MenAreGood
On Frank Zappa and moral hysteria; a rant
Moiret Allegiere
August 31, 2022

On Frank Zappa and moral hysteria; a rant:

Back in the 1970’s, the phenomenal musician (and professional grumpy bastard), Frank Zappa, was asked a fairly simple question.

Not only was it a simple question; it was one of such monumental stupidity and entitlement that it could only ever have come from the quivering lips of a ferocious feminist scorned: why was this terrible misogynistic male so mean to women in his lyrics?

Now, anyone who has spent any amount of time listening to Frank Zappa will have noticed a few things about his music, his lyrics and – perhaps – the man himself;

1: he was god-damned brilliant. I would dare say he was a genius, though I admit to being a drooling fanboy of his, and as such very biased in his favour. I even named my first dog after him. (She is a bitch, and a tiny chihuahua. Somehow, it seemed rather fitting.)

2: His lyrics kick in all directions. Nothing is ever sacred and absolutely no-one is safe. He himself stated that “Yes – my lyrics are stupid. So what?”

In the musical world of Frank Zappa, lyrics was a necessary evil – a thing that had to be present in music in order for the music to sell, as so very few people listen solely to instrumental music. They were, in fact, nothing but a means to an end. Thus, silly, absurd and comedic lyrics became his thing. Because why the hell not?

In reply to the question, he answered that women need to learn how to take their lumps, same as men.

And this is absolutely true.

There is the thing of it, I think: feminism may very well preach equality – women in general may very well preach equality; may claim to very much be in favour of equal treatment of the sexes, thank you very much, it is the current year, after all.

Yet what is said and what is done are two quite different things. I believe a thing people have to learn as quickly as possible is that people’s words and people’s actions are quite often not the same. Quite the contrary. They clash and they crash very often. Human beings are complex and intricate creatures, filled with internal contradictions and inconsistencies. This is just part of human nature, I suppose.

It is not always easy to practice what one preaches, though I would sorely wish to see more people do so. This, however, requires a lot of introspection and “soul-searching”. This seems to be rather difficult at the present moment, as narcissism is on the rise and everything is always someone else’s fault. As is so often the case, people are not even aware of their failure to walk the talk, to practice what they preach. Particularly so when feminism has tricked the entirety of the western world into believing that men treat other men with all manner of respect and adoration; with all manner of underhanded deals and preferential treatment and what-have- you’s which they do not grant to women.

This is, as I have come to understand it, psychological projection on part of women in general, and within feminism specifically. They would treat other women preferentially: their in-group bias is way stronger than that of men. So, to their eyes – being unable as all hell to tear their gaze away from their navel – there is no reason why men would behave differently. “We would do this, and so they must also do this”. Add some solipsism into the mix, and you have yourself a cake not fit for human consumption. In fact, it is a cake which they both want to have and to eat.

The fact that Frank Zappa poked fun at men in his lyrics – quite often, and in quite fabulous ways – was forgotten by the feminist scorned, who only noticed women being poked fun at. One assumes that she was quite alright with poking fun at men in general. One also assumes that she did not notice that men were poked fun at because that was a message she agreed with; that this was something inherent to her view of the world and as such was a statement of fact, not a matter of men being ridiculed.

If people were to open their eyes… if people were able to remove their gynocentric blindfolds and see the world proper, the first thing to be noticed would perhaps be a certain elevation – one could almost say deification – of women and of womanhood. Women being sat atop a throne made from delicate and fragile flowers; a throne that would topple and crumble to dust at the slightest breeze. It is not rare to see women – whether blatantly feminist or not – go up in arms at the slightest hint of a joke being cracked at the expense of women, claiming this to be proof definitive of a society that just hates women ever so much, dont’cha’know and so we must have all of this and all of the other to lift women up in this society in which women are hated so much that they get all this preferential treatment… as well as a movement supposedly only for them; a movement that shall hold the monopoly on all things sex and gender; a movement which one must have balls of polished nuclear warheads to dare defy, under pain of social ridicule and death.

Women are hated, so a movement solely for women gets all the say and holds all the sway on all the things.

Makes perfect sense, of course.

And I am the emperor of Norway, keeper of the seven keys and dictator for life in the tiny island nation of Hwat Teh Fcuk.

Poking fun at typical female idiosyncrasies, at female stereotypical behaviour is a big fat no-no, and all who commit this most heinous act are misogynistic poopy-heads whose mother was a hamster and whose father smelled of elderberries. And the feminist hordes will fart in their general direction. All the while saying that we should kill all men and stating with absolute certainty that men, that masculinity, that maleness and whatever else is all that is wrong with the world; that all men must take responsibility for the evil of one man, and so forth and so on. And one can not help but wonder: if merely cracking jokes at the expense of women in general is proof of a society that hates women – what does it say about a society in which it is quite alright for academes to publish deathly serious articles titled “why can’t we hate men”? What does it say about a society in which this article is not only alright to publish, but where the author of said article is being presented as a victim for facing backlash to her blatant hatred of the male sex? A society that hates women and adores men would surely not present a woman that shamelessly presents her hatred of men as a victim of men when men – quite rightfully – react to being hated for nothing but them being men.

Jokes perpetuate negative stereotypes of women, and furthers the oppression of women.

Articles justifying hatred of men – published in mainstream media – is proof that women are hated. I will keep repeating these points until people fucking listen. Repeat, repeat, repeat.

The whole world has gone insane. Completely and utterly insane, locked within a moral hysteria built upon vapid moral grandstanding and virtue-signaling by power-hungry navel-gazers whose values are just as deep and firmly anchored as a loosely knit fart.

Ah, shit, this nonsense is trendy now.

Gotta hop along; social validation is the most important thing in the world, after all.

#MenAreTrash! Am I right, sisters? Now – let me get a crack at that pussy. Shit: men may be trash. But I am the exception to the rule. I consider all other men to be trash because I believe them to think and act exactly like me. Now, let me get a crack at that crack. Maybe some good old fashioned simpering, whimpering and puppy-eyed begging will make it so that she touches my penis….Please touch my penis!

#CancelMen, for fuck sake. What does a brother have to do in order to get laid around here? I’ve been self-flagellating for hours on end, but they’ve only been spitting in my eyes. And I am an ally to the noble cause, for Goddess’ sake. Still permanently othered, of course, being but an ally… but I am an ally to the cause of pussy- power. Even wore the pink pussy-hat, for fuck sake.

Please touch my penis.

Ahem.

Carrying on:

Poking fun at typical male idiosyncrasies – at male stereotypical behaviour – is quite alright. This happens every single day, every which where one should so happen to look. And I am perfectly fine with this, without a doubt. The ability to laugh at oneself is a transformative tool. Empowering, if I may be so bold as to borrow a buzzing phrase from the feminist handbook.

People would do well to not take themselves so damned seriouslyall the time.

What is bothering, on the other hand, is the feminist hive-mind having fits of hysteria whenever a woman is poked fun at. What is bothering is – as is so often the case – the blatant double-standard of the thing; the hypocrisy, the idiocy of it all. Add to this the inability of people to see this for what it is: anything but equal treatment. Can’t see the forest for a bunch of pretty little lies and liars squinting at the sun as it pisses in their eyes. Treating the sexes equally does not mean that women should be a protected class of people, never to be made subject to the same mockery and ridicule that men are made subject to.

Just take a look at your average sit-com for examples of this. Or talkshows… day-time television in general, for that matter. Men are bumbling fools, not elevated moral guardians such as women are.

This notion that preferential treatment of women equals equal treatment of the sexes ties very nicely and neatly into a study done by one Amy Yeung (https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/handle/10012/6958 ), in which it is revealed that women consider it to be sexist when men treat women worse than they would treat other men, that women consider it sexist when men treat women just as they would treat other men… considering it only to be equal treatment when men treat women better than they would treat men.

I find this very interesting, as it explains the squeaks, squawks, cuckoos and cackles, moans, marbles, howls and rise of feminism in no small way. It explains perfectly well how a movement can push for preferential treatment and label this as equal treatment. Women view preferential treatment of women to be equal treatment of women. So-called “benevolent sexism” is still detrimental to women, of course. Because what isn’t? Yet they push for it. Who can fathom the feminine mind? Not my wife, that’s for damned sure. By her own admission.

It’s OK, brothers – my wife is an honorary man; a de facto member of the Patriarchy. Our greatest secretary and coffee fetcher, in fact.

Oh boy, I’m going to the special feminist circle of hell for that one.

Not that I believe feminism, or most women, really, able to see this for what it is. I don’t believe most men are willing to see this for what it is either. For women are precious, and must be protected and one can not make fun of women for exactly that reason.

Besides, it supposedly lowers ones chances of getting laid, and men have drives, desires and needs, god-dammit(!) Dick Hardy is a most potent negotiator. Too bad he is fucking brain-dead.

No matter, never mind.

She Said! He said! Chivalry is far from dead!

And if chivalry is dying; if men treat women equally… if men treat women like they would treat other men, articles start popping up from wherever and whatever mourning the death of chivalry and oh and woe-is-me, but where oh where have all the good men gone?

Of course men should pay on dates – women deserve to be taken care of and feel special. But the relationship has to be equal; step up, men, and do your part of everything… whilst paying for everything.


What, women doing their part? Nah, that is just some patriarchal entitlement – yet another unreasonable expectation of women… male entitlement to this and that and the other, as a matter of fact.

Fuck you. Suck my balopticon.

Men should not enjoy their women having an orgasm – that is peak male entitlement right there. Imagine finding enjoyment in ones partner being given enjoyment by oneself. Shock and horror!

Still: women should damned well have at least one orgasm for every ride into funky-town, thank you very much. Just don’t enjoy it while you’re at it, boy. No-one cares if your jaw is frozen solid and your hand is cramping up; get to it, buddy!

What; you want pointers?

Nah, man, you’ve got to know your way around a woman’s body by instinct and intuition alone… Imagine the entitlement in wanting a woman to tell you what she enjoys and how to do it proper… the pure nerve of expecting a woman do something in the sack – goodness gracious, what prime male entitlement this is! Also – fleshlights and sexbots are objectifying women and mass-manufacturing rapists, and so to do porn and masturbation is akin to cheating and, hey, where are you going? Oh, my, why can’t I ever find a good and decent man?

People in glass-houses can not smell their own shit. Instead of listening to what is being said when feminism – when this entitled behaviour – is criticised, they jump into the very same aforementioned hysterics, put words in your mouth and pull strawmen out of their own arse to set on fire. Screaming that women are not hysterical, but perfectly rational and capable of reasonable discussion, fuck you very much and besides, you make her feel threatened and unsafe by your mere presence, fuck-face.

Add a solitary screech about “PATRIARCHY!!?!!?!?!!!” in there, and we have ourselves a winner, ladies and germs. Men have to accept jokes made at the expense of men in general. Televised stereotypes of men? Ain’t nothing wrong with that. To which I would agree, in all honesty. Reverse the sexes, and the shit-show begins. Apparently, men are capable of humour and of laughing at themselves, whereas women are not. Is it masculinity that is fragile, then, or is it perhaps femininity?

#FemininitySoFragile.

Back in my facebook-days, I was part of a Facebook-group that focused on record-collecting and HiFi equipment. As one would expect, men being far more object-oriented than women, this group was overwhelmingly male. I would hazard a guess at it being 98 percent male.

The discussions on records, music and equipment went as one would expect. Typical male banter; friendly insults and the like.

“What the hell kind of piece of shit equipment is that to play that record on? This record deserves tubes blown by the exotic virgins of lala-land and gold-plated cables, handspun by the queen of England, for fuck sake – bunch of amateurs in here.”

You know what kind of friendly banter I am referring to. All in good fun.

And it was good fun, while it lasted.

For, you see, the feminists entered the room; probably smelling a predominantly male space populated by horrible men in dire need of being civilised by the elevated morals of womanhood; a goddess in the guise of feminism come to save these barbarian men from themselves. Come to make sure the good ol’ boys don’t have too much unsupervised fun.

Though I can not prove this, I will dare state that the sole reason for these two feminists being in this group was tone-policing and feminist propaganda, as the only damned thing they posted in there had to do with women and with feminism.

Even when posting pictures of their records or whatever, they always included some fucking feminist “factoid” alongside the picture. Seemed rather planned, if I am to be perfectly honest.

Every day with that shit; feminism me here and pay-gap me there and horrible titties on the covers or on posters on people’s wall over there, making it such an unsafe and non-inclusive group for the women in the group and no wonder there were so few women there and so-and-such and blah-di-blah and shame the male for he is a true bastard-barbarian. How fucking entitled does one have to be to demand people remove posters that are deemed offensive by fragile feminists from their own walls in their own bloody homes? Feminist-levels of entitlement. And fragility.

#FemininitySoFragile

Whenever a woman enters a predominantly male space, it is expected that the men therein shall alter their behaviour so as to not offend her. It does not matter how many men there are in the space or in the group: the word of this one woman has to be law. And, by damn and fuck-me-right-in-the-back-ear: men agree and comply and alter their behaviour to suit the woman, for some ridiculous reason. Female entitlement is enforced by men. There is no denying this. You are allowed to say no to women, you know. Even Dick Hardy is allowed to do just that. In fact, Dick hardy must be encouraged to do just that. So much of this god-damned shit is on our shoulders, gentlemen. You don’t have to put up with it, you know.

So I left this group. After about a week of seeing these two women – might have been one woman with two accounts, come to think of it – constantly posting feminist nonsense, I had just about had it. Then I reached my tipping point, the scales were waxed and the shit slid off and hit the fan, spreading it way more than anyone should accept.

One dude in the group had the nerve, you see, had the unmitigated audacity to refer to Yoko Ono as “the bitch that ruined the Beatles”.

Oh boy.

Oh my.

Oh girl.

Oh fragile femininity supreme.

What a shit-show that turned out to be; a macabre and grotesque cabaret. The feminist footsoldiers came rolling in, floating on the wind by virtue of their bingowings, frothing at the mouth, spittle flying every-which-where, demanding the post be removed, claiming that this group was nothing but a bunch of misogynists; a sorry nest of gender-fascists, in fact.

Yes.

They actually used the term “gender-fascists”.

This, then, was the moment they had been waiting for. Finally, they could spring into action on behalf of scorned women everywhere; women who have to put up with female artists being disliked like male artists are disliked. What horror was this?

Irrational emotionally laden screeching followed. A woman can not be criticised. Not even a female artist. One has to worship the ground she walks on. Any one man can not have any one individual opinion on any one woman; neither the woman nor her caterwauling – that is to say, her art – may be subject to criticism. For any critique of a woman, or her art, necessarily must mean that one hates all women by virtue of their sex. And this has to reflect on the entirety of the group, for men – as we all well know – are a homogeneous blob; a mass of testosterone and brawn and perfectly erect penises that have neither solitary opinions nor individual personalities.

And so many guys in that group simpered and drooled and fell to their knees in abject shock and horror; apologizing profoundly and profusely on behalf of the group. A few brave men dared defy the feminine deity that had entered the space; but the damage was done, the battle was won and the female tyranny reigned supreme that day. All the men had learned of their folly and been given a whipping for their insolence in talking back to their superiors.

Earlier that day, I had posted a picture of Warren Zevon’s phenomenal album “the Wind”. I referred to Warren Zevon as a complete and utter arsehole; a narcissistic bastard with no redeeming qualities except his incredible musical and lyrical talent. He was then, and remains still, one of my favourites. Quite possibly the greatest songwriter to have ever graced this green earth. Second only to Townes van Zandt. Other guys in the group agreed. Other guys in the group had posted similar things about other male
musicians.

No-one reacted with anger or hostility, or claimed that we were just hating on men for them being men. Not even the feminists in the group.

Imagine my shock.

Criticising a female artist, on the other hand, means that the entirety of the group hates women.

Women in male spaces can not help but destroy the male spaces, it seems. Helped very much by the simpering men therein. Much like Yoko Ono, in fact. Women really need to learn how to take their lumps, how to take criticism. Women need to learn that criticism of one woman does not equate to hatred of all women everywhere.
… Much like Yoko Ono, in fact.

Moiret Allegiere

Moiret Allegiere (Born 1986) hails from Norway. A self-described scribbler of lines, juggler of words and weird pseudo-hermit, he became so concerned with the state of the world that he left his long and deliberate hibernation to wreak bloody havoc on the world of fine art and literature.

community logo
Join the MenAreGood Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
1
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
Articles
April 02, 2026
Are Family Courts at War with the Constitution?

In this conversation, I sit down with longtime scholar and author Stephen Baskerville to take a hard look at modern family courts, no-fault divorce, paternal rights, and the assumptions behind shared parenting. Stephen argues that what many people take for granted in divorce and custody law may be far more troubling than they realize—not only for fathers and children, but for the rule of law itself. Join us in this challenging and thought-provoking discussion that raises questions most people never hear asked.

Stephen's Substack
https://stephenbaskerville.substack.com/

01:02:28
March 30, 2026
Blame it on the Manosphere

This short video takes a humorous look at the current panic among feminists and the media over what they call the manosphere. In reality, the manosphere is one of the places where their false narratives are being exposed. What we are seeing now is the creation of a straw man—something to blame, distort, and use as a distraction from the truth that is coming to light. More and more people are waking up to the game and beginning to see the hostility and self-interest that have been there all along.

(This video was produced largely with AI. I wrote the script, and the music and images were AI-generated.)

Men are Good!

00:03:05
March 23, 2026
From Description to Smear: The Guide to the Manosphere

Today’s video is a lively and revealing conversation with Jim Nuzzo about the growing panic over what the media and academia call “the manosphere.” Together, we take a close look at a new Australian guide for teachers that claims to help schools deal with so-called misogynistic behavior among boys. What we found was not careful scholarship, balanced concern, or genuine curiosity about boys. What we found was a familiar pattern: boys portrayed as the problem, their questions treated as threats, and their frustrations dismissed before they are even heard.

Jim brings his scientific eye to the discussion, and that makes this exchange especially valuable. We talk about the sudden explosion of academic and media attention on the manosphere, the way fear is being used to drive the narrative, and the striking absence of empathy for boys who feel blamed, dismissed, and alienated. We also explore something the guide never seriously asks: why are boys drawn to these spaces in the first ...

00:48:43

The rules of the “Red Pill Glasses”

Once you put them on you can’t taken them off.

Once you see it you can’t unsee it.

You can’t force others to where them

You end up saying the sky is blue and they will not believe you!

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1Cak9m6uiY/?mibextid=wwXIfr

Women can they just won’t!

This is on point and even this will be seen as anti woman

May 04, 2026
post photo preview
Don't Take The Bait
Understanding the Animus—and What Men Can Do About It

 

 

 


There’s an idea from Carl Jung that has largely disappeared from modern conversation, but once you see it, you begin to recognize it everywhere.

He called it the animus.

In simple terms, the animus is the inner masculine side of a woman’s psyche. Just as men have an inner feminine (anima), women have an inner masculine. But that simple definition doesn’t go far enough, because the animus doesn’t just sit quietly in the background. At times, it can take over.



What the Animus Looks Like in Real Life

Jungian writers like Emma Jung and Marie-Louise von Franz described this very clearly. When the animus is active, it tends to speak in opinions that feel like absolute truth—not reflections, not curiosity, not a back-and-forth, but conclusions delivered with certainty.

Most men have experienced this moment, even if they didn’t have a name for it. You’re in a conversation, and suddenly you’re no longer being heard. Your words don’t land. The tone becomes sharp, certain, even prosecutorial. You are no longer an individual—you are “men.” And perhaps most telling: it doesn’t feel like her.

That’s the moment.



A Simple Tip-Off: Listen for “Should”

One of the clearest signals I’ve found is a small word that shows up again and again: “should.”

“You should know better.”
“Men should…”
“You shouldn’t feel that way.”

“Should” often signals that the conversation has shifted from what is happening to what must be true—from reality to judgment, from relationship to prosecution. It’s not that the word itself is bad, but when it shows up with certainty and heat, it often marks the moment when you are no longer in a discussion—you’re in something else.



Not Every Argument Is the Animus

This matters. Not every disagreement is an animus moment. Two adults can argue, disagree, challenge each other, and even get emotional while still being in a real conversation. That’s not what we’re talking about here.

A real argument still allows for movement. Animus possession does not.

So these strategies are not for normal discussions. They’re for those moments when nothing lands, everything is certain, and you can feel the shift.



The Bait

The animus, much like relational aggression, offers something very specific: it offers bait. The bait is emotional, and the hook is reactivity. If you take it—even for a moment—you’ve already lost, because now the conversation is no longer about what happened. It’s about how you reacted.



What Works Instead

Over time, I’ve seen something else work. Not perfectly, not always, but often enough to matter. When a man can stay calm, clear, and grounded while simply stating the truth, something changes.

Not immediately. In fact, the attack often continues in the moment. But without a counterattack, the conflict has nowhere to go but inward.



What This Sounds Like

Staying grounded doesn’t mean staying silent. It means speaking clearly—without heat, without defensiveness, and without trying to win.

For example:

“I care about you, but I’m not going to accept being spoken to as if I’m the enemy.”

“I’m willing to talk about what happened. I’m not willing to stand here as a symbol for all men.”

“I hear that you’re upset. I don’t agree with how you’re describing me.”

“I’m open to this conversation—but not in this tone.”

“I don’t think more arguing is going to help us right now.”

“I’m going to step away for a bit. I’m open to talking when we can both speak to each other as people.”

These responses don’t escalate, don’t submit, and don’t take the bait. They simply hold reality steady.



The “Next Day” Effect

I’ve seen this pattern many times. When I don’t take the bait—when I stay steady and speak plainly without heat—the moment doesn’t resolve right away. But later, something shifts.

Sometimes hours later. Sometimes the next day.

The woman comes back—not because I won the argument, but because I didn’t give the argument anything to grow on. Without escalation, she’s left with something different: she has to sit with what happened. And when there is maturity, that can lead to reflection.



But This Only Works With Maturity

This is important. This approach is not a universal solution. There are women who, in the heat of the moment, lose themselves and later come back, and there are women who never come back.

You need to know the difference.

If there is no reflection, no softening, and no awareness afterward, then you are not dealing with a moment—you are dealing with a pattern. And continuing to offer calmness into that pattern does not fix it. It sustains it.



This Takes Practice

None of this is easy. In the moment, your body is activated, your instincts are to defend or counterattack, and the pressure to respond is real. Staying calm and clear under those conditions is a skill, and like any skill, it takes practice.

You won’t do it perfectly. You’ll take the bait sometimes. Everyone does. But over time, you begin to recognize the moment sooner—and respond differently.



Calm Is Not Weakness

One of the challenges today is that this kind of steadiness is often misunderstood. Calmness is labeled as avoidance, logic as cold, and non-reactivity as disengagement. But those labels often miss something essential:

There is a difference between withdrawal and discipline.

I saw this growing up. Men who could sit with intensity, listen without collapsing, and respond without heat. They didn’t always fix things in the moment, but they didn’t make them worse either—and that mattered more than we realized.

As a man, you likely have strengths in logic, calmness, and clarity. These natural masculine qualities have been steadily undermined and, at times, openly shamed by feminists and modern cultural currents. Don’t give them up—use them.



The Real Skill

The real skill is not dominance, and it’s not submission. It’s something far more difficult: clarity without reactivity.

Because clarity doesn’t escalate, and reactivity is what the conflict feeds on.



The Line You Don’t Cross

This is not about becoming endlessly patient. It’s not about absorbing attack indefinitely. At some point, a man has to recognize:

If my steadiness is never met with awareness—only more attack—then I am no longer helping the relationship.

That’s where a different kind of strength is required—the willingness to stop participating in a pattern that does not change.



Final Thought

You can’t force someone to see themselves clearly. But you can refuse to cloud the mirror.

And sometimes, when you do that, they come back and see it on their own.

Men are good, as are you.

Read full Article
May 01, 2026
post photo preview
Tucker on Fatherhood: Here's What He Forgot



Fatherhood matters.

That’s the message at the heart of Tucker Carlson’s documentary Fathers Wanted—and it’s a message worth hearing.

A man who gives his time, his energy, and his life to his children is doing something deeply meaningful. There’s no controversy there.

But as I watched the film, I kept noticing something else.

Not what it said.

But what it didn’t.

Because by the end, the story felt strangely incomplete—like watching a documentary about lung cancer that never once mentions smoking.


The framing begins immediately.

Within the first moments, we are told that young men are choosing pornography, video games, and drugs over marriage and family. The implication is clear: the problem is not just that fatherhood is declining, but that men are turning away from it—opting for comfort, distraction, and indulgence instead.

That may be true in some cases.

But starting the story this way does something important. It establishes, from the outset, that the primary driver of fatherlessness is male behavior.

Everything that follows is filtered through that lens.


The film goes on to frame fatherlessness largely as a cultural and moral failure.

Men, we’re told, are retreating. Avoiding responsibility. Choosing comfort over commitment. Losing faith. Losing purpose.

By the end, the message is unmistakable: good men step up, bad men walk away.
And if a father abandons his children, Carlson makes it clear—he deserves contempt.

That’s a powerful claim.

But it rests on a narrow frame.


Because what the film barely examines—if at all—is the system in which modern fatherhood actually exists.

There is no serious discussion of:

  • family courts

  • custody outcomes

  • child support structures

  • no-fault divorce

  • or how fathers often lose daily access to their children

These are not minor details.

They are central to understanding what happens to fathers in the real world.


In many cases, fathers do not simply walk away.

They are separated—from their children, from their role, from their identity as fathers—by processes largely outside their control. A man can go from being an everyday presence in his child’s life to being a visitor—or, in some cases, a paycheck. And yet, culturally, the outcome is often interpreted the same way:

He left.

But that is not always what happened.


There is another layer here the film only partially acknowledges. For decades, men have been broadly portrayed as:

  • oppressive

  • emotionally deficient

  • disposable

  • dangerous

  • ​toxic

These ideas have been reinforced across media, education, and public discourse—under the influence of feminist frameworks that carry a deep skepticism and contempt toward men.

At the same time, we have seen something very different happen on the other side.

Single motherhood has increasingly been framed not as a difficult circumstance to be supported and stabilized, but as something to be celebrated—even idealized. Cultural messaging often elevates the strength and independence of mothers raising children alone, while saying very little about the cost of a father’s absence.

The contrast is striking. Fathers are questioned. Their role is diminished. Their presence is treated as optional. While single motherhood is often presented as sufficient—sometimes even preferable. The result is a contradiction we rarely confront: We tell men they are not needed. We question their value. We undermine their role.

And then we ask why they hesitate to step into it.


​When structural forces are ignored, a complex social problem ​can get reduced to a simple moral failure. And when that happens, the burden of explanation—and blame—falls almost entirely on individuals.

In this case, on men.


Carlson is right about something important:

Fatherhood matters.

But if we want more fathers present in their children’s lives, we need to do more than praise the ideal We need to examine the systems that shape the reality. Because until we do, we will keep asking the same question—

Why aren’t men stepping up?

—without fully understanding what they are stepping into.

Men Are Good, as are you.

Read full Article
April 27, 2026
post photo preview
She Sees the Problem-But Not The Imbalance
The conflict between men and women isn’t just mutual—it’s shaped by a culture that amplifies one narrative and attacks the other.

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.

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