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
June 13, 2026
The Feminist Fortune Teller

Can you guess what she will say?

00:00:15
June 11, 2026
False Accusations and the Denial of Men's Emotional Pain

This video explores the enormous challenges men face when they are falsely accused. It also examines our culture’s tendency to overlook or dismiss men’s emotional pain, particularly in situations involving false accusations. From a man's perspective, it looks at some of the many reactions and struggles that can emerge under these circumstances.

Men Are Good.

00:09:39
May 28, 2026
Man Hating Stereotype Debunked? The Tale of Two Hate Studies

The Tale of Two Hate Studies

If you ask feminists whether they hate men, how likely are you to get an honest answer?

That question sits at the center of this discussion. We look at two recent studies that attempt, in very different ways, to measure hatred, misogyny, and misandry. One study examines online communities and finds results that do not fit the usual cultural narrative. The other, titled The Misandry Myth, attempts to reassure us that feminists are not especially hostile toward men.

But the deeper question is not simply whether someone will openly admit to hatred. It is whether contempt, prejudice, dismissal, and “helpful” efforts to correct men can operate under the language of care.

Janice Fiamengo, Hannah Spier, Jim Nuzzo, and I explore how anti-male bias is often hidden in plain sight, why female hostility is routinely excused as justified reaction, and how male suffering is minimized, reframed, or simply erased from public concern.

Men are good, as are you.

01:09:57
June 04, 2026
Feminism and Liberal Democracy, can liberal democracy survive feminism?

I found this essay both thought-provoking and unsettling. The post examines how ideological capture can occur gradually—not through dramatic political revolutions, but through the accumulation of influence within institutions that are expected to remain impartial. The result is an essay that asks difficult questions about feminism, liberal democracy, and the future of open debate. I think many of you will find it worth your time.

https://critiquingfeminism.substack.com/p/feminism-and-liberal-democracy

I feel heard!! A woman who is honest and blunt. I am going to try to learn more about her

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1KUgA1NcFj/?mibextid=wwXIfr

Hopefully this cartoonwill become as common as the subject it covers

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1E37iKw2LX/?mibextid=wwXIfr

June 18, 2026
post photo preview
The Best Men's Health Intervention Costs Nothing

June is Men’s Health Month.

Each year we are reminded of the importance of exercise, healthy eating, cancer screenings, blood pressure checks, and regular medical care. These are all important. Men continue to die younger than women and experience higher rates of many serious health problems.

But what if one of the most powerful interventions for men’s health costs nothing? What if one of the most important factors affecting men’s health is something we rarely discuss?

What if it is simply being seen?

Not being noticed for what a man produces. Not being valued for what he provides. Not being appreciated only when something breaks and needs fixing. But being seen as a human being whose wellbeing matters in its own right.

Many men grow up absorbing a simple message:

Provide. Protect. Perform. Work hard. Solve problems. Take care of others.

These expectations are not entirely negative. In many ways, they help create responsible fathers, dependable husbands, loyal friends, and productive citizens. The willingness of men to shoulder responsibility has helped build families, communities, and nations.

Yet there is a hidden danger when a man begins to believe that his worth depends entirely on his usefulness.

Over the years, I have sat with countless men who felt valued for what they provided but rarely valued simply for who they were. They were appreciated when they solved problems, earned a paycheck, fixed something that was broken, or carried a burden that others preferred not to carry. Yet many struggled to believe that they mattered apart from those contributions.

One of the healthiest messages a man can hear is this:

You have value not only in your doing, but in your being.

Your worth is not limited to what you produce, provide, fix, earn, or accomplish. You matter because you are a human being. Simple as that.

Ironically, when men lose sight of this truth, the very qualities that make them valuable to others can begin to damage their health. The man who prides himself on being dependable postpones medical care. The man who always puts others first quietly moves himself to the bottom of his own list of priorities. The man who never wants to be a burden carries struggles alone long after he should have asked for help.

Over time, this pattern can become dangerous. Many men delay seeking help, ignore symptoms, and continue carrying burdens long after they should have asked for assistance. Not because they are foolish or incapable of expressing emotion, but because responsibility has become so central to their identity that caring for themselves begins to feel selfish.

The irony is that many of the qualities we most admire in men can also become health risks: duty, sacrifice, persistence, self-reliance, and endurance. These qualities build strong families and strong communities. Yet when taken too far, they can contribute to burnout, isolation, chronic stress, and declining health.

This is one reason loneliness has emerged as such an important public health concern.

When people think about men’s health, they often imagine heart disease, cancer, or diabetes. Far fewer think about loneliness. Yet loneliness affects physical health, emotional wellbeing, sleep, stress levels, and even longevity.

A man can be surrounded by people and still feel unseen. He can be appreciated for what he does while feeling invisible for who he is. He can spend years helping others while quietly wondering whether anyone would notice if he needed help himself.

As a therapist, I have often been struck by how many men carry tremendous responsibility while receiving very little emotional support. They are expected to be strong, yet even the strongest men are strengthened when someone recognizes that they are valued not only for what they do, but for who they are.

The encouraging news is that offering this kind of support does not require special training, expensive programs, or professional expertise. Some of the most powerful interventions are available to all of us.

A phone call. A conversation. An invitation. A friendship. A community group. A neighbor who checks in. A son who asks his father how he is really doing. A wife who notices her husband’s burdens. A friend who reaches out after a divorce, a job loss, or the death of a loved one.

These moments may seem small, but they communicate something profoundly important:

You matter.

Not because of what you provide. Not because of what you accomplish. Not because of what you can do for others. You matter because you are a human being.

During Men’s Health Month, we should certainly encourage men to exercise, eat well, get checkups, and take care of their bodies. But perhaps we should also remember something equally important.

People thrive when they feel seen. People thrive when they feel valued. People thrive when they feel connected.

And sometimes the best intervention for men’s health is simply helping men know that their wellbeing matters too.

So here is a simple challenge.

Today, let a man in your life know that you value him for more than what he does. Not simply for the paycheck he earns, the problems he solves, or the responsibilities he carries.

Let him know that his presence matters. That his life matters. That he matters.

You may never fully know the impact of those few words. But for some men, hearing them may be far more powerful than you imagine.

Men Are Good.

Read full Article
June 15, 2026
post photo preview
How Institutions Reward Victimhood

In the first two parts of this series, we looked at how victim thinking begins inside the individual and then expands into group identity. But what happens when entire institutions begin to organize themselves around victimhood?

That’s where grievance becomes power.



1. The Moral Economy of Victimhood

In the modern West, compassion has quietly become a form of currency.

Institutions, universities, NGOs, the media, and even governments, now operate within what might be called a moral economy of victimhood.
In this new economy, empathy and funding flow toward those who can most convincingly demonstrate oppression.

The logic is simple: the more you suffer, the more moral authority you hold. The more powerless you can portray your group to be, the more influence you gain in return.

You can see this dynamic play out in grant proposals, corporate campaigns, and media coverage. Funding often depends not on measurable solutions but on the ability to frame problems in moral language, highlighting disparity rather than achievement, grievance rather than growth.

The result? Victimhood becomes not just a feeling, but a strategy.
Suffering increasingly serves as a source of both moral status and political influence.



2. Academia and the Reward System of Grievance

Nowhere is this more visible than in academia, the place where our culture’s moral vocabulary is often created.

For decades, research funding and prestige have favored studies that interpret outcomes through a single lens: oppression.
Complex human realities - biological, psychological, or cultural, are reduced to a simple moral story of oppressor and oppressed.

Entire academic fields, such as gender studies and critical race theory, were built upon this. Once that framework takes hold, questioning it becomes taboo.

Imagine a young researcher who dares to suggest that both sexes face unique disadvantages, or that cultural differences, not just power structures, shape human experience. She might find her proposal quietly rejected, her reputation marked by whispers of insensitivity.

In such an environment, victimhood isn’t healed; it’s institutionalized.
Students absorb the message that identity determines virtue, and that moral worth depends not on integrity or truth, but on the ability to claim injury.

A university should be a place of inquiry. But recently it has lost that focus and has instead become a place of orthodoxy—where compassion is regulated by ideology and empathy is distributed according to approved categories.



3. The Media’s Addiction to Outrage

If academia produces the ideas, the media amplifies them, because outrage sells.

The attention economy rewards stories that trigger moral emotion: anger, fear, and compassion. Nuance doesn’t do it; indignation does.

Algorithms are designed to feed us what keeps us engaged, and nothing engages quite like outrage.
Stories of cooperation or quiet heroism ​can’t compete with the tales of harm and injustice​ that flood our feeds.

Open your phone and you’ll see it: every scroll brings a new crisis, every headline a new wound. The world begins to look like a place where kindness is rare and cruelty is everywhere.

The result is a distorted picture of reality, one where suffering feels everywhere, danger feels constant, and grievance becomes the default tone.

What we call “news” has become a daily reminder of victimhood, both ours and everyone else’s.

The tragedy is that people begin to mistake being informed for being outraged. And outrage, unlike understanding, never satisfies, it only hungers for more.



4. Politics and the Management of Grievance

Politicians have learned the same lesson the media did: grievance wins.

If you can persuade people they’ve been wronged, you can promise to make it right.
Grievance creates loyalty; resentment keeps voters engaged.

A politician tells a group, “You’ve been ignored, disrespected, treated unfairly, and I’m the only one who truly sees you.” It’s a powerful seduction because it flatters pain and transforms anger into belonging.

The problem is that actual solutions end grievances, and grievances win elections.
So the incentives are backward. Leaders talk endlessly about oppression but rarely about empowerment.

Programs that teach responsibility, resilience, or reconciliation don’t attract headlines because they reduce the drama that keeps power flowing. It’s much easier to promise protection than to foster strength.

Grievance politics is emotional theater. Everyone plays their part: the savior, the villain, and the wounded crowd that must never fully recover.



5. The Bureaucracy of Suffering

Billions of dollars circulate each year through organizations devoted to “awareness,” “equity,” and “inclusion.”
Much of this work began with compassion. But bureaucracies, once born, have only one instinct: survival.

And survival depends on the continued existence of victims.

Consider a government department or NGO whose mission is to “end inequality.” If inequality were ever truly solved, its funding would disappear. So the structure itself quietly depends on the persistence of the problem it claims to fight.

The logic is tragic but predictable: progress is never acknowledged because acknowledging it would dissolve the moral and financial justification for the institution’s existence.

It’s why so many awareness campaigns never seem to conclude, because closure would mean unemployment for the cause.
And so, the machinery of compassion becomes the machinery of dependency.​ Groups are continually forced to find new ways of being oppressed. Think feminism.



6. Cultural Fragility and the Loss of Dialogue

When victimhood becomes institutionalized, even ordinary disagreement is reinterpreted as violence.

In universities, students are taught that words can wound like weapons.
Media outlets describe emotional discomfort as “harm.”
Corporations issue apologies not for actions, but for feelings, often their own employees’ feelings about what someone else said.

I recently spoke with a professor who described how his classroom discussions had changed. “Ten years ago,” he said, “a controversial topic was an invitation to think. Now it’s an invitation to panic.”

That’s the new mindset: being offended is seen as caring.

The result is a culture of moral hypersensitivity. Dialogue disappears because truth is no longer the goal; moral innocence is.
People now seem more concerned with avoiding offense than helping those who suffer.

And when a society becomes more afraid of words than of lies, conversation itself begins to die.



7. Reclaiming Resilience

There’s another way, and it begins with remembering what resilience actually is.

Resilience isn’t hardness; it’s flexibility. It’s the ability to bend without breaking, to learn from challenge rather than be defined by it.
When people are taught that they are capable rather than fragile, they rise.

In therapy, I’ve seen men and women rediscover strength by reframing their pain: not as evidence of unfairness, but as proof of their own strength and endurance. Societies can do the same.

The goal is not to give up on empathy. It is to remember that compassion works best when it is balanced with accountability, and justice works best when it leaves room for forgiveness.​

It’s time to reward growth again. To celebrate not who has suffered most, but who has healed best.
To honor the people and institutions that lift others into agency rather than locking them into helplessness.



Closing Reflection

Victimhood once served as a cry for justice. It awakened conscience, stirred compassion, and helped societies correct real wrongs.

But today it has evolved into a system of rewards, emotional, social, and financial. The wounded are now measured, not mended.
And as any therapist will tell you, you can’t heal by staying inside the story of your wound.

The danger is not the wound itself. The danger is becoming so identified with it that we can no longer imagine life beyond it. A culture that keeps replaying its injuries can’t discover what health feels like.

The way forward is not to silence victims, but to remind them, and all of us, that we are more than what hurt us.
Agency is the antidote. Gratitude is the medicine.
And truth, even when uncomfortable, is the only lasting cure.

Because in the end, a healthy society is not one without pain, but one that knows how to grow through it.

Men Are Good.

Read full Article
June 08, 2026
post photo preview
New Web Site - thewaymenheal.com
 

For many years, people have asked me essentially the same question:

“Where can I find a simple explanation of how men heal?”

The answer has never been easy.

Over the last three decades I have written books, articles, blog posts, newsletters, and given countless interviews and workshops. The ideas are scattered across many places.

Recently I decided it was time to gather them into one place.

Today I’m pleased to introduce a new website:

TheWayMenHeal.com

The site is not a blog and it is not a therapy website.

Instead, it is an attempt to clearly explain many of the core ideas that have emerged from my work with men, women, boys, girls, grief, trauma, and healing over the past 35 years.

You’ll find sections on:

  • Why men’s emotions are often difficult to see

  • Action-oriented emotional processing

  • Shame and dignity

  • Solitude

  • Grief

  • The masculine side of healing

  • Research related to men’s emotional lives

  • A glossary of important concepts

  • Frequently asked questions

One of the things I have learned over the years is that many people genuinely care about men but often misunderstand how men experience emotional pain.

Men’s healing frequently occurs in ways that are easy to overlook. We tend to notice tears, talking, and emotional disclosure. We are less likely to notice action, responsibility, service, problem solving, solitude, ritual, and purpose.

Yet these pathways are often central to men’s emotional lives.

My hope is that this site will serve as a practical and accessible resource for anyone who wants to better understand men, whether that person is a therapist, parent, spouse, partner, teacher, researcher, or simply someone trying to make sense of their own experience.

The site is still growing and will continue to expand over time.

I invite you to explore it and let me know what you think.

TheWayMenHeal.com

I hope it proves useful.

Here’s an excerpt from the boys and play sectionn
— Tom




Boys, Play, and Development

Research on play, movement, and rough-and-tumble interaction helps explain why boys often need active, physical, socially negotiated forms of learning and emotional regulation.


Many boys learn through their bodies before they learn through words. They move, chase, wrestle, compete, test limits, take small risks, laugh, fall, get back up, and negotiate rules in the middle of action.

To adults who are uncomfortable with active boyhood, this can look like disorder. But research on play suggests that physical play is not merely noise, chaos, or pre-aggression. It can be a crucial part of development.

Rough-and-tumble play, recess, movement, and active peer interaction help children practice self-control, read social signals, manage intensity, test boundaries, and learn how to stay connected while excited.

When normal boyhood energy is treated as a problem, boys may lose one of the natural pathways through which they learn regulation, relationship, and resilience.

Rough-and-Tumble Play Is Not the Same as Aggression

Researchers have long distinguished rough-and-tumble play from real aggression. Rough-and-tumble play may include chasing, wrestling, mock fighting, tumbling, laughing, fleeing, returning, and exaggerated physical movement. Aggression, by contrast, is marked by intent to harm, distress, coercion, or domination.

This distinction is essential.

When adults cannot tell the difference between play fighting and real fighting, boys’ normal play can be misread as dangerous or disruptive. That misreading may lead to unnecessary discipline, restricted movement, and the loss of important developmental experience.

Good supervision matters. Children need boundaries. But eliminating rough play entirely may remove opportunities for boys to learn how to manage strength, excitement, consent, restraint, and repair.

What Boys Learn Through Active Play

Active play teaches lessons that are hard to deliver through lectures.

Through physical play, boys often learn:

  • how hard is too hard,

  • when another child is no longer having fun,

  • how to stop,

  • how to re-enter play after conflict,

  • how to manage winning and losing,

  • how to read faces and body language,

  • how to negotiate rules,

  • how to take turns leading and following,

  • and how to keep excitement from becoming harm.

These are not trivial skills. They are social and emotional regulation skills.

In other words, active play may be one of the ways boys learn empathy, self-control, boundaries, and connection.

Movement as Regulation

Many boys regulate emotion and attention through movement. Sitting still for long periods may be especially difficult for boys who need active engagement in order to organize themselves.

Recess, outdoor play, physical education, and unstructured movement are not luxuries. They can be part of how children reset attention, discharge tension, build social competence, and return to learning.

This connects strongly to the broader theme of action-oriented emotional processing. For many males, from boyhood into adulthood, movement helps emotion and stress become manageable.

Play and the Social Brain

Jaak Panksepp emphasized the importance of play systems in mammalian development. His work suggested that rough-and-tumble play is rooted in ancient brain systems and helps young mammals develop social subtlety, self-regulation, and sensitivity to others.

This perspective is important because it frames play not as an optional extra, but as a biological and social need.

Boys who are drawn to rough physical play may not simply be acting out. They may be seeking developmental experiences their brains and bodies need.

When Schools Misread Boys

Schools often reward quiet, verbal, compliant, sedentary behavior. Those are useful capacities. But when they become the only accepted model of maturity, many boys are placed at a disadvantage.

Boys who need movement may be viewed as disruptive. Boys who learn through action may be viewed as inattentive. Boys who enjoy rough play may be viewed as aggressive. Boys who compete may be viewed as insensitive.

Some boys do need help learning restraint, empathy, and self-control. But those capacities may develop better through guided play than through constant suppression.

When normal active development is treated primarily as pathology, boys may begin to experience themselves as problems.

The Link to Male Emotional Development

Boys’ play is not separate from men’s emotional lives. It is one of the roots.

If boys learn to regulate emotion through movement, competition, risk, humor, physicality, and shared action, then we should not be surprised when adult men continue to process emotion through action, work, exercise, solitude, problem-solving, and side-by-side activity.

The adult masculine side of healing may have developmental roots in boyhood patterns of learning through the body.

This does not mean boys should be left unmanaged or that all rough behavior is healthy. It means boys need adults who can distinguish development from disruption and energy from aggression.

A Humane Interpretation

Boys need language. They need empathy. They need self-control. They need emotional awareness. But they may not always acquire these capacities through stillness and verbal instruction alone.

Many boys need movement, play, risk, contact, competition, laughter, boundaries, correction, and freedom.

A culture that misunderstands boys’ play may later misunderstand men’s emotional lives. The same boy who once needed to run, wrestle, build, and test limits may become the man who needs to walk, work, repair, exercise, drive, or create in order to process emotion.

When we understand boys more accurately, we begin building a more humane understanding of men.


References

  • Pellegrini, A. D. (1989). Elementary school children’s rough-and-tumble play. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 4(2), 245–260.

  • Scott, E., & Panksepp, J. (2003). Rough-and-tumble play in human children. Aggressive Behavior, 29(6), 539–551.

  • Flanders, J. L., Simard, M., Paquette, D., Parent, S., Vitaro, F., Pihl, R. O., & Séguin, J. R. (2009). Rough-and-tumble play and the regulation of aggression: An observational study of father-child play dyads. Aggressive Behavior, 35(4), 285–295.

  • Panksepp, J. (2008). Play, ADHD, and the construction of the social brain: Should the first class each day be recess? American Journal of Play, 1(1), 55–79.

  • Smith, P. K. (2023). Play fighting (rough-and-tumble play) in children. International Journal of Play, 12(1), 1–20.

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