisa explains that before Mark raised his voice, she had stopped speaking to him for three days. No explanation. No response to his questions. When he tried to reconnect, she cried and told him he was “scaring her.” Later, she told friends she felt emotionally unsafe.

None of this is named as aggression.

The session centers on Mark’s reactivity. Lisa’s silence, tears, and withdrawal are treated as understandable responses to stress. Mark leaves with homework. Lisa leaves affirmed.

Both partners used pressure.
Only one was held accountable.

Relationships Would Acknowledge Female Relational Aggression

In intimate relationships, aggression is still defined almost entirely in male terms.

A man who raises his voice, postures physically, or shows overt anger is quickly flagged as threatening, abusive, or unsafe. His behavior is scrutinized, named, and often pathologized—sometimes appropriately, sometimes reflexively.

Meanwhile, a wide range of female relational tactics pass largely unnoticed, unquestioned, or morally sanitized:

Temper tantrums
Crying as leverage
Withholding affection or sex
The silent treatment
Emotional withdrawal as punishment
Threats of abandonment
Recruiting children, friends, or therapists as allies
Rewriting conflicts to preserve moral innocence

These behaviors are rarely labeled as aggressive at all. They are framed as emotional expression, vulnerability, distress, or simply “how women communicate.”

The result is a profound asymmetry:
Male aggression is visible and condemned.
Female aggression is invisible and normalized.

Equal accountability would mean:

Recognizing that passive and indirect tactics can be just as coercive as overt ones

Naming manipulation regardless of whether it is loud or quiet

Understanding that tears, silence, and withdrawal can be used strategically—not just sincerely

Holding both partners responsible for how they exert power under stress

Couples therapy would stop treating male reactivity as the problem while treating female tactics as background noise. It would help both partners see how each uses pressure, leverage, and avoidance when they feel threatened.

This wouldn’t excuse male intimidation.
It wouldn’t deny female vulnerability.

It would simply acknowledge a truth long avoided:
Healthy relationships require accountability for all forms of power, not just the ones that look masculine.

Men Are Good

Part 2 will be published on Thursday and will examine the accountablity issues in the workplace, the educational system, the media, the courts, the family courts, domestic violence and psychotherapy.

It’s easy to blame technology. It’s harder to ask why a boy might feel safer talking to a machine than to a person.

Why Would Boys Choose AI Over a Real Human?

An article recently published by The Tyee raises alarms about boys and young men turning to AI companion chatbots for emotional support. The piece is framed as a thoughtful exploration of risk: misinformation, emotional dependency, radicalization, misogyny, and the danger of boys rehearsing their inner lives in the company of a machine rather than a human being.

On the surface, it sounds compassionate. Reasonable, even. Who wouldn’t want to protect young people from harm?

But when you slow the article down and look carefully at how boys are portrayed—what is assumed, what is omitted, and what is quietly feared—a different story begins to emerge. This is not really an article about boys’ needs. It is an article about adult discomfort with boys finding support outside approved channels.

And yes, there is misandry here—not loud, not crude, but woven into the framing itself.

Boys Are Being Explained, Not Heard

The article asks why boys and young men might be drawn to AI companions. That’s a fair question. But notice something immediately: no boy ever speaks.

There are no quotes from boys.
No first-person accounts.
No testimony that is treated as authoritative.

Instead, boys are interpreted through:

• academic research

• institutional language

• risk models

• public opinion polling

Boys are not subjects here. They are objects of concern.

This is a familiar pattern. When girls seek connection, we listen. When boys do, we analyze.

Male Emotional Life Is Treated as a Deficit

Early in the article, we’re told that boys face pressure to conform to emotional toughness, limiting their empathy and emotional literacy. This is a common trope, and it does important rhetorical work.

It subtly establishes that:

• boys are emotionally underdeveloped

• their distress is partly self-inflicted

• their coping strategies are suspect

What’s missing is just as important.

There is no serious acknowledgment that boys:

• are punished for vulnerability

• are mocked or shamed for emotional honesty

• quickly learn that expressing confusion or hurt can backfire socially

To me, it seems this omission matters. Boys don’t avoid emotional expression because they lack empathy. They avoid it because it is often unsafe.

AI doesn’t shame them.
AI doesn’t roll its eyes.
AI doesn’t correct their tone.
AI doesn’t imply that their feelings are dangerous.

That alone explains much of the appeal.

Male Pain Is Framed as a Threat

One of the most telling moves in the article is the escalation from loneliness to danger:

“Over time, isolation and loneliness may lead to depression, violence and even radicalization.”

This sentence does enormous cultural work.

Male suffering is not simply tragic—it is potentially menacing. The implication is clear: we must intervene, regulate, and monitor because these boys might become dangerous.

Notice how rarely female loneliness is framed this way. Women’s pain is treated as something to be soothed. Men’s pain is treated as something to be managed.

That asymmetry is not accidental. It reflects a long-standing cultural reflex: male distress is tolerated only insofar as it does not alarm us.

AI Is Cast as the Problem, Not the Symptom

The article repeatedly warns that AI companions provide a “frictionless illusion” of relationship. They affirm rather than challenge. They comfort without conflict. They validate rather than correct.

All of that may be true.

But the article never asks the most important question:

Why does a machine feel safer than a human being?

If boys are choosing AI over people, that tells us something uncomfortable about the human environments we’ve created:

• schools where boys are disciplined more than understood

• therapies that privilege verbal fluency and emotional disclosure

• cultural narratives that frame masculinity as suspect

• media portrayals that associate male grievance with moral danger

AI did not create these conditions. It simply exposed them.

The Misogyny Panic

At one point, the article imagines a boy frustrated in a relationship with a girl, and worries that a chatbot might echo his resentment and guide him toward misogynistic interpretations.

Pause there.

The boy’s frustration is immediately framed as a moral hazard.
His emotional pain is treated as something that must be challenged, corrected, or redirected. The girl’s role in the relational dynamic is never examined.

This is a familiar cultural rule:

• men’s hurt must be monitored

• women’s hurt must be believed

That is not equality. That is a hierarchy of empathy.

The Telltale Reassurance

The article includes this sentence:

“It is important to note that boys and young men are not inherently violent or hypermasculine.”

This kind of reassurance only appears when the reader has already been nudged toward suspicion. It functions less as a defense of boys and more as a rhetorical safety valve.

“We’re not saying boys are dangerous,” it implies.
“But we need to be careful.”

Careful of what, exactly?
Of boys speaking freely?
Of boys forming interpretations that haven’t been pre-approved?

What This Article Is Really About

Beneath the stated concern about AI is a deeper anxiety: boys are finding connection without adult mediation.

They are:

• seeking reassurance without moral correction

• exploring their inner lives without being pathologized

• forming narratives without institutional oversight

That is unsettling to systems that have grown accustomed to managing male emotion rather than trusting it.

The solution offered, predictably, is not listening.
It is regulation.
Restriction.
Monitoring.
Expert oversight.

Boys are once again framed as problems to be handled, not people to be heard.

The Sentence That Cannot Be Written

There is one sentence the article cannot bring itself to say:

“Boys are turning to AI because they do not feel safe being honest with adults.”

If that were acknowledged, responsibility would shift.
Away from boys.
Away from technology.
And onto a culture that routinely treats male emotional life as suspect.

A Different Way to Read This Moment

From where I sit, boys turning to AI is not evidence of moral decay or technological danger. It is evidence of relational failure.

When a machine feels safer than a human being, the problem is not the machine.

The question we should be asking is not:
“How do we stop boys from using AI?”

But rather:
“What have we done that makes human connection feel so risky?”

Until we are willing to ask that question honestly, boys will continue to seek spaces—digital or otherwise—where their inner lives are not immediately judged.

And I can’t fault them for that.