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
September 10, 2025
Diary of a CEO's Debate on Feminism: Our Response

This video will be presented in two parts and is a joint venture between MenAreGood and Hannah Spier’s Psychobabble. Hannah’s standard approach is to make the first half free for everyone, with the second half reserved for paid subscribers. To align with her process, I’m setting aside my usual practice of making all new posts free and following the same format for this release.


Janice Fiamengo, Hannah Spier, and Tom Golden respond to a YouTube video on The Diary of a CEO channel, which features three feminists debating the question: “Has modern feminism betrayed the very women it promised to empower?”In their response, Hannah, Janice, and Tom have a lively discussion, highlighting inconsistencies, omissions, and a variety of other notable observations.

Men Are Good

00:36:02
August 20, 2025
Meet TheTinMen

In this conversation, I sit down with George from The Tin Men—a powerful voice bringing clarity, humor, and hard-hitting truth to men’s issues. George has a unique talent for condensing complex topics like male loneliness, the dismantling of men’s spaces, suicide, and the gender pay gap into short, sharp, and digestible messages. Together, we react to some of his videos and dive into everything from fatherlessness and gangs, to the “man vs. bear” debate, to the failures of therapy for men, and even the overlooked crisis of suicide in construction. It’s a wide-ranging discussion that highlights both the challenges men face and the hope we’re starting to see for real change.

Georges Links!

Instagram — https://www.instagram.com/thetinmen/

Youtube — https://www.youtube.com/@TheTinMenBlog

LinkedIn — https://www.linkedin.com/in/gohorne/

X— https://x.com/TheTinMenBlog

Tom's post about 15 things Maryland can do for boys and men.
...

01:04:30
August 07, 2025
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
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

The Best, effective and clearest video on this subject I ever seen! Every man and boy should watch and learn.
10 out of 10!!!
A Absalutly must watch!!!

Another great video from Gabby on how Radical Feminism dehumanizes Men. And she showed a pic of Paul Elam and Tom Golden with others. As people trying to humanize and help men.

Worth a watch

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

September 15, 2025
post photo preview
Male Suicide: Finland Acted, America Shrugs,
Part 3 - Finland’s Legacy — Lessons for the World


Finland’s Legacy — Lessons for the World

Post 3 in a series on what the world can learn from Finland’s suicide prevention efforts


In the first two posts of this series, we traced Finland’s extraordinary journey: from confronting its suicide crisis head-on with unprecedented research, to building a nationwide prevention strategy that saved lives and changed culture. (plus an intro post)

By the mid-1990s, the results were visible. Suicide rates, which had climbed for decades, had finally begun to fall. Hunters were talking to their mates about mental health. Army officers were watching out for vulnerable conscripts. Teachers, clergy, and even journalists had taken on new roles in prevention.

But Finland didn’t stop there. They did something few governments ever do: they invited outsiders in to judge their work.


The External Evaluation (1999)

In 1999, an international team of experts released their assessment of Finland’s National Suicide Prevention Project. Their job was not to pat Finland on the back, but to weigh the evidence: had the ten-year gamble worked?

The answer was a resounding yes.

The reviewers noted that suicide rates had fallen by about 20% from their 1990 peak, reversing what had seemed an unstoppable upward trend. They praised Finland’s creativity and breadth: more than 40 subprogrammes, dozens of guidebooks and training manuals, and a public conversation that no longer treated suicide as taboo.

They were candid about shortcomings. The elderly had been largely overlooked. Firearm restrictions — an obvious lever in a country where hunting rifles were common — had not been seriously addressed. And some of the project’s ideas had not been fully anchored in municipal governments, raising questions about long-term sustainability.

But the overall conclusion was clear: “The achievements of the project greatly outweighed its shortcomings.”

For the first time in history, a country had launched a research-based, nationwide suicide prevention program, implemented it across society, and then subjected it to systematic internal and external evaluation. Finland hadn’t just lowered its suicide rate. It had created a model the rest of the world could learn from.


The Nordic Ripple Effect

Finland may have been the first to take suicide prevention to this scale, but it didn’t remain alone for long. Its bold experiment caught the attention of its Nordic neighbors.

By the early 2000s, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Iceland had all developed their own national suicide prevention strategies. Each looked different, shaped by local politics and culture, but the family resemblance was clear:

  • Multisectoral involvement — bringing schools, healthcare, media, and workplaces into the effort.

  • Government backing — strategies tied to official health policy, not just isolated projects.

  • Focus on high-risk groups — men, youth, those with mental illness or substance use issues.

  • Community-level adaptation — prevention designed to fit local contexts.

This Nordic wave turned suicide prevention from a fringe idea into a mainstream policy goal. Finland’s willingness to declare suicide a preventable public health problem gave other countries the courage to do the same.

And while no nation copied Finland exactly, the influence was unmistakable. What began as one country’s desperate attempt to save its men became a regional movement — and, eventually, part of a global shift in how we think about suicide.


Beyond Suicide — Open Dialogue

While the National Suicide Prevention Project was reshaping public health, another Finnish innovation was quietly revolutionizing psychiatric care. It was called Open Dialogue, and it began in the remote region of Western Lapland in the 1980s.

Open Dialogue grew out of the same spirit that drove Finland’s suicide work: the belief that mental health crises should be faced directly, in context, with honesty and community. Instead of isolating patients in institutions, Open Dialogue brought treatment into their living rooms, with their families and friends present.

Its core principles were deceptively simple:

  • Immediate response — no long waits for care.

  • Include the social network — every meeting included family and close supporters.

  • Transparency — no secret discussions; all decisions were made in front of the patient.

  • Continuity — the same care team stayed with the person throughout.

The results were extraordinary. In Western Lapland, outcomes for psychosis — one of the most severe and stigmatized mental health conditions — improved dramatically. Hospitalization rates plummeted. Long-term disability dropped. Many people recovered fully, without lifelong medication. And suicide risk, so often bound up with psychotic crises, declined as well.

Open Dialogue was not designed as a suicide prevention program, but it turned out to be one. By treating people with dignity, involving their communities, and responding quickly in moments of despair, it reduced the very conditions that so often lead to suicide.

Over the years, Open Dialogue spread far beyond Finland. Today, it has inspired projects in 20+ countries, from the UK and Denmark to Italy, Australia, and the United States. In Boston and Atlanta, pilot trials are exploring how it might transform American mental health care.

If Finland’s suicide prevention project showed how to mobilize whole societies, Open Dialogue showed how to humanize psychiatric care. Together, they represented a double legacy: a country rethinking both the prevention of suicide and the treatment of mental illness itself.


The Contrast with the United States

Set Finland’s story alongside that of the United States, and the difference is almost painful to see.

In Finland, suicide was treated as a national emergency. The government gathered data on every case, identified high-risk groups, and then designed interventions that met people where they were — in hunting clubs, army barracks, schools, and village churches. Prevention became everyone’s business: teachers, clergy, journalists, even hunters were mobilized. Men were not ignored; they were named as a priority.

In the United States, by contrast, suicide prevention remains fragmented and underfunded. National data are often shallow, slow, and rarely translated into targeted local strategies. Middle-aged men in rural areas — the group most likely to die by suicide — are treated as a tragic inevitability rather than a challenge to be solved. The refrain is familiar: “men won’t seek help.” And then the conversation stops.

Where Finland built systems that carried help into the everyday lives of men, the U.S. still waits for men to find their way into psychiatric clinics — a threshold many will never cross. Instead of designing support around real lives and communities, America has largely outsourced suicide prevention to crisis hotlines and awareness slogans.

The contrast is not just policy. It is philosophy. Finland chose to look directly at suicide, however uncomfortable, and act with precision. The U.S. continues to look away, resigned to the loss of tens of thousands of men each year.


What the World Can Learn Today

Finland’s story carries a message the world can no longer afford to ignore: suicide is not inevitable. It responds to culture, to policy, and to whether a society is willing to face hard truths.

The lessons are clear:

  1. Do the research. Prevention begins with knowing who is dying, where, and why. Finland’s psychological autopsy study remains a gold standard for how to understand suicide in context.

  2. Tailor interventions. Generic slogans don’t save lives. Finland designed specific responses for hunters, soldiers, farmers, drinkers, and suicide attempters.

  3. Use whole communities. Suicide prevention is not just for psychiatrists. Teachers, clergy, journalists, co-workers, and peers can all play a role.

  4. Address men directly. Male suicide is not an afterthought; it is central. Finland dared to say so, and designed interventions with men in mind.

  5. Sustain the effort. Short-term projects can spark change, but long-term structures anchor it. That remains one of Finland’s unfinished tasks — and one of the biggest lessons for others.

For the United States — and for every country still wringing its hands over “men not seeking help” — Finland offers a blueprint. You don’t wait for men to come to you. You go to them. Into their workplaces, their social clubs, their barracks, their communities. You make prevention part of everyday life.

Finland’s achievement wasn’t only lowering its suicide rate by 20% in a decade. It was proving, for the first time, that suicide is a preventable public health problem. And that societies willing to look directly at despair can bend the curve of death.

That is Finland’s legacy. And it is a challenge to all of us: if a small country on the edge of Europe could do it, what excuse do we have not to try?

Men Are Good

Update: Dr. Partonen sent me the latest figures for male suicides in Finland, showing that the rates for men were 52.6 per 100,000 in 1990 and had dropped to 20.3 by 2023 — a stunning 61% decrease.

Read full Article
September 12, 2025
post photo preview
Who Really Glorifies Violence? Incels vs. the Radical Left

Who Really Glorifies Violence? Incels vs. the Radical Left

For the past several years, the media has been obsessed with incels. Scroll through the headlines and you’ll see the same story over and over: young men, alienated and angry, gathering in online spaces that are supposedly breeding grounds for misogyny and extremism. The word incel has become shorthand for “potential terrorist.”

But when you actually look at what incels say and do, a very different picture emerges. These are not young men plotting the downfall of society. They are young men drowning in despair. Their anger is almost always turned inward. The statistics are overwhelming: nearly 40% report daily suicidal thoughts. Large numbers are neurodivergent. Most have histories of bullying and rejection. The overwhelming danger for incels is not that they’ll kill someone else. It’s that they’ll kill themselves.

And here’s the striking thing: if you spend time in incel forums, you won’t see people celebrating murder. You won’t see a culture of glee when someone they disagree with dies. If anything, incels fear the lone outlier who lashes out violently, because every such case is used as proof that the entire community is dangerous. Violence by incels isn’t glorified—it’s seen as another blow to an already stigmatized group.

Now let’s compare that to what we see in radical activist circles today, particularly on the left. Here the dynamic is inverted. When someone on the “enemy” side is harmed, the reaction is not horror or sadness—it’s laughter, memes, applause.

Take the case of the young man who murdered the CEO of an insurance company. Instead of universal condemnation, there were corners of the activist left that hailed him as a hero. They justified the killing as a righteous strike against capitalism, a blow against corporate greed. A man lost his life, a family lost a father and husband, yet in certain circles his death was something to cheer.

Or look at the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Almost instantly, social media lit up with celebration. Jokes, laughter, memes of joy. Whatever you think of Kirk’s politics, the act of gloating over his murder reveals something chilling. This wasn’t despair—it was cruelty. This wasn’t pain turned inward—it was hate turned outward.

Here lies the real moral difference. Incels may be troubled, confused, even bitter. But they are not celebrating the killing of their opponents. They are not laughing when someone they disagree with lies bleeding in the street. The radical left, on the other hand, has a documented record of doing exactly that.


Despair vs. Cruelty

It’s important to linger on this distinction, because it cuts to the heart of what we mean when we use words like “dangerous” and “evil.”

Despair—even toxic despair—is tragic. A young man who feels he has no chance in love, who spends hours online venting his frustration, who thinks daily about ending his own life—this is heartbreaking. It’s not something to excuse, but neither is it something to demonize. The harm is largely self-directed. He sees himself as the enemy, not his neighbor.

Cruelty is something else entirely. When activists laugh about a murder, when they hail an assassin as a hero, when they gloat over the death of a political opponent, that crosses into the territory of evil. Because cruelty doesn’t just accept suffering—it delights in it. It revels in the humiliation and destruction of others.

That difference matters. It matters morally, and it matters socially. A society that stigmatizes despair while excusing cruelty is one that has its compass broken.


The Media’s Inversion

Yet this is exactly what we see. Incels, who mostly hurt themselves, are branded as ticking time bombs. The media frames them as violent extremists, sometimes even as potential terrorists. Politicians repeat the line that they are a public danger. Entire studies are funded to examine whether incels might pose threats to others.

Meanwhile, when activists openly celebrate the killing of someone they dislike, the response is muted. There’s always a rationalization ready at hand: the victim was powerful, privileged, oppressive. The killer was “lashing out” against injustice. The laughter and memes are brushed aside as dark humor.

This inversion should make us pause. We’ve reached a point where the group that rarely, if ever, glorifies killing is treated as the greater danger, while the group that openly delights in murder gets a cultural pass. It is as if we’ve lost the ability to recognize cruelty for what it is.


Why the Double Standard?

There are several reasons this inversion persists.

First, the media has found incels to be a perfect bogeyman. They fit a ready-made narrative: disaffected young men, angry at women, festering in online echo chambers. It’s a story that generates clicks and moral outrage, even if it wildly exaggerates the real level of risk.

Second, there is a cultural reluctance to hold activists on the left to the same moral standard as others. If someone claims to be fighting for justice, their actions—even violent ones—are easier to excuse. The cause sanctifies the cruelty. This is how cheering a murder becomes acceptable in certain circles: the victim was “bad,” the killer “brave.”

Third, there is a deep gynocentric bias in how we view male suffering. When young men suffer, we blame them. When young men despair, we mock them. When young men kill themselves, we shrug. But when activists (especially women or minorities) express rage, we are trained to sympathize, even when that rage crosses into violence.


The Real Danger

None of this is to say that incel communities are healthy. Many are filled with bitterness and hopelessness. The despair is corrosive, and it can reinforce unhealthy worldviews. But that’s a very different problem than celebrating death.

The real danger to social life is not despair—it’s cruelty. Despair ends lives, yes, but cruelty erodes the fabric of community. When groups begin laughing at the deaths of their opponents, society loses the ability to see opponents as fellow citizens. Violence becomes not just acceptable, but entertaining.

That’s where evil lies.


Restoring Moral Clarity

We desperately need to restore moral clarity here. It is not incels who pose the greatest threat to public life. It is those who celebrate violence, who revel in the killing of their enemies, who turn human suffering into a punchline.

We should stop demonizing the wrong group. Incels are not a death cult. They are a community of wounded men, most of them quietly self-destructing. They need compassion, not caricature.

The real confrontation belongs elsewhere: with the activists who strip others of their humanity and cheer their destruction. That’s where the true corrosion is happening. That’s where the real evil lies.


Conclusion

A society that confuses despair with cruelty has lost its way. Despair deserves our empathy; cruelty demands our opposition. Incels, for all their flaws, are not celebrating murder. The radical left, disturbingly, has shown that it will.

If we are serious about protecting life, if we care about the moral health of our culture, we need to get this distinction right. The young men drowning in loneliness and self-loathing are not our enemies. The people laughing when someone is assassinated are.

Until we can tell the difference, we will continue to aim our outrage at the wrong targets—and the real evil will keep smiling.

Men Are Good

Read full Article
September 08, 2025
post photo preview
From Research to Action — How Finland Helped Its Men
Post 2 in a series on what the world can learn from Finland’s suicide prevention efforts

In the last post, we saw how Finland took an extraordinary first step: instead of shrugging at suicide rates, they studied every single case in the country for a full year. They learned who was dying, where, and why.

But research alone doesn’t save lives. The true test came next. Could Finland turn this knowledge into action?

In 1992, the government launched the National Suicide Prevention Project, a sweeping, nationwide effort that would run for five years. Its ambition was bold: to translate the research into targeted interventions across every layer of society — from army barracks to hunting cabins, from classrooms to church pulpits.

The official goal was clear: reduce suicides by 20% in ten years. But the real innovation lay in how Finland went about it.


The National Strategy (1992–1996)

The project was structured into four phases:

  1. Research (1986–1991) — the “Suicides in Finland 1987” study and its provincial reports.

  2. Strategy formation (1992) — drawing up a national action plan based on those findings.

  3. Implementation (1992–1996) — launching over 40 subprogrammes across sectors.

  4. Evaluation (1997 onward) — both internal and external reviews of what worked and what didn’t.

Unlike typical health campaigns, this was not limited to posters or hotlines. It was a multisectoral strategy, pulling in schools, the military, the church, health services, media, and community associations. Each was asked the same question: What role can you play in preventing suicide, based on what we now know?

This was Finland’s genius. The national strategy was not a blunt instrument. It was a framework that allowed each institution, each community, to shape prevention in a way that made sense locally.


Tailoring Interventions to At-Risk Groups

The 1987 research had given Finland something precious: a map of where suicide risk was concentrated. The next step was to design interventions for those specific groups.

Hunters and Rural Men

Middle-aged rural men were at the very center of Finland’s crisis. Many were farmers or hunters, living in isolation, often drinking heavily, and reluctant to seek formal help. The suicide data showed that licensed hunting rifles were among the most common methods.

Instead of preaching from afar, Finland did something remarkable: they went into the hunting clubs themselves. The idea was simple but powerful — hunters already cared about their “mehtäkaveri,” their hunting mate. So why not train them to look out for each other’s mental health as well?

This became the foundation for what later grew into the Hyvä Mehtäkaveri (“Good Hunting Mate”) programme: peer-support training that taught hunters how to ask the difficult question — “Are you doing okay?” — and how to connect someone with help if they weren’t.

Conscripts and Rejected Recruits

Finland’s system of compulsory military service turned out to be both a risk and an opportunity. The research showed that young men rejected from service for health or psychological reasons faced a sharp rise in suicide risk. The rejection carried stigma — it marked them as different at precisely the age when they most wanted to belong.

So the Defense Forces became a frontline partner. Officers and military doctors were trained to spot vulnerable recruits, offer counseling, and refer them to civilian health care when needed. Rejection from service was reframed, not as abandonment, but as a moment to connect a young man with support.

Beyond counseling, Finland also recognized the practical challenges these young men faced. Initiatives supported by the A-Clinic Foundation and the Finnish Association for Mental Health provided concrete assistance: vocational guidance, social support, and structured activities to help rebuild identity and belonging. These efforts aimed to ensure that rejection from the army did not mean rejection from society. One notable example was the “Young Man, Seize the Day” project (1997), which worked with rejected recruits in several cities to provide vocational guidance, structured activities, and community belonging.

Rural Networks and Gatekeepers

Beyond the army and the hunting cabin, Finland leaned on local gatekeepers — the people already embedded in small communities. Teachers, clergy, police officers, even farmer’s association leaders were given training to recognize warning signs and start conversations. The principle was clear: suicide prevention wasn’t just the job of psychiatrists. It was the job of the whole community.

Alcohol Misuse

Alcohol had long been tied to Finnish male suicide, and the research confirmed its role. The project partnered with the A-Clinic Foundation, Finland’s leading addiction services, to integrate substance treatment into suicide prevention. Men who might never walk into a psychiatric clinic might still accept help for their drinking — and through that doorway, receive broader support.

Suicide Attempters

One of the most striking findings from the research was how many people who died by suicide had already made a prior attempt — but had never received proper follow-up care. The project responded by pushing hospitals to change their protocols: no longer would a suicide attempt be treated only as an emergency to be “patched up.” It was to be seen as a red flag demanding structured aftercare.


Engaging Institutions Beyond Health Care

One of the most radical features of Finland’s approach was the insistence that suicide prevention was not just a medical problem. It was a problem for the whole of society — and so the whole of society was asked to respond.

Schools

Teachers and guidance counsellors were trained to notice the early signs of distress in students. Peer-support programs were introduced so that young people themselves could be allies for one another. The idea was to catch suffering early, long before it showed up in statistics.

Churches

In rural Finland, the local parish was often more trusted than the clinic. Clergy were trained to recognize warning signs, offer crisis counseling, and support families after a suicide. By drawing pastors and priests into the project, Finland tapped into one of its most powerful social institutions.

Media

The project also confronted one of the most sensitive issues: how suicide was reported in newspapers and on television. Journalists were given new guidelines — no sensationalism, no detailed descriptions of methods, and always include information about where to find help. The aim was to prevent copycat deaths and shift the narrative from despair to support.

Workplaces

Though less developed than other strands, workplaces were not ignored. Employers were encouraged to recognize stress and depression among workers, especially men in male-dominated industries like farming, forestry, and manufacturing. Early versions of employee assistance programs began to take shape.


The Male Coping Strategies Programme (Planned but Unfinished)

Among all the subprogrammes Finland envisioned, one stood out for its directness: the Male Coping Strategies Programme.

The research had made it impossible to ignore: Finnish men — especially rural, middle-aged men — were at the center of the suicide crisis. They were less likely to seek help, more likely to drink heavily, more likely to use firearms, and more likely to die by suicide.

The Male Coping Strategies Program was designed to tackle this head-on. Its aim was simple but radical:

  • To help men talk openly about their struggles.

  • To normalize seeking help.

  • To strengthen resilience in ways that fit male culture.

The plan included a public information campaign that would have framed help-seeking not as weakness but as strength. It also envisioned building spaces for men to talk — whether through workplaces, community organizations, or even informal networks.

But the program ran into the one barrier no research can overcome: funding. It never received the resources it needed to stand on its own. Instead, pieces of it were absorbed into other projects, most visibly in the military programs for conscripts and rejected recruits.

Even so, its very existence was telling. In the 1990s, Finland was willing to say openly what many countries still refuse to: male suicide is a gendered issue, and if you want to prevent it, you must address men directly.

And although the national campaign never fully materialized, its spirit lived on. Later, local projects like Hyvä Mehtäkaveri in Kainuu — which embedded suicide prevention into rural hunting clubs — were, in a sense, the Male Coping Strategies Programme reborn in community form.


Results

By the mid-1990s, Finland’s gamble was starting to pay off.

Suicide rates, which had climbed steadily for decades, peaked in 1990. Then, during the years of the project’s implementation, they began to fall. By 1996, suicides had dropped by about 20% from that peak, bringing the numbers below where they had started a decade earlier.

The change wasn’t just in the statistics. Across Finland, you could see new practices taking root:

  • Hospitals no longer discharged suicide attempters without follow-up.

  • Journalists wrote about suicide more responsibly.

  • Teachers and clergy were equipped to recognize distress.

  • Hunters and soldiers had begun to see suicide prevention as something that concerned them too.

An internal evaluation in the late 1990s found that 43% of service sectors reported adopting suicide prevention measures as a result of the project. More than a dozen working models had been developed, along with 70+ publications, training guides, and handbooks.

An external international review in 1999 concluded that the project’s achievements outweighed its shortcomings. The reviewers praised its breadth, creativity, and impact. They noted some gaps — the elderly had been largely overlooked, and the long-term anchoring of prevention into municipal structures was still weak — but the core finding was clear: Finland had changed the trajectory of suicide in the country.

The numbers proved it. And behind those numbers were lives saved.


Why This Matters

The Finnish project showed something the world badly needed to see: suicide prevention works when you meet people where they are.

Instead of waiting for men to walk into clinics, Finland brought prevention to the places where men already lived their lives:

  • In the forests and hunting cabins with their friends.

  • In the army barracks or on the day they were turned away from service.

  • In the pulpit, the classroom, and the local newspaper.

They refused the fatalism of “men won’t seek help.” They built a system that didn’t rely on men crossing the threshold of a psychiatrist’s office. It relied on communities, networks, and everyday institutions to notice, to care, and to act.

And the results speak for themselves: a 20% reduction in suicide rates during the project period. Hundreds of lives saved. A culture shifted.

The contrast with the United States could not be starker. Here, suicide among men — especially middle-aged rural men — is often treated as an inevitability. Our prevention strategies remain vague, underfunded, and detached from the very communities where the deaths are happening.

Finland’s lesson is clear: if you want to prevent suicide, you cannot stop at awareness campaigns and crisis hotlines. You must go out and build support into the fabric of everyday life — in the places where people already gather, work, and belong.


Coming Next: Finland’s Legacy

By the end of the 1990s, Finland had achieved something unprecedented: a national, research-based suicide prevention program that actually bent the curve downward. It wasn’t perfect — some groups were overlooked, funding wasn’t always secure, and not every community took the work as far as it could go. But the results were undeniable.

The project left behind more than lower suicide rates. It left behind a set of models, training tools, and cultural shifts that would ripple across the Nordic region and, eventually, far beyond. Other countries began to take notice. And at the same time, another Finnish innovation — a quiet revolution in psychiatric care called Open Dialogue — was spreading internationally, offering yet another way to reduce suffering and save lives.

In the next post, we’ll look at Finland’s legacy: how their suicide prevention ideas influenced other nations, what worked and what didn’t, and how a small country in the north became a global leader in rethinking how we respond to despair.

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