MenAreGood
How Can We Spot GYNOCENTRISM
July 08, 2024
post photo preview



This is the second post in this series on Gynocentrism.  The first post offered an exercise to help see the degree of gynocentrism you might have.  You can see that post here.  This second post focuses on how to see gynocentrism in our world.  




Men have been facing a chorus of antagonistic criticism and insults over the last 50 years. It started with them being called pigs and has devolved into the present-day insult of males being toxic. All the points in between have been filled with more insults and blaming men and patriarchy for every known feminine difficulty. But men don't fight back. Most men stay mum. They allow the lies and innuendo to be spun and spun with no rebuttal. This has left the culture convinced that men are indeed the problem. What a mess. 

Why won't men fight back? 

In order to understand the answer to that question we need to start with gynocentrism. What is it? 

Gynocentrism is a largely unconscious bias in both men and women that leaves people thinking and feeling that women should receive special provisions and protections and that they are deserving of both. This is not without reason. When women are pregnant, they indeed need special provisions and protection. But gynocentrism is not selective in its application or its timing. It tends to be fairly global and applies to not just pregnant women but to all women at all times (although it is significantly increased when applied to a very attractive woman as in the cover photo). Gynocentrism impacts men and women on multiple levels and is deeply embedded into our culture and into our psyches. It even encourages that we go easy on women and excuse bad behavior. Recent research has shown us that when women are convicted of felonies, there is a gynocentric bias that pushes people to offer excuses for their crimes. Explanations like she was abused as a child, or mentally ill, or any number of other ideas offer special understanding for her deeds. Men generally do not receive such excuses. Other research has pointed to women getting over 60% lower sentences for a guilty verdict for the same crime as men. By default, gynocentrism offers women provision and protection along with a greater degree of empathy and understanding, rather than judgment. This is gynocentrism. 

But why this difference?  Why would men want to give women special treatment?  The answer is that gynocentrism is connected to men's biological drive for status.  Men seek status in order to get the girl.  Men with the highest status are the men who are more often chosen as mates and this drives men to seek status.  One of the paths to gain status is to be highly valued by women. How can you make that happen?  By going out of your way to do for them.  Men compete to try to impress an attractive woman and it is this connection to hierarchy and gynocentrism that drives that dynamic. 

The gynocentric bias is common. Nearly everyone has it, and there are indeed some who are aware of this bias, and most of those are happy with it. For those with a strong blue pill influence, it just feels like the right thing to do, and very few are protesting the bias. 

Gynocentrism is embedded in just about every facet of life, and no one sees it. It is basically invisible and pervasive. It runs silent, and it runs deep. It's like the air, unseen, and we take it for granted. Most of the time we don't notice the wind unless it starts rustling nearby leaves. Then we can see it, or we feel it blowing on our face. The same applies to gynocentrism. We rarely see it on its own, but we see it when it impacts something indirectly, not unlike seeing the impact of wind on the leaves. So how can you spot gynocentrism? Let's go over a few places where it is easier to see.

Gynocentrism on a personal level

We can see it in our culture by observing cultural assumptions that are automatic and deeply embedded in most of us. One example is the idea of ladies first. Whether it's to get in the lifeboats or something more mundane, we see the ladies-first idea played out around us and no one really notices or cares. Just do a search on ladies first and see what images come up. Then try one for men first and see what you get. Ladies first is an unwritten rule that is fueled by gynocentrism.  It is interesting to note that with all of the ranting about how men and women are equal, the women first idea is less spoken now, and less visible but still easy to see if you look for it.

 

Another cultural custom that exposes gynocentrism is the age-old maxim to never hit a girl. Girls are to be protected. In fact, the message tells boys not only that they should avoid striking girls but also that they should enforce this maxim if they see other boys breaking the rule. The message is girls are different and are valuable and deserve protection. The indirect message is that other boys are the potential problem.

Sometimes we can see it when a wife asks a husband to do something. Often the husband will drop what he is doing to aid the wife. Have you seen that? Some husbands are slower than others, but the general trend is that the man will respond to her request. What happens when the man asks the wife to do something? In the couples therapy I have done over the years, it has looked like the wife was considerably slower in responding. However, when she asks, he responds. Maybe an easier way to see this dynamic more clearly is to observe that wives will often make "honey-do" lists, stick them on the refrigerator, and expect them to be accomplished. Have you ever heard of a man making a similar list for the wife? Not usually. This is just another example of how gynocentrism lives in our daily life. The needs and desires of women are seen as important while the needs and desires of men are treated less so. 

 

Then there is the old American saying of Motherhood and Apple Pie which is meant to honor two important elements of our culture, moms and a traditional delicious dessert. Listen to what AI says about this phrase.

"Motherhood and apple pie are often used as a metaphor to represent traditional American values, such as family, wholesomeness, and patriotism. These concepts are considered quintessential to American culture and are often used to describe things that are considered good, wholesome, and quintessentially American."

We can see the gynocentric filter in this statement. Holding mom up in the highest regard. Think for a minute about the phrase "Fatherhood and Apple Pie." It really doesn't work in the same way, does it? Gynocentrism is a part of what makes it work.

When young boys want to insult another young man, what is the easiest way to do this? Say something about his mother. You might get away with calling his father or brother names, but try it with his mother and watch the fireworks. She is sacred and held in very high esteem. She is also to be protected. Gynocentrism.

Think of an attractive woman pulled over on the side of the road with a flat tire like the cover photo. What's the chance that a man will pull over to help her? Pretty good, right? Now imagine it's a man pulled over with a flat tire. Who stops for him? I think most of us can imagine that the woman would get a good deal of help and the gentleman would probably not. Gynocentrism.

Other western gynocentric-connected traditions that have been common in the past have been men standing when a woman enters the room. This was done as a sign of respect. Another was holding her chair as she was seated at the table before the man takes his seat. Men would try to walk next to the woman on the street side of the sidewalk in order to protect her from any possible calamity. Offering women a seat in a crowded public vehicle is another example. Opening the door for the woman and allowing her to go through first. All of these were done to show respect and to acknowledge her as being both exceptional and deserving more protection and privilege than the men. All of these are connected to gynocentrism. 

Gynocentrism on a legislative level

Perhaps the more lethal impact of gynocentrism is not the personal results of gynocentrism as seen above but the larger scale biases that live in our culture. Think of the personal bias we have seen thus far that is based on women first, women deserving special treatment, and basically their specialness playing into the personal treatment women receive. Think also of the men competing to impress the attractive women and for him to be seen as the "one true man" in her eyes, you know, the man who treasures women. Now take that same underlying bias and apply it on a national level.  What you see is congressmen and senators jockeying to be the one who helps women the most. Not unlike the earlier persona version of men trying to impress an attractive woman.  Look and you see things like the Violence Against Women Act which for the last 30 years has exclusively served women who were victims of domestic violence while ignoring the needs of nearly half of the victims, the men.  The legislators were aware that males were victims. I know this because I was part of groups that would testify to this fact at the VAWA hearings and be totally ignored. Who was it that created the VAWA and made sure that it only helped women?  Joseph Biden.  He and many others made sure that they ignored the men and focused on women.  This would be completely bizarre unless you had some understanding about how gynocentrism works.  

Even back in the 19th century at the start of the industrial revolution we saw governments step in to insure safety of factory workers.  But who did these laws protect?  Most of them protected only women and children.  Gynocentrism.

You see this same theme play over and over in the legislative branch of government. Our male legislators are vying to be the most helpful to women. It is what gets them re-elected.  Think about it.   We have at least 7 offices for women's health in our federal government but ZERO offices for men's health.  Another area that exposes our governmental gynocentric bias is the reaction of legislators to outlaw female circumcision without exceptions but allow the circumcision of males to be the most popular surgical procedure in the US today. Girls are to be protected and boys don't count. There are a flood of laws that have been written to be of service to women but very few to be of service to men. Gynocentrism.

It's easy to see that gynocentrism has been present in our legislators pushing the ideas of affirmative action in the U.S. for 50 years. Women would be hired or promoted over more qualified men. That is the power of gynocentrism. Imagine it was reversed and the less qualified men were getting preference over more qualified women. That wouldn't last long.

We could go on and on with examples such as the vast majority of welfare being specifically for women, the suicide rates of men and the lack of legislative interest in helping, the focus on women's reproductive rights while ignoring any attention to men and their dilemma, or our boys struggling in schools while the legislators focus on helping girls.  All of these things point to the same culprit: Gynocentrism.  All of these problems could be addressed so much better if our legislators were aware of their inherent and unconscious gynocentrism and were able to adjust and be more egalitarian.

Gynocentrism on a social level

How about on a social level?  Most people don't recognize the abundance of gynocentrism that is before their eyes.  How many women only organizations are there? Lots.  Men's organizations like the Lions Club, Rotary, or even men's barber shops have been cancelled and replaced by adding women into the mix.  There are hundreds and maybe thousands of commissions for women.  There is even a commission pulling together many of the commissions for women!  There may be a handful of commissions for men.  Maybe.  

And just keep an eye peeled for all of the women only spaces.  Women's parking, women only subway cars, women's gyms, women's bankswomen only parks, and on and on.  Do you see any spaces for men?  No, they have all been diluted by adding women.  Even the Boy Scouts has added girls!  There are no male spaces left anymore with the exception of prisons and the ranks of the falsely accused.

 

Gynocentrism on a Judiciary level

And then there is the judiciary.  The family courts have been ravaging fathers and yanking them from their homes and their children for decades for no reason and no one raises their voice. Gynocentrism. The judges give females considerably less lengthy sentences for the same crime.  Why?  Gynocentrism.  Yet another area is the many men who experience false accusations.  We are in the era of people promoting the idea of "Believe ​All Wom​en."  (A very gynocentric idea)  And it is not hard to imagine the hardship faced by a man who is falsely accused and is convicted unfairly by people spouting this phrase or those who strive to promote that idea.  This is gynocentrism.

Gynocentrism in Academia

Gynocentrism in academia pushes a bias towards focusing on women.  The chart below shows in pink, the times the phrase "women's health" is used in research articles indexed by PubMed between 1973 and 2023.  The times the phrase "men's health" is used is shown in blue. And still what we hear is that women are ignored and need more. This is gynocentrism. 

 

This next chart shows the number of men and women who participated in clinical trials at the NIH between 1995-2022. We so often hear claims that women are under-represented but the chart tells a different story.

 

A researcher named Jim Nuzzo, created the above charts for his substack. He also did a series on the academic peer review process.  The series makes it very clear that the system has a strong bias in favor of all things female and also has a negative reaction to anything that questions that, or that focuses on men and boys.  You can see the first in that series here and see an article using the above charts titled Gynocentrism in Bio-Medical research here

It is a sad fact that academia has been overwhelmingly saturated with interest for all things female.  Women's studies is at the center of this huge bias and plays a role in not only narrowing the focus to just women and girls but at the same time blaming men and boys for just about every sort of problem one can imagine.  This could never happen without gynocentrism.  There have been attempts to start Men's Studies departments but those have either been attacked or lacked support and interest.  Gynocentrism.

Gynocentrism in the mental health industry

The mental health profession surely has its share of gynocentric attitudes. In the years I have worked as a therapist, often I would refer a client I was seeing to find couples treatment with their spouse. No matter who I sent them to, ​a common theme unfolded. Each couples therapist would make the main objective the needs of the wife. Even when the husband had very pressing issues, they were often overlooked while the wife's concerns were given top priority. This was above and beyond what these therapists had been taught to do, and I am guessing this strategy was related to their unconscious gynocentrism. ​Ladies first.

Another blatant place where gynocentrism seems to reside is in clients who were abused by their mothers. I have heard from a number of people who had abusive mothers that when they entered therapy the issue became not dealing with the hardship and trauma of the abuse but instead in forgiving the mother! Gynocentrism. You can contrast this with the responses to having been abused by the dad. Different story. He was a bad guy.

It's also true that the mental health industry assumes that men need to be emotionally like women.  This is a crazy and erroneous assumption that causes all sorts of troubles and the source of this error is, of course, gynocentrism, with its assumption that. of course,  everyone should be like women.

Gynocentrism in pregnancy and childbirth

Gynocentrism even makes its way into pregnancy and childbirth. Just have a look at the IVF services in the US. It turns out the US IVF agencies are the only ones in the world to offer the option of choosing the sex of the baby.​ You can choose whether you want a boy or a girl.  And what sex do White parents choose? 70% female according to an article in Slate Magazine titled “The Parents Who Want Daughters-And Daughters Only“. A quote from the article:

Grace, a 31-year-old who works in human resources (I’m referring to her by her middle name), told me, “When I think about having a child that’s a boy, it’s almost a repulsion, like, Oh my God, no.”

Preferring female offspring seems to me to be a more pathological sign of gynocentrism. It goes beyond the preference for women and seeking services and provisions for them and moves into the disdain of one sex over the other. This is pathological gynocentrism.

Gynocentrism Gives Women Protection

When you start observing things, you see that women, by default, live in a world that is geared to protect them and help ensure their needs are met. However, gynocentrism is about more. It is not just seen in families, relationships, or work; it is not just about safety and provisions; it spills over into the area of empathy and compassion.

I saw this in full blazing color when I worked as a therapist with grieving families who had experienced the death of one of their children. In each family I worked with, a similar dynamic would appear. The mother would get a great deal of attention from neighbors, family, and relatives who asked her supportive questions and listened to her troubles, etc. But the father was lucky if someone would approach him and ask, "How's your wife holding up?" It was so common that I had a phrase to describe what I was seeing. It went like this:

A woman's pain is a call to action. A man's pain is taboo.

That is the way it looked from my perspective. As much as the world complained about a man not "dealing with his feelings," it was painfully obvious to me that no one wanted to hear his feelings. Everyone ran away as if it was a taboo. Not so with the wife. Her pain was literally a call to action for people. They saw that she was in need and they would go out of their way to do something to help her. What I didn't know at the time was that the root of this difference was gynocentrism. She deserves to be heard while he deserves to help her.

So why is this the case? Why would a woman's pain be a call to action and a woman pulled over with a flat garner more help? Clearly, it is gynocentrism. Our world has been built by this, and gynocentrism has been a big part of creating our culture. I don't want to paint it entirely as a negative. I don't think it is, in its raw form.  But anytime you have an automatic and unconscious bias there is surely the potential for trouble.  It's also worth noting that the ideas we are talking about here are not black and white. Sometimes women will not get more attention than the gentleman. Sometimes his pain may be more of a call to action. So we are not talking about a binary here, but we are talking about strong and easily noticeable trends.

Gynocentrism - the unseen factor

It is amazing how deeply embedded gynocentrism is in all aspects of our culture. Gynocentrism indeed runs silent and it runs deep.  Just about any place you look in the world you see it.  Whether it is in relationships, the family, socially, the judiciary, the legislature, the community, academia and on and on.  This short post is not meant to cover all of the ways that gynocentrism is a part of our lives. There are many more ways to see gynocentrism than we have discussed.  A couple of these are the selective service, male-bashing and numerous others.  If you think of some examples please offer them in the comments.

Next up is how women leverage the power of gynocentrism to get what they want and how feminists have taken a lethal step farther in weaponizing gynocentrism.

community logo
Join the MenAreGood Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
0
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
April 23, 2025
The Anti-Male Propaganda in Netflix's Adolescence

In this discussion, Hannah Spier, Janice Fiamengo, and Tom Golden take a critical look at the anti-male messaging embedded in the Netflix series Adolescence. Together, they unpack the show’s characters, storylines, and the implausibility of the events depicted, highlighting how such narratives reinforce harmful cultural stereotypes about boys and men. The conversation shines a light on how entertainment media can quietly shape public perceptions, often portraying male characters as either predatory, weak, or disposable, while sidelining the real experiences and complexities of young men.

00:59:27
April 07, 2025
Federal "Family Policy": A Story of Mischief

Join Tom Golden, Stephen Baskerville, Shah, and Don Bieniewicz for an eye-opening discussion on U.S. family policy—exploring the many ways it harms men, undermines families, and violates constitutional principles.

With firsthand experience inside the system, Shah and Don offer powerful insights, while Stephen brings over 20 years of research and writing on the subject. The video concludes with a call to action: contact the White House and recommend Stephen Baskerville as the director of ACF and Shah for consideration as the head of OCSS.

Stephen’s Books
Taken Into Custody https://amzn.to/3nGaMh6
The New Politics of Sex https://amzn.to/3DIYjif
Who Lost America: Why the United States Went “Communist“ and what to Do about it https://www.amazon.com/Who-Lost-America-United-Communist/dp/1915755662

Don’s papers:

(1) The model child support guideline that I drafted for the Children's Rights Council is here:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Donald-Bieniewicz?ev=hdr_xprf

(2) And the ...

00:56:26
March 29, 2025
Regarding Men 24 - Sicko-Therapy

Recorded 2020

Janice Fiamengo, Paul Elam, and Tom discuss the twisted ideas of feminist therapy. If feminists are not admitting that they hate men, what does that do to any form of therapy based on feminist ideas?

Laura Brown http://www.drlaurabrown.com/feminist-therapy/
Psychology Today on Feminist Therapy https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapy-types/feminist-therapy

00:37:00
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
April 26, 2025
MHD - The Princess Treatment Exposed

I follow MHD on Patreon and enjoy many of his vids. Here’s one of his videos that was also on youtube. See what you think.

Sargon, dancing around the red pill.

A great video on the help for men channel interviewing Michelle Langley. This is the kind of stuff all men need to learn and share great points and great lessons and advice for men and women. Definitely not Gynocyntric or anti man at all!!

May 06, 2025
post photo preview
The Origins of Hatred - Part Two - Feminism



How Feminism Manufactured Fear and Distrust of Men

One of the clearest long-term examples of using fear, blame, victimhood, and resentment as a social tactic is the way feminism — backed by unwavering support from the media and lawmakers — has worked to embed fear, distrust, and blame into the minds of women and girls.

Nearly every major feminist campaign has been built on two themes: blaming men and claiming victimhood. Along the way, women have been encouraged to distrust men, to fear them, and to view their actions through a lens of suspicion.

The success of these campaigns has relied heavily on gynocentrism — a deeply embedded, often invisible bias. Most people don’t even realize they carry it, but it’s there, quietly shaping our instincts. Gynocentrism shows up as an automatic tendency to prioritize the needs, emotions, and concerns of women, while overlooking those of men. Feminists have strategically weaponized this bias, using it to pressure institutions and society into funneling more resources to women. 

In the previous post, The Origins of Hatred, we discussed how hatred often grows out of fear, distrust, resentment, and the belief that something rightfully yours could be stolen. When these emotions are stirred up, the chances of hatred taking root rise dramatically.

We’ve seen the slogans — the t-shirts and mugs that proudly say things like “I bathe in male tears.” That’s not just casual humor; it’s celebrating the pain of men. And when one group openly relishes the suffering of another, that’s a serious warning sign of hatred.

Sometimes, the hatred isn’t even hidden. It was spelled out plainly in a Washington Post article by Walters titled "Why Can't We Hate Men?" No subtle hints, no veiled language — just a blunt statement: we deserve to hate men.

Over the years, there have been plenty of openly misandrist books too, including the infamous S.C.U.M. Manifesto by Valerie Solanas. (S.C.U.M. stands for Society for Cutting Up Men.) Sound like the name of a hate group to you? It should.

It’s not hard to see: some women have been led — even encouraged — to hate men.

Let’s take a closer look at how this has been done, step by step.


Inventing the Patriarchy Monster

 

The first move was to create a villain: Patriarchy. Feminists claimed this invisible, omnipresent system had stolen women’s rights and opportunities for centuries — and that all men were participants. It was portrayed as a global conspiracy designed by men to oppress women.

This narrative cast women as perpetual victims and men as perpetual perpetrators. If women were victims of this monstrous system, it gave them a reason to fear, distrust, and blame men for their problems. Crucially, it wasn’t just a handful of powerful tycoons being blamed — it was every man.

This conditioned women to view men not as allies or protectors, but as thieves of opportunity and freedom. And once fear and blame is planted, distrust follows. Over time, this distrust breeds resentment, and this can inevitably curdle into hatred.


Manufacturing Fear of Men’s Violence

Next, feminism relentlessly exaggerated the threat of male violence. Even though fewer than a half of 1% of men are convicted of violent crimes, men were collectively painted as dangerous.

Campaigns like “Take Back the Night” suggested that men had made public spaces unsafe. Anti-rape crusades pushed slogans like All men are potential rapists. Domestic violence campaigns implied that any woman, at any time, could be in danger from any man — despite data showing domestic violence is most prevalent in lower socio-economic groups and that men are victims too.

The aim was simple: fuel fear and distrust by promoting the idea that all men were potential threats. And history tells us what happens next: fear transforms into resentment, and unchecked resentment leads to hate. The more women were told to see men as unpredictable dangers, the more those emotions hardened.


Demonizing Masculinity Itself

As the fear campaigns intensified, a new weapon emerged: toxic masculinity. Feminists began to redefine traditional masculine traits—such as strength, stoicism, and competitiveness—as inherently harmful. The very qualities that had long been vital for protecting and providing for women and children were suddenly recast as dangerous and pathological.

Imagine the backlash if someone claimed femininity itself was toxic. But the “toxic masculinity” label stuck — widely accepted, even celebrated, in popular culture and media.

What message does this send women? That men, by their very nature, are dangerous. It discourages trust, closeness, and cooperation, and promotes out-group hostility — seeing men as outsiders and threats. Fear escalates, trust deteriorates, and resentment simmers just beneath the surface. Over time, that resentment metastasizes into outright hatred of not just specific men, but masculinity itself.


Reframing Male Help as Oppression


Another tactic was to portray even positive male behavior as suspect. Feminists argued that when men protect or help women, it’s about control and paternalism. Acts of chivalry were repackaged as disguised domination. Gratitude was replaced with skepticism, doubt, and fear.

This seeded doubt in women’s minds: Is his kindness genuine, or does he have an agenda? Over time, this isolated women further and disoriented men who suddenly found their supportive gestures met with suspicion. He found himself living in a world where he simply can't win.

And what follows when goodwill is viewed as manipulation? Fear. Distrust. Resentment. The natural progression plays out yet again: suspicion leads to bitterness, and bitterness makes way for hate.

All the while, traditionally masculine strengths like logic, fairness, and objective reasoning were increasingly dismissed or devalued. In their place, emotional expression and subjective feelings were elevated as the highest forms of truth. Rather than balancing reason and emotion, the cultural shift sidelined men's natural strengths, portraying them as cold, outdated, or even oppressive. The result was a climate where emotional narratives often trumped evidence, and fairness took a backseat to feelings.

Casting Relationships as Power Struggles

Feminists promoted the idea that heterosexual relationships are inherently imbalanced and exploitative. Men, they claimed, were constantly scheming to take women’s resources, power, and autonomy.

This worldview cast suspicion on romantic relationships and encouraged women to view partnerships not as mutual alliances, but as battles for dominance. The feminist cry was all sex is rape!

Once again: fear breeds distrust, which breeds resentment. And when the very idea of love and partnership is painted as a contest of control, hatred isn’t far behind. What should foster connection instead fosters division.


Creating a Media Echo Chamber

The media eagerly amplified these narratives. Stories of men as protectors, supporters, or victims rarely made headlines. Instead, article after article, news segment after news segment, depicted women as victims and men as perpetrators.

This one-sided portrayal conditioned the public to see male violence and male wrongdoing as the norm, while male victimhood was erased. Constant exposure to this selective narrative created a skewed perception of male behavior and fueled generalized fear.

And as with every other step: sustained fear morphs into distrust, distrust into resentment, and resentment into hatred. This is not an accidental outcome — it’s a predictable consequence of systematically vilifying one half of the population.


Spreading the Fear Template Across Issues


Feminism applied its fear-and-blame template to virtually every major social issue, consistently casting men as oppressors and women as victims. This narrative became the default lens through which public policy, media coverage, and cultural norms were shaped.​ Let's have a closer look a some of the issues.

The Domestic Violence Example

Perhaps the clearest example is domestic violence. Feminists claimed men were battering women in alarming numbers, and demanded government action. What they deliberately left out was that men, too, were victims — at comparable rates.

Prominent feminist Ellen Pence, a leader in the domestic violence movement, later admitted:

“In many ways, we turned a blind eye to many women’s use of violence, their drug use and alcoholism, and their often harsh and violent treatment of their own children.”

Yet for years, feminists successfully pushed a one-sided narrative, securing billions in funding for women-only services while erasing male victims.​ Male legislators, eager to prove they weren't the “enemy,” funded a women-only domestic violence industry—one that now commands nearly $5 billion a year in federal and state funding, despite its foundation being built on selective data and misleading claims.​ The result? A culture trained to see men as inherently dangerous and women as always innocent victims.​

And where one group is painted as evil and the other as blameless, fear and distrust fester. Resentment builds. Hate is the inevitable consequence.

Education: Feminists claimed that the patriarchy had systematically cheated girls out of opportunity. Girls were portrayed as emotionally battered by a male-dominated system that ignored their needs. The solution? Re-engineer the educational environment to favor girls—by de-emphasizing competition, downplaying boys’ natural learning styles, and prioritizing emotional safety over academic rigor. The result has been a system where boys now lag behind in graduation rates, college enrollment, and literacy, but no one is rushing to fix it for them.

Reproductive Rights: The conversation was framed as a battle against male control of women’s bodies, summed up by the slogan: “Her body, her choice.” But while women were given full reproductive authority, men were given no rights, no say, and no support. The father's role was reduced to that of a bystander—unless child support was needed. There was no public outcry about this imbalance, only cheers for women's autonomy, and silence about male disenfranchisement.

Healthcare: Feminists claimed women were neglected by a healthcare system designed by and for men. They argued that women were left out of medical research and ​left out of research studies. These claims have since been debunked​. There are eight federal offices for women's health and none for men. Just one of those offices for women got a budget for 2025 for nearly 1.5 billion dollars while men's offices got zero. They have also found that women actually use more healthcare services and live longer than men—but the narrative stuck​, women need and deserve more. Men, meanwhile, still die younger, have fewer resources for gender-specific health issues, and are underrepresented in healthcare outreach. Yet somehow, the blame was again placed on men.

Divorce: Men were portrayed as abusive and emotionally stifling, while women were framed as desperate to escape. No-fault divorce arrived as the silver bullet, allowing women to end marriages unilaterally, often with financial gain and favorable custody arrangements. What kind of contract allows one party to walk away, take the kids, and still profit? It was a seismic power shift that disempowered men—especially fathers—and handed the upper hand to women under the guise of liberation.

Sexual Assault: The narrative became: All men are potential predators. Due process was seen as a barrier to "believing women." The fear-based messaging painted entire groups of men as suspect, regardless of evidence, while encouraging women to view every interaction through the lens of danger.

Pay Gap: Feminists accused men of deliberately underpaying women. Yet Warren Farrell ha​s thoroughly debunked this myth, showing that the so-called “gap” is almost entirely due to life choices—career fields, hours worked, risk tolerance—not discrimination. Still, the blame stuck to men, and the myth continues to be used to justify gender-based policy and hiring practices.

Sexual Harassment: Men were framed as aggressors who silenced and intimidated women in the workplace​. The blanket vilification of men created an atmosphere of suspicion, where normal workplace interactions could be reinterpreted as threats.​ Men’s natural ways of interacting — being competitive, giving blunt feedback, and adopting a “tough it out” mentality — were seen as harmful to women. But instead of encouraging women to adapt to this more demanding environment, the solution was to change the men.

Mansplaining: A new cultural buzzword emerged to shame men for speaking, especially when sharing knowledge. It wasn’t enough to disagree—men were now accused of "stealing women's voices" anytime they offered a perspective.

Manspreading: Even how men sit became political. Men were now “stealing women’s space” by taking up too much room on public transport. Masculine posture was reframed as a public offense.

The Result: A Culture of Fear, Distrust, and Hatred

By repeatedly following the same formula — false accusations, inflated victimhood, vilifying men, and demanding urgent action — feminism has succeeded in making women suspicious, fearful, and distrustful of men.

Women were placed in a difficult bind:

  • If you believe the narrative, you must fear men.

  • If you believe the narrative, you must distrust men.

  • If you believe the narrative, you must resent men.

  • If you don’t believe the narrative, you must not be a “real” woman.

With every new manufactured grievance — from mansplaining to domestic violence — the same template was applied.

But fear and distrust don’t operate in a vacuum. Human psychology makes this clear: when people are taught to fear and distrust a group, and are simultaneously conditioned to see themselves as its perpetual victims, resentment takes root. Over time, that resentment hardens — and turns into hatred.

This is one of the most dangerous psychological dynamics in any society. History shows us that when a group is consistently portrayed as a threat — and held collectively responsible for every grievance — the result is always the same: hostility, dehumanization, and eventually outright hatred.

This relentless cycle of fear and blame hasn’t just fostered distrust — it has built a culture steeped in in-group bias, where one group (women) is seen as morally superior and perpetually victimized, while the other (men) is cast as inherently dangerous and unworthy of empathy.

The inevitable result? A rising hatred of men.
A hatred fueled by distorted narratives, reinforced by media echo chambers, and protected by ideological gatekeepers.

This is how fear was manufactured — how, one lie at a time, an entire culture was led to see men not as allies, protectors, or partners, but as threats. And in the process, feminism didn’t just fracture relationships between men and women — it cultivated an atmosphere where distrust breeds resentment, and resentment curdles into hate.

At every turn, this framework of fear and blame has redefined normal male behavior as oppressive. It has warped public perception, silenced men’s voices, and redirected vast social resources toward problems often exaggerated or misrepresented.

The cost?
A growing cultural divide.
The breakdown of the American family and male female relationships.
And a generation of boys and men taught to feel ashamed of their very nature.

Feminism — with its invented victimhood and relentless blame — has become one of the most deceptive and self-serving movements in American history. It's time we start calling it out. And it’s time we return, slowly but surely, to the truth:

Men are good.

Read full Article
May 03, 2025
post photo preview
Introducing a Custom GPT: Understanding Men and Boys – Healing Insights



Introducing a Custom GPT: Understanding Men and Boys – Healing Insights

I’ve created a custom GPT (a conversational AI built with ChatGPT) designed to offer grounded, respectful insight into the emotional lives of men and boys. It draws exclusively from my three books:

This GPT does not offer advice or therapy. Its purpose is to deepen understanding, not to diagnose, treat, or intervene. It assumes goodwill and sincere curiosity from those using it.

You can use it to explore:

  • How men and boys deal with emotions differently

  • The often-invisible ways they process pain or build closeness

  • Gendered dimensions of healing that often go unspoken or unrecognized

  • Indigenous rituals and how they tell us about men and boys

Click here to use the GPT

https://chatgpt.com/g/g-680ed336677c8191a3527bdf1d4bf17f-understanding-men-and-boys-healing-insights

Ask it a question and see what comes up! Ask it about Michael Jordan, or Eric Clapton and see what it says.

I will be curious to hear your feedback on this. I am planning to build a number of Custom GPT’s like this around men’s issues. Let me know what issues you think should be first!

Read full Article
April 28, 2025
post photo preview
The Origins of Hatred
Part One

 

The Origins of Hatred

Hatred feels like it’s everywhere these days. It’s erupting across countries, communities, and causes — whether it’s resentment toward Whites in South Africa, the relentless fury over Gaza, backlash against anything connected to Tesla, or the media’s obsessive vilification of Donald Trump. Politics, religion, race, climate, abortion — you name it, and someone’s ready to rage about it.

Sure, we’ve seen violent protests before — the Watts riots in ’65, the upheaval after Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination in ’68, the Rodney King riots in ’92. But those flashpoints were spread out over decades. Today? Violent protests feel constant, and the anger’s coming from every direction. These aren’t just crowds waving signs; we’re watching groups turn to chaos and destruction, convinced their cause matters so much that violence is not only justified — it’s necessary.

It’s alarming how casually some now treat violence as a political weapon. Smash a Tesla dealership? Fine. Call for the assassination of Elon Musk or Donald Trump? Some won’t even flinch.

And it’s left me wondering: Where does all this hatred come from? Why does it seem worse now? What sparks it — and what keeps it alive?

So, I asked ChatGPT. And what I found was fascinating. The first thing that came up? The evolutionary roots of hatred.

Here’s what it said:

Evolutionary

Origins of Hatred

From an evolutionary standpoint, emotions are not random but serve specific survival functions. Hatred, though often viewed as negative, has likely played a crucial role in human survival. It can be understood as an extreme form of in-group preference and out-group hostility—mechanisms that have historically helped human groups compete for resources and maintain social cohesion.

In-group preference and out-group hostility. Now that starts to connect the dots. In-group preference means you instinctively favor your own group — seeing it as essential to your identity, safety, and survival. Then comes out-group hostility, where anyone outside that circle isn’t just different, but a potential threat. ChatGPT went on:

1. Group Selection and Tribalism

One of the most widely accepted evolutionary explanations for hatred is that it emerged from early human tribalism. Our ancestors lived in small groups where cooperation among members was vital for survival. Those who exhibited strong loyalty to their group and hostility toward outsiders were more likely to protect their resources, defend against threats, and ensure the group's survival. This tendency remains evident today in nationalistic, religious, and ideological divisions.

2. Competition for Resources

Scarcity of resources often leads to intergroup conflict. Evolutionarily, groups that could effectively identify and eliminate threats to their survival had a greater chance of thriving. Hatred provided the psychological fuel for such conflicts, making it easier for individuals to dehumanize their enemies and act aggressively.

Aha! So it turns out the evolution of hatred is deeply rooted in competition between groups for resources. In early human history, survival wasn’t guaranteed — and if your group didn’t outcompete a rival, you might not make it. They could take your food, land, animals… or women.

And yes, there’s plenty of evidence suggesting one primal fear was that rival groups would raid camps and steal women. Why? Because women were valued for their reproductive ability. The more women a group had, the greater its chances of producing offspring and increasing its numbers. Too few, and the group was doomed.

As a result, men were prized for their fierceness — their willingness to fight, protect, and kill if necessary. Some research even suggests the more intruders a man killed, the more desirable he became as a mate within his group. (for details see David Geary’s Male Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences chap 8) Which might help explain why, even today, certain women are inexplicably drawn to violent men, including infamous serial killers behind bars.

What we’re seeing is that hatred didn’t appear out of thin air — it was born out of primal fears: not having enough food, water, shelter, or reproductive partners. And those fears naturally bred suspicion and hostility toward outsiders, who were seen as the problem.

And according to ChatGPT, there’s even more to this story…

3. Survival Mechanism Against Threats

Hatred may have also evolved as a defense mechanism against perceived threats. When early humans encountered dangerous rivals, predators, or hostile groups, a strong aversive reaction would have been advantageous. This ingrained mechanism still influences modern social dynamics, where perceived threats—whether economic, cultural, or political—can trigger deep-seated animosity.

It’s become clear that hatred first evolved as a response to perceived threats — from predators, rival groups, or anyone endangering essential resources and survival. But what about the personal, psychological side of hatred? Why do people harbor hatred even when their survival isn’t on the line?

That’s where the second part of ChatGPT’s explanation comes into play.

Psychological Creation of Hatred

While evolutionary factors set the foundation for hatred, psychological mechanisms shape its expression in individuals. Hatred is rarely innate; rather, it develops through experiences, learned behaviors, and cognitive processes.

1. Socialization and Cultural Influence

Children are not born with hatred; they learn it through socialization. Parents, peers, and societal norms play significant roles in shaping attitudes toward different groups. If a child grows up in an environment where a particular group is demonized, they are more likely to develop hatred toward that group. The media, political rhetoric, and historical narratives further reinforce these beliefs.

Children aren’t born with hatred. It sounds like an obvious statement, but it’s an important one. Hatred isn’t something that naturally exists in a baby or young child — it has to be introduced. For a child to feel hatred, something or someone has to plant that fearful seed.

2. Personal Trauma and Projection

Hatred can also arise from personal experiences. If an individual suffers harm at the hands of a particular person or group, they may generalize that negative experience to all members of that group. This process, known as projection, allows the individual to externalize their pain and blame others for their suffering.

3. Cognitive Biases and Stereotyping

Human cognition is prone to biases that reinforce hatred. The confirmation bias leads people to seek out information that supports their preexisting views, while the out-group homogeneity effect causes individuals to perceive members of an opposing group as more similar than they actually are. These cognitive distortions make it easier to sustain hatred over time.

Conclusion

So where does all this hatred come from? Strip it down, and you’ll find the same thing at its core every time: fear. Fear is the fuel. Without it, the hostility, the out-group aggression, the calls for destruction wouldn’t carry the same weight. It’s fear that ignites those ancient instincts and gives modern hatred its relentless, suffocating power.

And what does that tell us about today’s world? It tells us we’re living in a culture saturated with fear. If someone wanted to fracture a society, to turn one group against another, they wouldn’t need armies or violence at first. They’d just need to instill fear. Fear of losing resources, fear of losing status, fear of “the other.” Feed that fear with a steady stream of distrust, blame, and moral certainty — and you’ve got a society primed for conflict.

Sound familiar? It should.

We’re watching it unfold in real time. The media floods the public square with fear: threats to democracy, creeping totalitarianism, climate catastrophe, pandemic xxx, cultural collapse. But notice what’s absent — no one calls for patience, forgiveness, or mutual understanding. Very few tell both sides of any story. The message is clear: be afraid, stay angry, and pick a side.

And this strategy isn’t new. It’s been building for decades. One of the clearest, most persistent examples is how modern feminism — with the eager backing of media, academia, the judiciary, and legislative power — has relentlessly seeded fear, distrust, and blame into the minds of women and girls. Fear of men. Fear of oppression. Fear of being cheated. Fear of irrelevance. The result? A divided society where mutual respect erodes, and hatred becomes not only acceptable but fashionable — so long as it targets the approved enemy.

 

Understanding the evolutionary and psychological roots of hatred matters. But recognizing how fear is weaponized today is even more urgent. Because hatred isn’t some unstoppable force of nature. It’s a reaction. And like all reactions, it depends on what we choose to feed it.

In part two we will take a look at how feminism has spread fears that fostered the hatred of men.

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