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?
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

post photo preview
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
10 hours ago
Are Men Great of Good? Yes!

Time for a male-positive message. I created this video a while back, but its message remains as important and timeless as ever. I’d love for it to reach boys who’ve been told—explicitly or implicitly—that there’s something wrong with being male. After so much negativity about men and masculinity, they need to hear something different. They need to hear something true, strong, and affirming.

00:04:59
August 02, 2025
Engineered Fatherlessness Creates Chaos

This 2021 video explores the growing issue of fatherlessness, questioning whether it’s been deliberately engineered or simply allowed to happen. It exposes the fact that we knew even in the 1960’s the devastating impact of not having fathers in the home. It shows some little known, and basically ignored research about this issue. Yes, Dan Quayle was correct!

Social Structure and Criminal Victimizationhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022427888025001003

Moynihan Reporthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Family:_The_Case_For_National_Action

McClanahan researchhttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3904543/Murphy Brownhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_Brown

00:09:35
July 24, 2025
How Ideology Defeats Truth: The Hand That Rocks The World

Tom Golden and David Shackleton explore the key themes of David’s book The Hand That Rocks the World. The conversation begins with a look at how both sexes use power, with a particular focus on women's power—how it operates, and why it so often goes unseen or unacknowledged. David outlines three distinct forms of female power, each with both positive and negative expressions. The discussion then shifts to human maturity, examining how personal growth can be stalled by ideological identification. And there's much more—insights that challenge conventional narratives and invite deeper reflection.

David’s book The Hand that Rocks the World
https://amzn.to/3TSR80H

00:56:37
February 07, 2023
The Way Boys Play and the Biological Underpinnings

My apologies for the last empty post. My mistake. Let's hope this one works.

Tom takes a stab at using the podcast function. Let's see how it goes.

The Way Boys Play and the Biological Underpinnings
May 13, 2022
Boys and Rough Play

This is a short excerpt from Helping Mothers be Closer to their Sons. The book was meant for single mothers who really don't know much about boy's nature. They also don't have a man in the house who can stand up for the boy and his unique nature. It tries to give them some ideas about how boys and girls are different. This excerpt is about play behaviors.

Boys and Rough Play
August 04, 2025
False Accuser Exposed in World Junior Hockey Trial Verdict - Janice Fiamengo

Janices essay brings to life the idea that when falsely accused men are found not guilty they still lose. Worse yet, the false accuser reaps benefits. Thank you Janice for pulling this informative and infuriating piece together. Men Are Good.

https://fiamengofile.substack.com/cp/170141035

July 28, 2025
DAVIA Press Release: Around the World, Feminists Have Become the New Extremists

This is the latest press release from DAVIA, a coalition of 192 organizations across 35 countries dedicated to bringing balance to a domestic violence system that too often ignores male victims. DAVIA regularly issues press releases shared globally and has become a strong voice advocating for male victims of domestic abuse. You can find all of their press releases here: https://endtodv.org/press-room/

https://endtodv.org/pr/around-the-world-feminists-have-become-the-new-extremists/

post photo preview

Has Feminism ruined the Philippines? It seems that the vilance against women and children law in the Philippines can land a man in Jail or prison for 6 years just for arguing (verbal violence) with you girl friend or wife. It can often be used to extort money from the man to drop the charges.

July 30, 2025
post photo preview
Why Is Masculine Maturity So Hard to Talk About Today?


Why Is Masculine Maturity So Hard to Talk About Today?

In the early 1990s, you could walk into a bookstore and find entire tables devoted to the male journey. Robert Bly’s Iron John was a bestseller. Sam Keen, James Hillman, Michael Meade,​ Robert Moore, Richard Rohr — all were offering soulful, intelligent takes on what it meant to be a man. It wasn’t about domination. It wasn’t about “reclaiming power.” It was about emotional honesty, growth, and purpose. In other words: maturity.

Fast forward to today, and you’ll find… almost nothing. Talk about masculinity now and the conversation quickly turns to toxicity, privilege, or fragile male egos. Where once there was myth, poetry, and psychology, we now get slogans and shame.

Why did this happen? Why is masculine maturity such a neglected subject?

Here are a few answers — and a couple of stories that may help explain why the silence around men runs so deep.


1. The Cultural Suspicion Toward Masculinity

Over the last fifty years, masculinity has been treated less as a stage of growth and more as a problem to be managed. Many institutions — academic, psychological, media-driven — have become allergic to the idea that men might have unique struggles, let alone a need for support. Masculinity is often reduced to a stereotype: aggressive, emotionally stunted, dangerous. So it’s not surprising that serious explorations of mature masculinity are viewed with skepticism — or simply ignored.

I experienced this firsthand when I joined the American Psychological Association’s Division 51, the group supposedly devoted to studying men and masculinities. Initially, I was welcomed. A few of the men there had read Swallowed by a Snake, my first book, and treated me with respect.

But over time, it became clear this wasn’t a group focused on men. It was a feminist-aligned group focused on monitoring men. That would have been fine if it had also been balanced — but it wasn’t.

One moment still sticks with me. I asked the group — these were top psychologists, many regularly quoted in national media — if they had ever heard of Robert Moore, the Jungian analyst who literally co-wrote King, Warrior, Magician, Lover, one of the most influential models of the mature masculine ever created.

Not one of them had heard of him.

These were the gatekeepers of psychological discourse around men, and they had never encountered one of the most insightful thinkers on the subject. That’s when I realized: this wasn’t a field seeking to understand men — it was a field managing a narrative about men.

They later kicked me out of the group.


2. The Disappearance of Mentorship and Male Space

The maturation of men has always required something very simple but essential: older men guiding younger men. That doesn’t mean domination or militaristic hierarchy — it means real mentorship. Time together. Shared wisdom. A hand on the shoulder.

But today, male-only spaces are either disappearing or treated with suspicion. Most institutions that once created these bonds — churches, trades, father-son traditions — are either crumbling or feminized. Men don’t know where to go, and the culture doesn’t really care that they’re drifting.


3. The Mythopoetic Movement Was Shamed Out of Existence

In the 1990s, the Mythopoetic Men’s Movement made a serious attempt to give men a space to grow, reflect, and feel. Men gathered, sometimes in the woods. They drummed. They told stories. They cried. They got honest.

They did exactly what the culture — and women — had been begging men to do for decades: engage emotionally, get their priorities straight, and connect with other men in a non-competitive, supportive environment.

So what happened?

The media mocked them. Relentlessly. Headlines rolled out: “Men Go Into Woods to Beat Drums and Take Off Their Clothes.” Late-night shows made jokes. These men weren’t harming anyone. They were healing. But that seemed to frighten people — especially the idea that men were coming together in a community that wasn’t controlled or mediated by women.

Instead of being praised, they were ridiculed and dismissed. The movement, shamed out of existence, faded.


4. No Urgency for Male Development

When girls or women face emotional hardship, society responds — with programs, policies, and public empathy. But when boys or men face disconnection, despair, or aimlessness, the response is often: “Toughen up.” Or worse: silence.

There’s a deep-rooted empathy gap when it comes to men. The assumption seems to be that men don’t need emotional depth, spiritual development, or mentorship. They just need to behave. This assumption is not only wrong — it’s dangerous. Because without maturity, all you get is drift, anger, or collapse.


5. Fear of Being Labeled

Today, if you talk too much about men’s needs, you risk being labeled “anti-feminist” or “reactionary.” Even well-meaning men tiptoe around the topic for fear of being misunderstood. As a result, the public conversation is cautious, shallow, or entirely missing.

And yet, quietly, the hunger remains.

Men are looking for guidance — not from social media influencers or political ideologues, but from grounded voices who actually understand what male development looks like from the inside.


So Where Does This Leave Us?

We’re in a strange place. The world criticizes men constantly, but offers no real path to growth. It tells men to “do better,” but doesn’t explain how — or even what “better” means, other than being more like women.

Masculine maturity isn't about dominance, nor is it about submission. It's about becoming whole — integrating strength with compassion, solitude with connection, responsibility with joy.

That journey still matters. In fact, it may matter now more than ever.

And those of us who have walked part of that road — and seen its value — need to keep the conversation alive.

Even when it's inconvenient.

Even when it's mocked.

Even when it's lonely.

Because the silence around men has never been a sign of health. It’s a sign that something sacred has been neglected.

And it’s time we returned to it.

Read full Article
July 25, 2025
post photo preview
Heterofatalism: or How to Blame Men For Everything


This is a response to a recent New York Times article by Jean Garnett titled The Trouble With Wanting Men. The subtitle says it all: “Women are so fed up with dating men that the phenomenon even has a name — heterofatalism. So what do we do with our desire?”

Sometimes, the best response is a little humor while flipping the script. See what you think.




"Heterofatalism: Or How to Blame Men for Everything, Even Our Socks"

Ah, “heterofatalism” — the brand-new term coined for the collective exasperation of women who, after navigating the complex world of dating, come to the conclusion that men are the root of all relationship woes. You see, the issue isn't just that men are occasionally anxious, emotionally distant, or a little too obsessed with their sports teams; no, the real problem is that these poor souls — with all their confusing desires, communication issues, and tendency to occasionally ghost you after a couple of drinks — are making it impossible for women to live happily ever after.

Who needs "old-fashioned man-woman stuff," right? We should really just get rid of men altogether, except... well, hold on. It seems like the author might still enjoy the idea of men, as long as they’re perfectly self-deprecating, emotionally available, not so needy, and able to decode all of her mood swings without missing a beat. Apparently, we’re supposed to be sweet, gentle, and constantly checking in with how she feels — but also not too available, because that would make us “needy.” Are you keeping up, men? No? It’s okay, because we aren’t expected to.

What If We Flipped the Script?

Now, imagine if the shoe was on the other foot. What if a man had these same expectations of you Jean Garnett? What if you had to live up to these impossible standards every time a relationship or date rolled around?

For example, let’s say you’re trying to date someone, and he expects you to be emotionally available all the time, always knowing exactly what he’s feeling, always ready to discuss his feelings — at his convenience. Now imagine if you were the one constantly apologizing for not responding to text messages in 90 seconds flat because you were busy with life, work, or, you know, anything else. Or imagine being told you were "too anxious" to handle a simple conversation because you were stressed over your busy schedule. Does it seem fair that men are expected to always be the ones to “man up” emotionally, while women are allowed to retreat into their own anxiety and demand validation from men?

Also, here’s a fun thought experiment: What if, as a man, you had to hear all the time about how you were the problem in every dating situation? Imagine your date explaining how she loves the “good guy” archetype but constantly finds him lacking because he doesn’t meet every single emotional need immediately. The “good guy” who’s gentle, sweet, and not too self-deprecating — just enough to make you feel like a glorified emotional ATM. It’d be pretty exhausting, wouldn’t it?

Emotional Labor: A Two-Way Street

Let’s get real for a moment. The whole concept of emotional labor often gets pinned solely on men — the idea that women are somehow left to pick up the emotional slack in relationships. But if we take a closer look, we see a different picture. If the standard is that men should always be emotionally available, always interpret every word and gesture in the right way, shouldn’t women also take on the responsibility of understanding the emotional needs of their partners? Isn’t it unfair to expect men to constantly decode the mystery of “how you’re feeling” without giving them the same space to feel confused, anxious, or uncertain about what’s going on in the relationship?

What if men were to complain about the “hermeneutic labor” they had to perform just to keep a relationship afloat? Imagine if men spent every conversation analyzing why you were saying one thing and meaning something else. If men constantly had to decode your emotional signals — every pause, every silence, every hint — would we be quick to dismiss it as just part of being a man? Or would we call it what it is: exhausting?

Isn’t It Time for a Little Empathy?

Now, let’s circle back to that romantic ideal — the “good guy” who wants to be loved, but can’t seem to get it right because he's “too anxious,” “too confused,” or “too emotionally unavailable” when it matters. But what if, just maybe, the problem isn’t his inability to meet her needs, but the sheer weight of the unrealistic expectations placed upon him? Imagine being a man, constantly told that you are too much or not enough at the same time — one minute, you need to be emotionally open, the next you’re told you’re too emotional.

Let’s flip the script.
Imagine you’re the one who needs a little breathing room — just some space to think.
But your partner won’t let it go:
“Why can’t you just communicate like a grown-up? What are you, emotionally stunted?”
And when you finally admit you’re anxious or overwhelmed, you’re slapped with labels like “needy,” “hysterical,” or “too sensitive.”
Then he runs off to his buddies, and they all have a good laugh at your expense:
“Aww, poor little fraidy-cat princess. Guess she ​just can't woman up.”
Sound familiar?
Because that’s exactly what you and your friends did to him.
Doesn’t feel so good when the joke’s on you, does it?

Rewriting the Narrative

Maybe it's time to see men as humans rather than stereotypes. Men don’t exist just to fulfill emotional needs, and relationships should be about mutual respect, not endless demands. If we really want to evolve into better relationships, we need to recognize the emotional labor on both sides and give each other the space to be imperfect — without judgment.

Here’s a radical idea: instead of blaming men for the failures of the modern dating scene, let’s take a step back and realize that maybe we’re all a little messed up. And that’s okay. You don’t need us to “man up” — you just need us to be real, and we need the same from you.

And if we’re not perfect? Well, at least we’re not trying to make every relationship a philosophical debate about what does it mean to love and how can we both be completely vulnerable and emotionally invulnerable at the same time.

Pro tip: next time your man shows up with a little emotional confusion, give him a break. Men are not puzzles to be solved; we’re just humans trying to navigate a world that often doesn’t make sense to any of us.

And for the record: ​Men Are Good.

Read full Article
July 14, 2025
post photo preview
Why Men Struggle to Stand Together
How competition, culture, and gynocentrism keep men from standing together

It’s no secret that men and women are different—but one of the lesser-known differences, and one of the most socially consequential, is found in how each sex relates to their own group.

Women consistently show strong in-group bias. They support each other socially, emotionally, and politically. They instinctively identify with the struggles of other women. This solidarity forms the backbone of movements, activism, academic departments, and public policy. When a woman sees another woman being mistreated, her response is often immediate: “That could’ve been me.”

Men, by contrast, tend to show weaker and more conditional in-group bias. Their loyalty to other men is context-dependent, usually tied to shared purpose or external threat. A man will stand with another man on the battlefield, on the job site, or on the basketball court—but outside of those types of goal-oriented bonds, that sense of male unity often fades.

Why is that?

Part of it is biological and evolutionary. For men, life has always been a mix of coalition and competition. Throughout history, men had to work together in tribes or hunting parties—but within those groups, they also competed for rank, dominance, and access to mates. That means male bonding has always existed alongside male rivalry. The result? Male loyalty is real, but fragile.

Even today, many men see other men as rivals first, allies second. If another man struggles—loses his job, breaks down emotionally, or gets mistreated in a custody battle—he may not get support. He may get silence. Or worse, blame. Because in the male psyche, weakness often reads as threat. It disrupts the unspoken expectation that men must be strong, self-reliant, and in control. In male hierarchies, weakness can be seen as a liability—something that drags down the group or exposes it to risk. And for many men, seeing another man suffer can stir up buried shame or fear about their own vulnerabilities, leading them to distance themselves rather than lean in. It’s not cruelty—it’s biology and conditioning.

This fragile in-group bias creates a massive hurdle for any effort to advocate for men. Men’s rights movements, fatherhood initiatives, male mental health campaigns—they all struggle not just because society ignores them, but because men themselves often fail to show up for one another. And this problem isn’t just internal. It’s magnified by something even larger: gynocentrism.


Gynocentrism: The Cultural Blind Spot

Gynocentrism is the cultural tendency to prioritize women’s needs, feelings, and safety—often at the expense of men. It’s not just a personal bias; it’s institutional, ideological, and deeply embedded in our narratives about right and wrong. From early childhood, boys are taught to protect girls, to defer to their emotions, and to take responsibility for female wellbeing. “Never hit a girl.” “Be a gentleman.” “Sacrifice for your wife.” These messages, ​no matter how well-meaning, train boys to associate virtue with serving women. They are rarely taught to protect or serve each other. This conditioning only deepens with age. In politics, education, and media, men gain status by defending women—not by defending men. A man who speaks up for women is seen as noble and progressive. A man who speaks up for men is seen as angry, bitter, or fragile—even by other men.

In a gynocentric culture—where women’s needs are prioritized and viewed through a moral lens—advocating for women is seen as virtuous, while advocating for men is viewed with suspicion or hostility.

🟣
 

“Women’s advocacy is empathy”

When women advocate for women (or when men advocate for women), the culture responds with compassion, validation, and support. It’s framed as morally good, emotionally sincere, and socially necessary. Example: “We need to hear women’s voices.” “Support women’s mental health.” “Believe women.”

“Men’s advocacy is grievance”

When men advocate for men, it’s often framed as whining, resentment, or a push to reclaim lost power. Instead of evoking empathy, it triggers defensiveness, mockery, or accusations of misogyny. Example: “Why are you complaining?” “This sounds like toxic masculinity in disguise.” “You just want to take us back to the 1950s.”

Say the phrases out loud “We need to hear men’s voices“ or maybe “Believe men.“ Can you feel the difference?

⚖️
 

So the double bind is:

  • Women can talk about their pain and gain moral authority.

  • Men talk about their pain and risk losing moral credibility.


    In other words:

    If you advocate for women, you’re seen as compassionate.
    If you advocate for men, you’re seen as angry.

    That’s the trap—the double bind—created by gynocentrism. So male in-group bias—already fragile—is further fractured by gynocentric incentives.


The Costs of Division

This has enormous consequences.

When a man is falsely accused, other men don’t rally to his defense—they distance themselves.

When a father loses access to his children, he’s often blamed rather than supported.

When men talk about depression or suicide, they’re often met with discomfort, not compassion.

Meanwhile, female solidarity flourishes. Women have entire university departments, legal protections, and billion-dollar initiatives devoted to their advancement. And they have what men lack: a deep, culturally accepted instinct to care for each other.

The result is a lopsided world: female pain is collectivized and acted upon; male pain is individualized and ignored. It should now be obvious that working as a men’s advocate, a fatherhood proponent, or in any male-focused cause is an uphill battle—while those promoting women’s causes are coasting downhill with cultural tailwinds, institutional funding, and moral permission at their backs.

 

Rebuilding Male Solidarity

If men are to thrive—not just as individuals, but as a group—they must begin to reclaim something long buried: a sense of mutual loyalty. A belief that other men are not your enemy. That another man’s pain is not a sign of his failure, but of a culture that has failed us all.

This doesn’t mean abandoning competition or suppressing masculine traits. It means building solidarity around them. Men’s greatest strength has always been in what they can do together—on the battlefield, in a brotherhood, on a team. The challenge now is to transfer that loyalty into emotional and cultural arenas, where men are bleeding quietly in the shadows.

Men don’t need to become women to support each other. They just need to recognize that being on the same team means protecting the players who are getting crushed—by courts, by culture, by silence.

Male pain is real. Male sacrifice is real. Male disposability is real.

But male brotherhood can be real too—if we decide to make it so.

Men Are Good

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