MenAreGood
TheMan in the Mirror
by Moiret Allegiere
January 19, 2024
post photo preview

This is a guest post from Moiret Allegiere.  He has a great deal to say about our plight as men in today’s insane misandrist world. You can find his blog here.

__________________________________________________

 

Women can do anything men can do. And do it better. And do it in heels! So it is spoken. It is spoken, and so it has to be true.

Now – kindly deliver me from evil, and fetch me this woman who can stand behind my (almost) functional Agria 5300, mended to the best of my (lacklustre) abilities with only the finest rubber-bands and greatest duct-tape that money can buy.

Find me this magical mystery woman, so that she may mow the grass and the weeds of my bountiful fields, and do it better than me, and do it in heels to boot!

Get me this woman, show me that she can do this, and I shall fall to my knees right then and there and deliver her the finest blowjob hard work and sacrifice may buy.

There may be a certain animosity, a certain mean-ness in writing the above, but I am at the very least not condescending. I can not imagine thinking so little of women that their every act and action must, necessarily, be compared to the acts and actions of men as though men are the default, and women merely a shattered mirror-image of said men. Or, you know, made by one of our ribs.

Our strengths and our weaknesses as men is something that should be mirrored by the strengths and weaknesses of women. The way I see it, the way I understand it, we are meant to complement one another. There is little point to life, viewed from a purely biological perspective, except surviving and procreating. Does it not then make sense that the one can not do without the other; that the one must pick up the slack – so to speak – of the other? To co-exist and communicate, to cooperate, to not compete constantly.

Who does what matters little when there are things to do. What matters is that the things are done, and that they are done by those most suited to them. A strange and rather marvelous symptom of relatively easy lives, this, when one has the time and the inclination to fight over who does what, rather than seeing the things that has to be done as things that first and foremost has to be done. Particularly so when this fight involves which gender does what. Imagine seeing this from the outside, as someone completely alien to all this nonsense. It is a symptom of illness. A social malaise.

 

I believe that our greatest flaw as a society, as a civilization, as human beings is our ability to complicate matters to the point of utter absurdity. Even more so now than before, in this dawning of our great apocalyptic downfall. The absurd complexity of the M.C. Esher-esque Ziggurat of oppression-points and privilege-points constructed by cocaine-fueled sociopaths – excuse me – sociologists, and stamped and mailed and agreed upon by humanities-scholars crazy on brown acid should be seen as so ridiculous that Monty Python – in their hey-day – would stop and think that this, old chap, is a bit too absurd, wouldn’t you say, old chum, hey-hey… now, let’s get back to the guy choosing his method of execution be one where he is chased off a cliff by a horde of topless women wearing g-strings, and then for a spot of brandy, ho-ho.

Still – we accept this nonsensical screed. Probably due to feeling as though there is no choice but to accept this. After all – none of us plain proles could possibly have the mental awareness, nor the intellectual capability to argue with one so wise in the ways of science as to being unable to define a woman. Or, for that sake, having the testicular fortitude to engage with the ravenous mob of this’s and that’s and they’s and where’s and who’s and xir’s and xadam’s that will eventually descend upon one’s head for daring to state such heresy as “men have greater upper body strength than women”. Something that should, by all measures, be a fairly innocent factual statement. But it ain’t, brother, oh bother, it ain’t.

Unless one is a TERF, of course, who all of a sudden understood that there are differences between men and women which would give biological men an unfair advantage in women’s sports, despite these same pundits having said and pushed and meant and furthermore stated that there are no differences between men and women which would mean that men and women fare differently through life. But, oh, never mind – history is so easily rewritten. Obviously, this is nothing but a sinister MRA-plot to undermine and utterly destroy women in women’s spaces. For all that is bad in the world is the fault of those pesky men, after all. Never have I ever seen a greater case of “careful what you wish for” than this absolute stupidity. You might get what you wish for. Shame it bent back and slapped women across the face.

God-damn it; it was only men meant to be inconvenienced. Back to the drawing-board, ladies, and figure out how this – built on feminist rhetoric – is the fault of men.

It is not man-made horrors beyond our comprehension that will be our downfall. It is man-made absurdities beyond our comprehension. I don’t know whether to laugh, cry, or crawl to the top of our barn and wave my dick about with all the dick-swagger I can muster, as some sort of strange and arcane sign of dumbfounded masculinity. Things eventually reached a point where the only thing left to do is sit, mouth wide open in abject horror, and laugh hysterically at everything. Honk-honk, motherfuckers. Now – pass me some of that brown acid. Otherwise, I would not be able to comprehend anything happening. Get me an eight-bag while your at it, please?

I may be a simple man with fairly simple pleasures. Thank God—living within the rules of this absurdity would be an impossible task. Which, one would assume, is the entire point of the thing. After all – no-one is without sin. Not within Christianity, nor within the ziggurat of woke. Meeting life on fairly simple terms makes for a better life. Less complicated. But for people who, purportedly, believe in nothing except the things that they believe then and there which are not things but nothing, simplicity is akin to stupidity. And when the only identity they have is that of woke pundit, or something built upon meaningless pronouns… well, I fear that looking into the mirror would be akin to staring into the abyss for people who are so devoured by the ways and the world of woke. They would not like what stares back. The self first, the rest after. Clean your bloody room, bucko.

Women can do everything men can do. But men can not do anything women can do. Even men identifying as women. This despite us supposedly being completely equal and similar. In writing the first, a very simple thing springs to my mind: the empress aims to remove anything that is distinctly masculine from men themselves, and deliver the masculine into the hands of women.

This then leads to a lack of a genuine and singular masculine identity for our boys and for our young men. In short – the man in the mirror may well be there, but the man in the mirror has no face. The only solely masculine identity left is that of a father, which women can not replace. The hordes of feminism and the hordes of woke then seek to rip apart fatherhood itself.

 Stop me if you’ve heard this before: Fathers are not as important as mothers, fathers are not nurturing or caring and are, really, not important in the lives of children.

Fret not – the state will provide, and the father shall be tarred and feathered and branded as a dead-beat loser. Should he seek through the courts to see his children, in the event of a divorce, this will be branded as him seeking only to abuse the woman further, using the courts.

An astute observer might notice that there is a certain pattern of projection in the mind of your typical garden-variety feminist. Anything a feminist says must necessarily be considered and pondered with this question in mind: “might this be a classic case of psychological projection?” Chances are the answer is yes. For a woman scorned may well use the children – by way of the courts – to further abuse a man. One notices, of course, that there is little care, little emphasis, on the well-being of the children. It is merely the mother that matters. Which, were all right with the world, should rightly be seen as utterly contemptible behaviour.

When our son was born, we got these papers to fill out. Our names, birthdate, things like that. The word “Father” was nowhere to be seen. There was “Mother”, “Together-mother” and “Partner”. Interesting, don’t you think, that the gender-neutral “Partner” did not apply to a female partner, who instead got the interesting term “Together-mother”? A female partner needed a specific feminine term. A male partner got the gender-neutral term. “Gender-neutral” has always meant that men shall not be named.

Admittedly, I am very happy that it did say “Mother” instead of the nonsensical made-up term “Birthing-parent”. Doesn’t change the fact that the word “Father” was nowhere to be seen, of course. Yet – women can be mothers, and that is a uniquely feminine identity. As it bloody well should be. Just as father ought to be a uniquely masculine identity. Yet – father as a masculine identity is being eroded. Just as any other positive masculine identity.

We are nothing no more, nothing but double negatives. Testosterone-poisoning and toxic masculinity, fragile masculinity and dead-beat dads. Single mothers should be celebrated on father’s day, which is a day that should really anyhow be replaced with “special person’s day”. For men can not have anything for men and for men only. Women may feel slighted and left out, and nothing is more important than a woman’s fleeting and momentary feelings. The notion that a man might feel somewhat perturbed and annoyed when he, as a father, is reduced to “Partner” whereas a female partner is elevated to “Together-mother” is either an alien notion or of little-to-no concern for the powers that be.

Fretting about this god-damned paper and this god-damned word might seem like a lot for relatively little. Yet, I don’t think that it is – I consider this to be yet another nail in the coffin for anything uniquely masculine. Might be a small nail, but that doesn’t mean that all the other nails are small, nor that small nails are incapable of closing the lid. It is worrisome. Genuinely so. On a personal note, I worry for the future of our young son. On a less personal, yet still important note, I worry for the future of all our young sons who may grow up never knowing themselves due to never being gifted a positive identity that is theirs and theirs alone; due to never finding anything that they must not immediately share with girls and with women.

Still, fret not and be not yet black-pilled, brothers: the man in the mirror may have no face, but it is getting easier for all to see that the empress has no clothes.

Moiret Allegiere
 

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. his blog here. and one of his books here

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
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
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
July 21, 2025
AI Books

We now have a new section that is accessible in the top navbar of the substack page titled AI Books. It contains links to numerous books on men's issues that each have an AI app that is able to answer detailed questions about the book. The above video gives some ideas of how to use these.

https://menaregood.substack.com/s/ai-books

The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell
Fiamengo File 2.0 Janice Fiamengo
Taken Into Custody - Stephen Baskerville
The Empathy Gap - William Collins
The Empathy Gap 2 - Williams Collins
The Destructivists - William Collins
Who Lost America - Stephen Baskerville
The New Politics of Sex -- Stephen Baskerville
Understanding Men and Boys: Healing Insights - Tom Golden
Boys' Muscle Strength and Performance - Jim Zuzzo PhD
Sex Bias in Domestic Violence Policies and Laws - Ed Bartlett (DAVIA)
The Hand That Rocks The World - David Shackleton

Links below

Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell

The Myth of Male Power - documents how virtually every society that survived did so by persuading its sons to be disposable. This is one of the most powerful books...

00:11:44
June 20, 2025
10 Factors that Help Explain Male Suicides

A quick dive into 10 reasons behind the high rates of male suicide. For a deeper look, check out my two-part series linked here.

part 1 https://menaregood.locals.com/post/3606115/the-truth-about-male-suicide-part-1
part 2 https://menaregood.locals.com/post/4871019/the-truth-about-male-suicide-part-two

00:04:13
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

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.

I was tooling around on Youtube and found this: just a moment of positive male role model.

Just some random testosterone with a bit of disposability . Stan Rogers is one of my favorites.

30 minutes ago
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
July 08, 2025
post photo preview
The Right Length to Reach the Floor: Why Being Offended Matters


At a White House Christmas party, President Abraham Lincoln was mingling with guests, exchanging laughter and good cheer. He came upon a group that included a woman known for her biting tongue. Looking at Lincoln’s tall frame, she quipped, “President Lincoln, don’t you find your legs are far too long?”

Without missing a beat, Lincoln smiled and replied, “No, madam, I have always found them jus the right length to reach the floor.”

The crowd laughed, the moment passed, and the party went on. But in that brief exchange, Lincoln showed something important: there are many ways to respond to offense—and one of the best is humor.


Being Offended Is Part of Growing Up

We tend to treat offense today as a kind of harm. But in truth, being offended is part of life—and even more, it’s part of maturity. Boys in particular seem to intuit this. Watch a group of young males and you’ll see it play out: teasing, poking, sarcasm, verbal sparring. It’s not (usually) meant to hurt—it’s meant to test.

And those tests serve a purpose.

When a boy is told he’s stupid, or too slow, or mocked for his hair or clothes, he learns to respond. He might crack a joke. He might sharpen his wit. He might challenge the premise with logic or brush it off with a shrug. What he’s doing is learning to handle adversity—on his feet and with others watching.

It’s practice for the world.


The Skills Boys Learn Through Being Offended

  • Humor – defusing tension, maintaining dignity

  • Repartee – learning to think and speak quickly

  • Logic – pointing out flaws in the jab

  • Grace – choosing to let it slide

  • Strength – not needing validation to hold his ground

These are not small things. They’re the building blocks of workplace confidence, relational resilience, and emotional independence.


The Cultural Shift: A World Where Offense Is Forbidden

But we now live in a time where being offended is treated as a kind of assault—especially if the offended belongs to a “protected group.” Entire institutions—from universities to HR departments—have adopted the idea that certain people must not be offended, and if they are, someone else must be punished.

But what happens when a group is shielded from offense?

They may never learn to develop the inner muscles that others do. They may never build the grace, wit, or confidence that comes from surviving discomfort. Like the body that withers in the absence of challenge, their maturity is stalled.

In the name of protection, we end up infantilizing them.


The Asymmetry of Offense

Let’s be honest: not everyone gets the same protection. Boys and men are fair game. So are Christians. So are people with dissenting views on political, medical, or cultural issues. These groups are expected—often required—to endure offense without complaint.

Meanwhile, others—especially women, certain minority groups, and favored ideological stances—are shielded from offense. The rules shift depending on who’s talking and who’s listening. But one thing is clear: there is a deep asymmetry in how offense is allowed and punished.

This disparity starts early.

Boys are more likely to be offended because they’re less protected. In fact, they often grow up in environments where ridicule, teasing, and verbal jousting are common—and not discouraged. In contrast, girls are more likely to be shielded from offense. Schools, parents, and media tend to be quicker to intervene when girls are targeted. The result? Boys get toughened. Girls get guarded.

Some call this compassion. But what if it’s something else? What if we’re unknowingly denying girls a chance to build the same emotional endurance we demand of boys?

This has serious implications.

Being offended, and learning how to respond constructively, builds the skill set necessary for leadership. Leaders must take criticism, navigate hostility, and remain calm under pressure. That doesn't come naturally—it comes from experience.

So if we raise boys to expect offense and learn to handle it—but raise girls to expect protection and institutional outrage on their behalf—we shouldn't be surprised if more boys grow into leaders. They’ve been trained for conflict, while girls may have been trained to avoid it.

And here’s the twist: when we limit offending women, we may also be limiting their capacity to lead.

This isn’t about discouraging kindness. It’s about understanding that discomfort is the engine of maturity. If we teach one group to handle offense and deny another that chance, we create a lopsided playing field—not by talent, but by tolerance.

We also send a subtle but damaging message: this group is strong enough to be offended, but that group isn’t. That’s not respect. That’s condescension.


“Offense becomes a weapon, not a wound.”

Traditionally, being offended was understood as a personal emotional response. Someone says something, you feel hurt, insulted, or challenged—it’s unpleasant, maybe painful. A wound. But it’s something you deal with, like Lincoln did, through humor, logic, or resilience.

But in today’s culture, offense is often treated not as an emotional experience, but as a moral accusation.

Now, when someone says, “I’m offended,” they’re not just saying, “That hurt my feelings.” They’re saying:
“You’ve done something wrong, and I now have the right to punish you.”

  • Careers are destroyed over tweets.

  • Public apologies are demanded for misstatements, jokes, or even factual claims.

  • Institutions overreact, fearing backlash—not because harm was caused, but because someone claimed harm was felt.

This turns offense into a strategic tool—a weapon to silence disagreement, gain status, or assert dominance. And here’s the deeper truth: this behavior often stems from an inability to respond maturely to the offending message. When someone lacks the internal tools—humor, logic, composure—they may externalize the discomfort instead. Rather than engaging the message, they attack the messenger.

The more ruthlessly someone wields this strategy, the more power they acquire in certain environments—media, academia, HR departments, online culture. And the more others scramble to appease them.

Society begins to bend not to the wise or the strong, but to the emotionally volatile. This doesn’t promote dignity or equality. It promotes fragility and fear.


Real Maturity: Offense and Reciprocity

True equality means that everyone has:

  • The right to offend

  • The duty to withstand offense

Lincoln didn’t file a complaint. He didn’t lecture the woman. He made a joke and moved on. That’s what strength looks like.


Conclusion: Offense as an Opportunity

When we forbid offense, we shut down an ancient and necessary process. Human beings grow not by being protected from all discomfort, but by facing it and finding a way through.

Let’s stop pretending that offense is violence. It’s not. It’s a signal, a chance, a test. And if we meet it well—like Lincoln did—we just might reach the floor with our dignity intact.

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