In a recent piece for The Globe and Mail, Debra Soh takes on a topic that is long overdue for honest discussion: the growing hostility between young men and women, and the role online spaces play in fueling it.

To her credit, she does something that many commentators still avoid. She acknowledges that the problem is not confined to the so-called “manosphere.” She names the existence of a “femosphere” and recognizes that it, too, can promote distrust, manipulation, and even outright hostility toward the opposite sex.

That matters.

For years, the dominant narrative has been that toxicity flows in one direction—that men are the primary source of gender-based hostility, and women are largely reacting to it. Soh challenges that assumption. She points to polling data showing that young women, in some cases, hold more negative views of men than men do of women. She highlights the cultural double standards that allow anti-male messaging to pass with far less scrutiny than anti-female messaging.

All of this is important. And it takes a certain degree of intellectual independence to say it out loud.

But this is where her analysis stops just short of something deeper.

Soh ultimately frames the problem as a kind of mutual escalation—two sides locked in a feedback loop of resentment, each needing to step back, see the other more clearly, and abandon the worst impulses of their respective online cultures.

It’s a reasonable conclusion. It’s also incomplete.

Because it assumes that these two forces exist on roughly equal footing.

They don’t.

The hostility toward men that Soh describes is not simply emerging from fringe online communities. It is reinforced—often subtly, sometimes explicitly—by the broader culture itself. Media narratives regularly cast men as dangerous, deficient, or morally suspect. Academic frameworks frequently position men as privileged agents and women as vulnerable recipients. Institutional policies are often built on these same assumptions.

Over time, this does something powerful: it transforms a perspective into a kind of cultural default.

It begins to feel less like an opinion and more like reality.

By contrast, the hostility that emerges from the manosphere exists in a very different environment. It is not institutionally reinforced. It is challenged, criticized, and often condemned outright. Again, that does not make it accurate or healthy—but it does mean it operates under constraints that the opposing narrative largely does not.

This creates a playing field that is far from level.

One set of ideas is amplified and legitimized. The other is policed and marginalized.

And that asymmetry matters more than we often acknowledge.

Because when one narrative is embedded in institutions, it shapes not just opinions, but outcomes. It influences how boys are educated, how men are treated in courts, how male suffering is perceived—or overlooked. It becomes part of the background assumptions people carry without even realizing it.

Meanwhile, the reactive spaces that emerge in response—however flawed—are then judged as if they exist in isolation, rather than as downstream responses to an already tilted system.

This is the piece that Soh only partially touches.

She sees the hostility. She sees the polarization. She even sees that anti-male sentiment is more widespread than many are willing to admit.

But she does not fully account for the cultural forces that sustain and legitimize that sentiment.

And without that, the solution she offers—mutual correction—risks placing equal responsibility on two sides that are not equally empowered.

To be clear, none of this is an argument for excusing hostility—whether it comes from men or from women. We need to resist the pull of the worst elements on either side. Dehumanization, wherever it appears, damages everyone involved.

But understanding requires clarity.

And clarity requires us to ask not just what is happening, but where the weight of the culture rests.

Until we do that, we will continue to describe the conflict between men and women as a symmetrical breakdown in understanding—when in many ways, it is something much more lopsided than that.

Men are good, as are you.

For decades, we’ve been told a simple story: when women fall behind, it’s injustice. When men fall behind, it’s failure.

That may sound exaggerated. But new experimental research suggests it isn’t.

A recent large-scale study involving more than 35,000 Americans found something striking. When participants were presented with a situation in which a worker had fallen behind—earned less, performed worse, or ended up with nothing—people responded differently depending on whether that worker was male or female.

When the low performer was a man, significantly more participants chose to give him nothing. When the low performer was a woman, more participants redistributed support. Even more revealing, participants were more likely to believe that the man had fallen behind because he didn’t try hard enough.

The researchers call this “statistical fairness discrimination.” That is, people infer that disadvantaged men are less deserving because they assume their disadvantage reflects low effort.

The Effort Story

In the study, participants were asked to redistribute earnings between two workers. In some conditions, earnings were based on productivity. In others, earnings were assigned randomly.

Here’s the important part: even when outcomes were random—when effort had nothing to do with it—participants were still more likely to believe that the male who ended up behind had exerted less effort than the female who ended up behind. In other words, even in the absence of evidence, assumptions about effort were not neutral.

In plain language: when men fall behind, people are more likely to assume they did not try hard enough.

That is not data-driven reasoning. It reflects a prior belief. And prior beliefs shape compassion.

The Compassion Gap

The study didn’t just look at small redistribution decisions. It also asked participants about public policy: should the government provide support to people falling behind in education and the labor market?

Support dropped noticeably when the group described as falling behind was male rather than female.

In other words, sympathy is gendered. The willingness to intervene is gendered. The attribution of responsibility is gendered. Importantly, this was not confined to one political or demographic group. The pattern appeared broadly, suggesting that it reflects a shared cultural assumption rather than a narrow ideological position.

When women fall behind, we instinctively look for barriers. When men fall behind, we instinctively look for flaws.

What This Means

This pattern shows up in places many of us already sense it.

When boys fall behind in school, we talk about motivation and behavior. When girls fall behind, we talk about resources and environment. When men leave the workforce, we question work ethic. When women leave the workforce, we look for systemic obstacles. When fathers struggle financially after divorce, we assume irresponsibility. When mothers struggle, we assume hardship.

The study does not use the word gynocentrism, or make the obvious reference to moral typecasting. It stays within the language of behavioral economics and calls the phenomenon “fairness discrimination.” But the mechanism is clear: disadvantage is interpreted through a moral lens—and that lens is not symmetrical.

Women are more readily cast as vulnerable. Men are more readily cast as responsible. And responsibility without context easily becomes blame.

The Quiet Cost

This matters because perception drives policy.

If society believes that male disadvantage is primarily self-inflicted, there will be less urgency to address it. If people assume boys who fall behind simply didn’t try hard enough, we will design fewer interventions. If struggling men are viewed as less deserving, institutions will reflect that belief—often without conscious intent.

No one has to be malicious. All that is required is a background assumption that male failure signals character weakness. Once that belief takes hold, compassion narrows. And when compassion narrows, so does support.

A Hard Question

Here is the uncomfortable question: why are effort assumptions gendered in the first place?

Why do we instinctively read female disadvantage as circumstantial and male disadvantage as dispositional?

The study does not answer that. It simply shows that the pattern exists. But patterns rarely emerge from nowhere. They reflect cultural narratives about men as agents, providers, and actors—people who are expected to overcome adversity. When they do not, disappointment can harden into judgment.

Women, by contrast, are more often framed as relational beings whose setbacks invite protection. Protection invites support.
Men are more often expected to handle adversity on their own. And when they do not, expectation invites scrutiny.

When Men Fall Behind

We are living in a time when boys lag in reading proficiency, when young men withdraw from education, when male labor-force participation declines, and when male suicide rates far exceed those of women.

Yet when men fall behind, the cultural reflex is not alarm. It is evaluation. Did he try hard enough? Did he make better choices? Did he apply himself?

Sometimes those questions are valid. But when they are asked of only one sex, they reveal something deeper than fairness.

They reveal a compassion gap.

And that gap shapes everything—from classrooms to courtrooms to public policy.

When men fall behind, we don’t just measure their outcomes. We measure their worth.

Men Are Good, as are you.

https://academic.oup.com/jeea/article/23/6/2212/8112864
Cappelen, A. W., Falch, R., & Tungodden, B. (2025). Experimental evidence on the acceptance of males falling behind. Journal of the European Economic Association, 23(6), 2212–2240.

Years ago I read a book called The Death of White Sociology. It explored the rise of a Black sociological viewpoint and challenged the assumptions of what the authors called “White sociology.” What struck me most was not only the book’s critique of how Blacks had been studied and described, but the way it mapped the machinery by which a culture teaches itself to see a group as lesser.

It showed how prejudice does not survive by hatred alone. It survives through a system of reinforcement. Research, media, public opinion, everyday conversation, and institutional assumptions all work together until a distorted view begins to feel like simple common sense. The result is that the targeted group is not merely disliked. It is interpreted through a lens of defect.

As I read it, I kept having the same thought: there is something here that resembles what men face today.

Let me be clear. This is not an argument that men have endured the same history that Blacks endured. They have not. The suffering is not the same. The legal and social conditions are not the same. But the pattern by which a group is culturally misread, judged by hostile assumptions, and portrayed as inherently flawed can look strikingly similar.

That is the comparison worth making.

How a Culture Teaches Itself to See

The book described three powerful channels through which the myth of Black inferiority was spread: common knowledge, the media, and science. Together, they created a self-reinforcing system. Each one echoed the others until the message became nearly impossible to challenge.

Common knowledge is what people “just know” without thinking. In the period the book described, it was simply accepted that Blacks were inferior. That belief did not feel like prejudice to most people. It felt like reality.

Today, something similar operates in a different direction. It is widely assumed that men, as a class, are the problem—emotionally limited, morally suspect, prone to harm. Not some men. Men.

Once that assumption settles in, everything else begins to orbit around it.

The Media: Then and Now

Media plays a powerful role in teaching people how to see.

In earlier decades, Blacks were often portrayed as immature, unintelligent, and incapable of managing life without guidance. Characters like Stepin Fetchit or Amos and Andy reinforced an image of Blacks as confused, dependent, and lacking competence.

Today, it is difficult not to notice a similar pattern applied to men. The modern version is not as overt, but it is just as persistent. Think of characters like Homer Simpson and countless others—men portrayed as childish, incompetent, emotionally clueless, and in need of a woman to guide or correct them.

The message accumulates:
Men are not fully capable. Men need women to straighten them out.

Over time, that message begins to feel normal.

Science and the Framing of Defect

One of the most troubling aspects described in The Death of White Sociology was how research itself could be shaped by cultural assumptions.

In the early to mid-20th century, much psychological and sociological research was not designed to help Blacks. It was designed to explain what was wrong with them. It cataloged deficits. It emphasized pathology. It framed Blacks as needing to change in order to fit the dominant culture.

That pattern is not entirely gone. It has, in many ways, shifted.

Today, a great deal of research on men begins with a similar orientation. It is often less about understanding men and more about diagnosing them. Masculinity is framed as problematic. Male traits are frequently interpreted as risks rather than resources. The focus is not on how to support men, but on how men must change.

And just as importantly, what does not get highlighted matters.

In earlier times, when research produced findings that challenged the narrative of Black inferiority, those findings were often minimized or ignored. They did not fit the story, so they did not spread.

Today, we see a parallel dynamic. When data shows men as victims—whether in areas like domestic violence, educational decline, or mental health—it is often underreported or downplayed. When men do well, it is frequently reframed as evidence of advantage rather than strength. The result is a public picture that remains lopsided.

When only one side of the story is consistently told, it stops feeling like a story. It starts feeling like truth.

Difference Turned Into Deficiency

Another striking pattern from the earlier era was the assumption that Blacks needed proximity to Whites in order to become more “civilized” or mature. The closer one was to White influence, the better one was assumed to be.

That same structure appears today in a different form.

Men are often seen as needing to become more like women in order to be fully healthy or mature. Emotional styles, communication patterns, and ways of processing experience that are more typical of women are treated as the standard. When men do not match those patterns, they are seen as deficient rather than different.

The message, again subtle but persistent, is this:
Men are better when they resemble women.

Perpetrators, Not Victims

Perhaps the most powerful mechanism described in the book was this:

Blacks were defined as the creators of social problems, not the victims of them.

Once that framing takes hold, something important happens. The suffering of the group becomes harder to see. If a group is the problem, then its pain feels less deserving of attention.

That dynamic is deeply relevant today.

Men are routinely framed as the source of social pathology—violence, war, exploitation, dysfunction. And while individual men certainly do harmful things, the broader cultural narrative often treats men as a class as the problem itself.

As a result, male suffering becomes less visible.

Male loneliness.
Male suicide.
Male educational struggles.
Male victimization.

These are real, measurable issues. But they rarely sit at the center of public concern in the same way that other forms of suffering do.

Selective empathy becomes the norm.

The Psychological Cost

When a culture repeatedly tells a group that it is the problem, that message does not remain external. It gets absorbed.

In the years prior to the 1960s, many Black activists faced a heartbreaking reality. Some Blacks had been so worn down by years of judgment and cultural dismissal that their spirits were deeply damaged. The constant message of inferiority had taken its toll.

The civil rights movement did something powerful in response. It did not only change laws. It worked to restore identity and dignity. Phrases like “Black is Beautiful” were not slogans in the shallow sense. They were acts of psychological repair. They challenged a culture-wide narrative and helped rebuild a sense of worth.

 

That kind of shift matters.

Today, we should at least be willing to ask whether something similar is needed for men and boys.

If boys grow up hearing that masculinity is toxic, that men are the problem, that their instincts are suspect, it is not hard to imagine the impact. Shame takes root quietly. Identity becomes confused. Confidence erodes.

At some point, a counter-message becomes necessary—not one that diminishes others, but one that restores balance.

A simple one might be enough to start:

Men are good.

Not the Same History—But a Recognizable Pattern

The point of this comparison is not to collapse different histories into one.

It is to recognize a pattern.

A culture can:

• create a narrative about a group

• reinforce it through media, research, and conversation

• filter all new information through that lens

• and slowly make that narrative feel like reality

When that happens, the group is no longer seen clearly.

It is seen symbolically—as a problem.

We have seen this before.

The people living through it then often could not see it clearly.
It felt normal.
It felt justified.
It felt like truth.

That may be the most unsettling part.

Because if a culture can do that once, it can do it again.

Not the same history.
Not the same wounds.

But a pattern familiar enough that we would be wise—very wise—to recognize it.

Men Are Good, as are you.

The Death of White Sociology https://amzn.to/4dToojz