Excerpt from The Feminist Crusades

MenAreGood

MenAreGood is a channel for men, boys, fathers, new fathers, grandfathers and women who want to learn about men and masculinity. Are you tired of the false narrative of toxic masculinity? Did you know there is a huge amount of research that shows the positive aspects of men, boys and fathers? That is what we focus on here, being a source of good information and also a place to connect. Join us!

Interested? Want to learn more about the community?

Show me more content first

tgolden@tgolden

August 04, 2023

Excerpt from The Feminist Crusades

This is probably the best summary of the feminist attack on our culture I have ever seen. Have a look and see what you think. It is the Intro to Frank Zepezauer's The Feminist Crusades book and will give you an idea of the book's content. It was written in 2007, long before many had awakened to the evil and one-sided nature of femimism. Zepezauer refers to the essay by Minogue and if you are interested you can find that original essay here (2001)

https://newcriterion.com/issues/2001/4/how-civilizations-fall

The intro gives you an idea of how things got started and the damage they have done. The remainder of the book details each feminist crusade and includes very detailed analysis. Here's a listing of the crusades he includes:

Chapter 1 The Crusade Against “Sexist” Health Care
Chapter 2 The Crusade Against Sexist Schooling
Chapter 3 The Crusade Against Workplace Inequality
Chapter 4 More Crusades, More Myths, More Bureaucracies
Chapter 5 The Great Anti-abuse Crusades
Chapter 6 The Witch Hunt Continues
Chapter 7 The Crusade Against Sexual Assault
Chapter 8 The Crusade against Sexual Harassment
Chapter 9 The Crusade against Wife-Battering
Chapter 10 The Crusade against Fatherhood
Chapter 11 So?
Appendix A The Feminist Establishment

It is truly an amazing book.
___________________________
Buy on Amazon https://bit.ly/45bbqWH

Introduction

Referring to radical feminism’s huge success, Kenneth Minogue, a renowned authority on the nature and influence of ideologies, made an astounding declaration. He said that “the radical feminist revolution is nothing less than a destruction of our civilization…We are no longer what we were. The West has collapsed.”[1]

Feminist radicals, Minogue continued, brought about this catastrophe by managing to impose on society a quasi-religious “fundamentalism.” It rested on the “false and eccentric assumption of male and female isomorphism” and sought to “create a totally androgynous (and manipulatable) world where men and women would become virtually indistinguishable.” At that point men and women would, it was believed, be equally distributed at every level in every field of endeavor both private and public. To help realize this brave new world they persuaded a significant number of educated, middle class women that such a goal represented what women in general desired. As Minogue observed dryly, these women succeeded, “(as they usually do) in getting what they wanted” which was to “replace achievement by quota entitlements.” Because the key to modern Western Civilization “is its openness to talent wherever found, the feminist demand for collective quotas has overturned the basic feature of our civilization.”

In addition to rallying support from educated women, feminists were able to get what they wanted by maneuvering support from the government which has now become a relentless force “bent on destroying the autonomy of the institutions of civil society.” Consequently, “a network of powerful bureaucracies” emerged that brought “radical doctrines to bear on all areas of government concern.” Among them was the internal affairs of American universities which had previously enjoyed a high level of independence from political influence. However, coercion applied by feminist-friendly government agencies combined with intramural feminist demands often expressed “with almost samurai displays of fearsome aggression,” caused one university administration after another to yield. It was a surrender that betrayed “the trust in the scholarly vocation.” Most severely affected have been the liberal arts faculties which under the quota system–a demand for 50-50 equality–have admitted many women who are “indeed very able” and many “who are not” and “they have prospered by setting up fanciful ideological courses (especially women’s studies) which can “hardly be academic at all.”

At the conclusion of his essay, Minogue said something equally astounding: that, for the most part, this highly destructive feminist achievement was “accomplished by stealth.” What many of us considered the noisiest and most visible of the 20th Century political movements was primarily a covert operation. Minogue illustrates this point with a concluding anecdote:

There has been a revolution, then, but a silent one. It has taken place with such stealth, and so gradually, that people have become accustomed to it little by little. I am reminded of the famous Chinese executioner whose ambition it was to be able to cut off a head so that the victim would not realize what had happened. For years he worked on his skill, and one day he cut off a head so perfectly that the victim said: “Well, when are you going to do it?” The executioner gave a beatific smile and said: “Just kindly nod.”

Such a dramatic essay inevitably provokes questions among the first of which is “How did radical feminists do it?” How could so few do so much to so many? If you gathered the hard core radical militants in one place, they would scarcely fill Yankee Stadium. Yet these few, these unhappy few, this band of sisters, have, in Kenneth Minogue’s opinion, caused the demise of Western Civilization, the cultural home of over a billion men and women most of whom never realized what was happening. If so, how so?

We therefore confront a mystery whose solution can best be found by reviewing late 20th Century feminism’s tumultuous history. What first comes to notice is the fact that the feminist movement has not been one but many movements. Radical feminism is a totalitarian ideology. It sees a civilization corrupted at its roots by a tenacious evil called the “Patriarchy,” a male dominated system which assigns social duties and status according to gender, and it favors in all cases the male gender. Because this evil contaminates all aspects of society–the government, the church, the justice system, the educational establishment, the media, the kinship system, the moral code, social customs, rules of etiquette, the symbol and language systems, even the construction of the individual consciousness–all must be changed. Thus the feminist revolutionary army divided itself into specialized battalions each of which was commissioned to transform a particular aspect of society.

These transformationist campaigns were conducted with such high purpose and moral fervor that they merit the name “crusades.” As Minogue indicated, feminist crusaders usually operated behind the scenes conducting intensive but little publicized lobbying campaigns to persuade–or subtly coerce—university or government or media officials to endorse their agenda. Occasionally however some situation arose–a high profile date rape case, for example, or the introduction of female favoring legislation–and feminists shifted their strategy and went public. At that point a particular crusade would flare out into a spectacular media event. Like an artillery barrage preparing for an infantry assault, the now intensified crusade would then lay down a fusillade of alarming statistics and impassioned rhetoric. You would then hear, for example, that “one out of four American women” had been raped as part of a “rape epidemic” which was an ongoing phenomenon in a “rape culture.”

The connection between some desired legislation–such as reforms in sexual assault law to include “date rape” crimes—and the opening of a media bombardment was noted so often that observers began to see it as a characteristic feminist modus operandi. Christina Hoff Sommers, who in the mid-1990s emerged as one of radical (or gender) feminism’s most astute critics, reduced this M.O. to a simple three-sentence formula: “Do a study. Declare a crisis. Get the politicians worked up.” Christina Sommers could have added a fourth sentence: Establish or expand a bureaucracy. For in most cases the legislation that the “worked up” politicians passed set up a new female friendly government agency or fattened an existing agency.

Feminism’s role in the exponential growth of government had been noted long before Christina Hoff Sommers and Kenneth Minogue called attention to it. In 1987, Michael Levin wrote in Feminism and Freedom about the extent to which feminism has achieved its effects through the state, particularly unelected officials of the courts and the regulatory agency, and those elected officials most remote from their constituencies….It is not by accident that feminism has had its major impact through the necessarily coercive machinery of the state rather than through the private decisions of individuals. Although feminism speaks the language of liberation, self-fulfillment, options, and the removal of barriers, these phrases invariably mean their opposites and disguise an agenda at variance with the ideals of a free society…. Feminism is an antidemocratic, if not totalitarian, ideology.[2]

Feminist agitation for bigger, more intrusive government was not, however, the only element in its transformationist methodology that was noted. In the early 1990s critics began to demonstrate the degree to which most of the numbers fired out in a statistics barrage were grossly exaggerated. Neil Gilbert, Professor of Social Work at the University of California, Berkeley pointed out that there was a “staggering difference” between feminist figures on rape–such as the one-out-of-every-four women raped number–and official government figures which placed the number at one out of every thousand. Professor Gilbert disclosed this grotesque discrepancy in a Public Interest article with a revealing title, “The phantom epidemic of sexual assault.” [3] With this exposure Professor Gilbert established himself as a pioneer in what would become a literary sub-genre, the debunking of feminist “advocacy numbers.” The term once had a neutral connotation referring to presumably accurate statistics distributed to advance a worthwhile cause such as eliminating poliomyelitis or feeding Third World children. With feminist usage, however, the term came to mean cooked numbers used to advance a partisan socio-political agenda. Advocacy numbers in this sense were either wildly inaccurate–one in four women raped instead of one in a thousand–or cynically decontextualized when, for example, feminists made much of the fact that girls attempted suicide more often than boys but neglected to report that boys more often succeeded in killing themselves, five times more often.

Since feminists employed bogus advocacy numbers in nearly all their crusades, and since these numbers and the accompanying histrionic rhetoric were seldom vetted by an ever co-operative media, radicals were able to permeate our culture with an elaborate mythology which settled like a thick smoke screen between our media shaped perceptions and the reality of our public and private life. In short, the answer to the question Kenneth Minogue raised about how so few could hurt so many could be reduced to two words. They lied.

But why and how? What was there about radical feminist ideology that encouraged so many intelligent, well educated women to employ mendacity and deception to advance their cause? Most of their advocacy numbers were extracted from “advocacy research” conducted in the academy which as far back as 1970 had become a feminist power base. What does this tell us about the radical feminist approach to science and scholarship and what does this tell us about the ideology that governed that approach? Feminists got things wrong so often and so badly that questions inevitably arose concerning their ideologized “consciousness” which, they often boasted, had been suitably “raised.” And once questions were raised about an ideology presumed to explain all of reality, further questions immediately followed, whether for example such a comprehensive ideology was in fact a religion. If so, had radicals and their liberal allies succeeded in driving traditional religion out of the public square while covertly admitting in its place a quasi-religious ideology?

Such questions press forward when you view the proliferating consequences of the feminist crusades which suggests that the best way to find answers is to take a closer look at the crusades themselves: how they started, how they were conducted, how they added to feminist bureaucratic power, and how they helped feminists vandalize our culture.
_______
Endnotes:
1. Kenneth Minogue, “How Civilizations Fall,” The New Criterion. April, 2001.
2. Michael Levin, Feminism and Freedom (Brunswick, NJ: 1987) p.2
3. Neil Gilbert, “The phantom epidemic of sexual assault” The Public Interest, Spring, 1991, p. 54 to 65. g --

Buy on Amazon https://bit.ly/45bbqWH

Interested? Want to learn more about the community?

Show me more content first

What else you may like…

Videos

Posts

Articles

tgolden@tgolden

June 13, 2026

The Feminist Fortune Teller

Can you guess what she will say?

00:00:15

tgolden@tgolden

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

tgolden@tgolden

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

tgolden@tgolden

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

CRITIQUINGFEMINISM.SUBSTACK.COM

Feminism and Liberal Democracy

Can Liberal Democracy Survive Feminism?

JuanGoodman@JuanGoodman

June 02, 2026

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

JuanGoodman@JuanGoodman

June 01, 2026

Hopefully this cartoonwill become as common as the subject it covers

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

tgolden@tgolden

June 29, 2026

Why Caitlin Clark Became a Target

The overlooked psychology behind one of the biggest stories in sports.

There is an old saying from Australia:

“Tall poppies get cut down.”

The expression refers to the tallest flower in the field. Rather than celebrating its beauty, someone cuts it off so that it is no taller than the rest.

Psychologists have spent decades studying this phenomenon. They have given it several names: Tall Poppy Syndrome, the Black Sheep Effect, female intrasexual competition, and indirect or relational aggression.

Although each focuses on a different aspect of human behavior, they all point toward a similar observation.

Groups do not always reward excellence.

Sometimes they punish it.

Researchers such as Anne Campbell have argued that women historically competed quite differently than men. Physical aggression carried enormous risks for ancestral women, especially during pregnancy and child-rearing. Instead of fists and open confrontation, competition more often took the form of gossip, exclusion, reputation damage, coalition-building, and social isolation.

Tracy Vaillancourt and others have likewise shown that women are especially skilled at what psychologists call indirect or relational aggression—forms of competition that damage a rival without requiring physical conflict.

Interestingly, these patterns have been documented across a remarkable range of social settings. Researchers have observed them among schoolchildren, university students, summer camps, workplaces, parent groups, politics, entertainment, and increasingly on social media. The specific behaviors vary, but the underlying dynamic remains strikingly consistent. Wherever social relationships help determine status, competition often takes relational rather than physical forms.

Classic studies by psychologist Ritch Savin-Williams are especially revealing. His summer camp research showed that even groups of adolescents who had just met quickly formed stable dominance hierarchies. Among girls, those hierarchies were maintained largely through verbal and relational tactics rather than physical confrontation. The lesson was clear: human groups naturally establish social rankings, but the methods used to compete for status often differ between the sexes.

Another body of research examines what is known as the Black Sheep Effect. Groups often react more harshly toward members of their own group who violate expectations than toward outsiders. The person who rises too far above the group, receives too much attention, or appears to disrupt the existing social order can become the target of surprisingly intense hostility.

Perhaps the most remarkable feature of relational aggression is not the aggression itself but its invisibility.

Unlike physical violence, relational aggression is often designed to leave little evidence. Gossip is whispered rather than shouted. Social exclusion leaves no bruises. Reputation attacks are disguised as concern. Coalitions form quietly. Each individual act may appear trivial—even accidental—but together they can profoundly alter a person’s standing within a group.

This invisibility may help explain why relational aggression is so often overlooked. Victims know something is happening, yet observers struggle to identify any single event worth condemning. Even authority figures can miss the larger pattern because they evaluate each incident in isolation rather than seeing the cumulative effect.

That brings us to Caitlin Clark.

By any objective measure, Clark has transformed the WNBA.

She fills arenas.

Television ratings have exploded.

Merchandise sales have soared.

Many fans who never watched women’s basketball now tune in specifically to watch her play.

One might expect such a player to be celebrated almost universally.

Instead, she has often been met with unusually hard fouls, dismissive comments, resentment, and a remarkable reluctance among some players to acknowledge what she has accomplished.

The fouls themselves are obvious enough, although even the obvious ones often seem to be missed by the referees.

That pattern is typical of relational aggression, which is frequently overlooked by school officials, HR departments, and even informal social groups. Researchers have long noted that women’s relational aggression often goes unrecognized by those in positions of authority.

The fouls against Caitlin Clark are physical, but they also share important characteristics with relational aggression. They are easily hidden within behavior that appears normal: “I play hard basketball. Sometimes it gets rough.” They also come with built-in plausible deniability: “I didn’t mean to do that.” “It’s just a foul.”

The deeper question, then, is not whether these are simply hard basketball plays. It is whether they are better understood as the physical expression of a broader social dynamic.

A hard foul is easy to dismiss. Two hard fouls are still just basketball. But when the same player repeatedly becomes the target of violent play, persistent criticism, social distancing, and efforts to minimize her accomplishments, the research suggests we should at least consider the possibility that we are witnessing something larger than ordinary athletic competition.

If so, the referees face a tough task. They are trained to officiate individual fouls, not invisible social hierarchies. A referee can call a shove. He cannot call status competition. He can penalize an elbow. He cannot penalize a coalition.

Perhaps Clark is not merely a great player.

She is a tall poppy.

Her extraordinary success has disrupted an existing hierarchy.

The research suggests that when someone suddenly rises far above her peers, she may trigger forms of indirect aggression designed—not consciously in most cases, but socially—to pull her back toward the group.

Again, this is not an excuse.

It is an explanation.

The interesting part comes when we compare this with men’s sports.

Consider Michael Jordan.

Jordan entered the NBA as an extraordinary talent. Opposing teams hit him hard. They challenged him physically. They tried to stop him.

But something else happened.

As his greatness became undeniable, players increasingly admired him. Young athletes wanted to imitate him. Rivals measured themselves against him. He became the standard by which excellence itself was judged.

The competition remained fierce.

The respect grew alongside it.

That difference is fascinating.

Male hierarchies often appear to resolve competition through rank. Once someone proves himself to be the best, others continue trying to defeat him, but they also acknowledge his position.

Female hierarchies often seem to operate somewhat differently. Because relationships and coalition membership play a larger role, someone who rises dramatically above the group may be experienced not simply as the best performer, but as someone disrupting the balance of the group itself.

Human behavior is almost always influenced by multiple factors—personality, cliques, incentives, race, culture, coaching, individual history, and circumstance. It would be a mistake to attribute what we are seeing to any single cause. My suggestion is simply that relational aggression deserves consideration as one contributing factor among many.

What is remarkable is that psychology has spent decades documenting phenomena such as Tall Poppy Syndrome, relational aggression, stable dominance hierarchies, and the Black Sheep Effect, yet almost no one seems willing to ask whether these well-established patterns might help us understand what we are witnessing today.

Sometimes the best way to understand a controversy is not to ask who is good and who is bad.

It is to ask what kind of human behavior we are looking at.

If Caitlin Clark were a man playing in a men’s league, would we be seeing the same social dynamics?

That may be the most interesting question of all.

Men Are Good.

Tall Poppy Syndrome
N. T. Feather’s classic work: Attitudes towards the high achiever: The fall of the tall poppy.
Also useful: BPS overview on tall poppies, deservingness, and schadenfreude. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229782141_Attitudes_towards_the_high_achiever_The_fall_of_the_Tall_Poppy

Relational Aggression
Crick & Grotpeter’s foundational 1995 paper: Relational Aggression, Gender, and Social-Psychological Adjustment. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7789197/

Black Sheep Effect
Marques, Yzerbyt & Leyens’ original 1988 paper: The “Black Sheep Effect”: Extremity of judgments towards ingroup members as a function of group identification. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7789197/

Dominance / Status Hierarchies
Good overview: Dominance in humans — useful for distinguishing dominance from prestige/status.
Also relevant: Cheng et al. on dominance and prestige as routes to social status.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8743883/

Hierarchy Stability
Knight & Mehta: Hierarchy stability moderates the effect of status on stress and performance.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1609811114

Savin-Williams, R. C., & Vrangalova, Z. (2013).
Mostly heterosexual as a distinct sexual orientation group: A systematic review of the empirical evidence.
Developmental Review, 33(1), 58–88.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2013.01.001

Read full Article

tgolden@tgolden

June 23, 2026

What the Researchers Missed About Boys

The Boys Sounded Familiar

A recent Australian study examined masculinity attitudes among 650 boys attending an all-boys school. The researchers also surveyed parents and staff in an effort to understand how boys develop their views about masculinity.

The findings were fascinating.

The researchers concluded that many boys continue to embrace traditional masculine ideals. They found that boys valued strength, responsibility, resilience, achievement, protection, provision, and earning respect. They also found that many boys felt pressure to live up to these expectations and were influenced by peers and online voices.

Much of the discussion focused on concerns about “traditional masculinity” and the influence of the manosphere.

Yet as I read the boys’ actual responses, I found myself thinking something unexpected: the boys sounded remarkably familiar.

Many decades ago, when I was growing up, boys worried about many of the same things. They wanted to become strong. They wanted their fathers to be proud of them. They wanted to earn respect, succeed, protect the people they loved, and become dependable.

None of this sounded particularly new.

In fact, many of the boys sounded remarkably similar to the men I have worked with over the past thirty-five years as a therapist. They were wrestling with questions that generations of boys have wrestled with:

What does it mean to become a good man?
How do I earn respect?
What responsibilities do I have toward others?
How strong do I need to become?

These are ancient questions.

What struck me was not the boys’ answers. It was the researchers’ inability to hear what the boys were actually saying.

Again and again, boys spoke about responsibility, strength, sacrifice, protection, duty, and earning respect. They described wanting to become the sort of men their fathers and grandfathers would admire. They spoke about carrying burdens, protecting loved ones, and becoming dependable. Many readers will recognize these aspirations immediately. They have echoed through generations of boys and men.

Yet throughout the paper, these aspirations are repeatedly translated into the language of pathology:

Protection becomes paternalism.
Responsibility becomes hierarchy.
Strength becomes dominance.
Traditional masculine aspirations become evidence of manosphere influence.

Certainly, some boys expressed troubling ideas. Some comments reflected hostility, bullying, and immaturity, and those deserve criticism. What is remarkable, however, is how often the researchers appear unable to distinguish those attitudes from the far more common aspirations toward duty, courage, sacrifice, and responsibility.

The boys say, “I want to be strong.”

The researchers hear, “I want power.”

The boys say, “I want to protect my family.”

The researchers hear, “I endorse gender hierarchy.”

The boys say, “I want my father to be proud of me.”

The researchers hear, “I have internalized restrictive masculine norms.”

The tragedy is not that the researchers disagree with the boys. The tragedy is that they seem unable to see the beauty in what many of the boys are expressing.

The boys are describing a willingness to carry burdens. They are describing obligations, service to others, and sacrifice. Yet these qualities are so thoroughly filtered through the lens of “toxic masculinity” and “manosphere influence” that the researchers largely fail to recognize them as virtues at all.

This blind spot is revealing.

If members of almost any other group spoke about sacrifice, responsibility, service, and devotion, many academics would immediately recognize these qualities as admirable. When boys express these same aspirations, however, they are often viewed primarily as evidence of social conditioning, patriarchy, sexism, or dominance.

The burden disappears. The sacrifice becomes invisible. The obligation is transformed into power.

Perhaps this is one reason so many boys increasingly feel misunderstood.

One of the most revealing findings in the study was the growing gap between boys and the adults around them. Many boys felt that schools, teachers, and even parents did not understand their views. The researchers interpreted this primarily as evidence of peer influence and online influences.

There may be some truth in that. But there is another possibility worth considering.

Perhaps boys are searching for alternative voices because many institutions no longer speak convincingly to the questions they are asking.

The researchers repeatedly point toward the manosphere as an explanation for boys’ beliefs. Yet many of the beliefs they describe long predate Andrew Tate, social media, and the internet itself:

The desire to be strong.
The desire to protect.
The desire to provide.
The desire to earn respect.
The desire to become a man worthy of admiration.

These are not inventions of the manosphere. They are aspirations that have appeared in boys and men for generations.

The study may have been intended as an examination of modern masculinity, but what I saw was something far older. I saw boys wrestling with the same questions that many of us wrestled with decades ago.

The language surrounding masculinity may have changed. The questions have not.

And until our institutions learn to recognize both the burdens and the beauty that many boys associate with manhood, they will continue to misunderstand the very people they are trying to help.

Boys and Men are Good.

Read full Article

tgolden@tgolden

June 21, 2026

The Invisible Lessons Fathers Teach

Happy Father's Day

On Father’s Day many people find themselves remembering the obvious things their fathers taught them: how to ride a bicycle, throw a baseball, drive a car, bait a fishing hook, or change a tire.

These lessons matter, and they often become cherished memories. But they are not the whole story.

In fact, some of the most important things fathers teach are rarely recognized at all. Many fathers spend years teaching lessons that become so deeply woven into their children’s character that they disappear from view. They become part of who the child is rather than something the child remembers being taught.

The older I get, the more convinced I become that many of the most important gifts fathers provide are largely invisible.

Fathers Teach Children How To Handle Fear

Most children encounter fear long before they have words for it. The tall slide looks scary. The swimming pool looks deep. The first day of school feels overwhelming. The baseball game, dance recital, job interview, or first date all carry a degree of uncertainty.

Many fathers respond to these moments in a similar way: “Go ahead. You can do it.” Not because they want their children to be fearless, but because they want them to discover that fear is survivable.

A father standing beside a bicycle, jogging alongside for those first wobbly rides, is often teaching something much larger than balance. He is teaching courage—not courage because fear is absent, but courage despite fear.

Fathers Teach That Failure Is Survivable

Children naturally want to succeed. They also naturally want to avoid embarrassment, disappointment, and rejection. Yet life guarantees all three.

Every child will eventually fail a test, lose a game, be rejected by a friend, make a mistake, or fall short of a goal. Many fathers instinctively respond to these moments with a simple question: “Okay. What did you learn?”

The lesson is profound. Failure is not the end of the story. Failure is information. Failure is experience. Failure is often the beginning of growth.

Children who learn this lesson early gain a tremendous advantage in life. They stop viewing setbacks as proof of inadequacy and begin viewing them as part of the learning process.

Fathers Teach Emotional Regulation

One of the most misunderstood aspects of fatherhood is the way fathers often teach emotional regulation. In modern culture, emotional teaching is frequently assumed to involve talking. Sometimes it does. But children also learn by watching.

They watch Dad deal with a dead battery. They watch him manage a home repair that doesn’t go as planned. They watch him navigate financial stress, family challenges, illness, disappointment, and loss. They observe how he responds when things become difficult.

The lesson is not that emotions should be ignored. The lesson is that emotions can be felt without being overwhelmed by them. Children learn that frustration, sadness, anxiety, and fear can coexist with action. This is one of the foundations of resilience.

Fathers Teach Children To Enter The Wider World

Researchers who study fathers have often noted that fathers tend to encourage exploration. Children need safety, but they also need someone encouraging them to venture beyond safety—to try, to risk, to explore, and to discover.

Developmental researcher Daniel Paquette described fathers as helping children develop a secure base for exploration. Many fathers instinctively encourage children to test themselves against the world.

Climb a little higher. Try one more time. Speak up. Take the chance.

The goal is not recklessness. The goal is confidence. Children gradually learn that the world is not something to hide from. It is something they can engage.

Fathers Teach Boundaries and Consequences

One of the most valuable lessons children can learn is that actions have consequences. Reality cannot always be negotiated. Gravity works. Deadlines matter. Promises count. Choices have outcomes.

Good fathers often help children understand these realities long before adulthood arrives. While this may not always be popular in the moment, it becomes invaluable later in life. The child who learns responsibility gradually becomes the adult who can be trusted.

Many fathers communicate this lesson through countless ordinary interactions. Finish what you started. Tell the truth. Keep your word. Treat people fairly. The message is simple but powerful: character matters.

Fathers Teach Competence

Perhaps one of the deepest gifts fathers provide is the message: “I believe you can do this yourself.”

Many fathers communicate this not through speeches but through encouragement. Try it. Figure it out. Give it another shot. You’ll get it.

At times, children may interpret this as Dad being demanding. Years later, many realize something different. Their father believed they were capable.

That belief often becomes the foundation of confidence. Confidence does not emerge from hearing that you are wonderful. Confidence emerges from discovering that you can handle challenges. It grows when children face difficulty, persist, and eventually succeed.

Fathers Teach Recovery

Life eventually knocks everyone down. There will be heartbreak, disappointment, loss, and failure. No one escapes these experiences.

Many fathers teach one final lesson that may be the most important of all: get back up.

Not because the pain isn’t real. Not because the loss doesn’t matter. Not because everything will magically work out. But because life continues.

The ability to recover from adversity may be one of the greatest predictors of long-term well-being. It is also one of the most important lessons a father can pass on to his children. A child who learns how to recover from setbacks carries that gift for the rest of life.

The Invisible Lessons

The older I get, the more I appreciate how many of the lessons fathers teach are difficult to see. Children rarely remember the thousands of small moments: the encouraging nod, the hand on the shoulder, the patient coaching, the quiet example, or the belief that they could handle more than they thought they could.

Yet these moments accumulate over time. They shape character. They build resilience. They foster confidence. They prepare children for life.

This Father’s Day, it may be worth remembering that some of the most important lessons fathers teach are not found in dramatic speeches or memorable events. They are found in the ordinary moments—moments so common that they often go unnoticed, yet moments that quietly help children become capable adults.

Perhaps that is one reason fatherhood is so often underestimated. Many of its greatest gifts are invisible.

As a therapist, I have spent decades listening to people’s stories. Again and again, I have been struck by how often the influence of a father appears in ways that neither the father nor the child fully recognized at the time. The confidence to take a risk. The ability to persevere through hardship. The willingness to face fear rather than avoid it. The belief that problems can be solved and setbacks overcome.

These qualities rarely attract attention because they are not dramatic. They emerge gradually, built through thousands of ordinary interactions over many years. Yet they often become some of the most valuable tools a person carries into adulthood.

This Father’s Day, I hope we take a moment to recognize not only what fathers do, but what they quietly teach. Much of their work may go unnoticed, but its effects can last a lifetime.

Happy Father’s Day to the fathers, grandfathers, stepfathers, mentors, coaches, and father figures whose lessons continue to shape lives long after the teaching is done.

Fathers and Men Are Good!

Read full Article

Available on mobile and TV devices