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
Posts
Articles
March 05, 2026
How Women Gaslight and Manipulate Men

Most boys are taught how to treat a girl. Almost nobody teaches them how they should be treated.

In this conversation, I’m joined by Tammy Sullivan (the “Manicured Mom”), author of How Women Gaslight and Manipulate Men. Tammy stumbled onto a massive TikTok trend openly teaching manipulation—and decided to “flip the script” and expose the tactics so men could recognize them, name them, and set boundaries.

We dig into the subtle, day-by-day moves that can erode a man’s confidence and isolate him from his friends, his hobbies, and even his family—things like the “real man” trap, backhanded compliments, “I’m sorry you feel that way,” using sex as leverage, and the weaponized “we need to talk.”

This isn’t about condemning women. It’s about giving men language, clarity, and self-respect—and helping healthy couples stop these patterns before they become a way of life. Men are good… and you deserve to be treated well, too.

Tammy’s book How Women Gaslight ...

01:01:55
February 26, 2026
Gynocentrism is Like Gravity

I’ve started experimenting with short music videos on men’s issues—this one focuses on gynocentrism.

I’m exploring whether concise, straightforward videos like this might reach and engage more people. I’d welcome your feedback and any suggestions.

00:02:41
February 12, 2026
A Conversation on Matrisensus — With Warren Farrell, Janice Fiamengo, Lisa Britton, David Shackleton, and Tom Golden

A Conversation on Matrisensus — With Warren Farrell, Janice Fiamengo, Lisa Britton, David Shackleton, and Tom Golden
David Shackleton’s newest book, Matrisensus, is not a small argument.

Matrisensus is not what happens when women are in charge. It is what happens when the family’s moral logic is applied where society’s civic logic should govern. In this sweeping examination, David shows how cultural consensus forms — and how it can come to center women’s experiences, priorities, and moral framing as the unquestioned norm. The mechanism, he argues, polarizes our moral narrative, distributing compassion and accountability not by conduct but by identity. The result is a culture in which designated victim groups are treated as morally untouchable, while those who question the framing are cast as suspect — with profound consequences for law, family, education, and public trust.

So a group uniquely qualified to engage these ideas gathered for this video.

Joining me were Warren Farrell, Janice Fiamengo, Lisa Britton, and of course the...

00:59:58
March 02, 2026
Men Don't Grieve the Way You Think

I had the good fortune to be interviewed by Jason MacKenzie, who runs the Man Down Substack—a publication dedicated to men and their unique paths to healing.

Many of you may not know that I spent many years working directly with men who were grappling with trauma and loss. Through that experience, it became strikingly clear to me that men and women are often treated very differently after a loss. Those early observations opened my eyes to the broader ways men face discrimination, misunderstanding, and hardship in our society. I hope you find the conversation interesting and worthwhile.

https://www.mandown.tools/p/men-dont-grieve-the-way-you-think?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

February 27, 2026
Are Some Women Waking Up?

This was sent to me by an alert viewer and shows a woman calling out the feminist lies about men being privileged. What do you think:

Another good one describe things extremely well.

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1BXRPxMeiZ/?mibextid=wwXIfr

February 23, 2026
post photo preview
Where Galoway Stops Short
Calling Men to Rise Without Naming What Pushed Them Down

Where Galoway Stops Short - Calling Men to Rise Without Naming What Pushed Them Down

Something unusual has happened in mainstream culture: a prominent public figure has spoken to men without contempt.

In his widely circulated reflections on masculinity, Scott Galloway tells men things they rarely hear anymore — that discipline matters, that status is real, that no one is coming to save them, and that adulthood still requires effort, competence, and responsibility.

In a culture that often speaks about men as a problem to be managed, he speaks to them as adults.

That alone makes his work a step in the right direction.

But it is only a step.

Because embedded within his message are two assumptions that deserve closer examination.



When Pain Is Treated Like Weather

Galloway acknowledges that many men are struggling. He names loneliness, economic displacement, sexual exclusion, and a growing sense of irrelevance.

But these realities are framed as impersonal shifts — like automation, globalization, or changing markets. The world evolved. Adapt.

There is no villain. No moral accounting. Just conditions.

But much of what men are experiencing did not unfold quietly or accidentally.

It happened in open daylight.

For decades now:

  • Boys have been described as “toxic.”

  • Masculinity has been framed as inherently dangerous.

  • Fathers have been treated as optional.

  • Male ambition has been recoded as domination.

  • Male restraint has been interpreted as emotional deficiency.

These were not subtle cultural breezes. They were institutionalized narratives — repeated in media, education, and public discourse.

Men did not imagine this shift. They lived through it.

To speak about male pain without acknowledging the cultural disdain that preceded it is to ghost the very experience men are trying to make sense of.

If a man absorbs, year after year, the message that his nature is suspect, the shame that follows does not originate inside him.

It is absorbed.

And absorbed shame cannot be healed by discipline alone.



Responsibility Without Reciprocity

The second issue is not that Galloway calls men to responsibility.

Responsibility matters.

Structure matters.

Competence matters.

Men do not need to be rescued from adulthood.

But when responsibility is presented as the sole remedy — without acknowledging cultural injury — it subtly transforms pain into proof of failure.

If you are hurting, you must not have adapted well enough.

If you are struggling, you must not be disciplined enough.

Pain becomes diagnostic of insufficiency.

That may produce functionality.
It does not necessarily produce healing.

And it quietly leaves the culture itself unexamined.



What This Is Not

Let me be clear about something.

This is not an argument for coddling men.

It is not an argument for lowering standards.
It is not an argument for emotional indulgence or endless processing circles.
It is not an argument for turning men into women.

Men do not need to be babied.

They need to be understood accurately.



What Men Actually Need

What is missing from the conversation is something I would call respect-based empathy.

Respect-based empathy does not treat men as fragile.
It does not assume that emotional expression is superior to endurance.
It does not pathologize male withdrawal.

It recognizes that men often heal differently — and that those differences deserve admiration rather than suspicion.

When a man withdraws for a day or two after a setback, that may not be avoidance. It may be integration. When he fixes something, builds something, runs hard, works longer hours, or goes quiet, he may be metabolizing stress in a deeply male way.

For many men, solitude is not escape. It is work.

But in a culture that filters coping through a single emotional style, male processing is easily misread as deficiency.

And that misreading quietly reinforces the very problem we claim to address.



Admiration Is Fuel

Men are fueled by admiration and respect.

Not indulgence.
Not protection.
Respect.

When a man feels respected, he expands.
When he feels perpetually scrutinized or pathologized, he contracts.

The cultural shift that would help men most is not softer expectations.

It is moral clarity.

Clarity that says:

“Yes, some of this pain did not originate inside you.”
“Yes, some of it came from narratives that diminished you.”
“And yes, the way you work through it has dignity.”

Responsibility matters.

But responsibility without acknowledgment of cultural harm becomes another burden.

Strength and suffering can coexist.

Calling men to rise without first admitting that they were pushed down in public view is not maturity. It is amnesia.

And offering responsibility without respect-based empathy risks reinforcing the very isolation we claim to address.

Men do not need coddling.

They need to be seen clearly.

They need standards, yes — but they also need a culture wise enough to recognize the dignity in how they endure.

Until we add that understanding, responsibility alone is not enough.

Men Are Good.

Read full Article
February 19, 2026
post photo preview
Do Men Face Prejudice?
A dissertation that reveals what the APA quietly overlook


Do Men Face Prejudice?

A dissertation that reveals what the APA quietly overlook

The American Psychological Association likes to remind us that psychology should be guided by empathy, cultural awareness, and respect for lived experience. Few would argue with that. These values are written directly into the APA Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men, published in 2018.

On paper, the Guidelines sound humane and thoughtful. They urge psychologists to be gender-sensitive, to avoid stereotyping, to understand the social contexts shaping boys’ and men’s lives, and to guard against bias that might harm the therapeutic alliance.

All good things.

But there is an important question we almost never ask:

What happens when those principles are applied fully and consistently to men — including the possibility that men themselves may be targets of prejudice?

A largely unknown doctoral dissertation from 2020 offers a surprisingly clear answer.



A brief introduction most people never received

In 2020, psychologist Aman Siddiqi completed a doctoral dissertation titled A Clinical Guide to Discussing Prejudice Against Men. It was submitted quietly, without media attention or controversy, and has remained largely invisible outside academic circles.

That is unfortunate — because it does something rare.

Rather than arguing politics or ideology, Siddiqi does something very simple and very professional:
He takes the existing psychological science on prejudice and asks whether it applies to men.

Not rhetorically. Clinically.

He does not invent new standards. He does not dismiss women’s issues. Instead, he asks whether psychologists may be overlooking an entire category of harm because it doesn’t fit the dominant narrative.

And in doing so, his work quietly exposes a tension at the heart of the APA Guidelines themselves.



What the APA Guidelines say — and what they assume

The APA Guidelines for Boys and Men emphasize several themes that many clinicians will recognize:

  • Boys and men are shaped by restrictive gender norms

  • Emotional suppression harms mental health

  • Masculinity can be socially reinforced in unhealthy ways

  • Psychologists should challenge stereotypes and build empathy

All of that ​may be true — as far as it goes.

But notice something subtle.

The Guidelines overwhelmingly frame men as:

  • Shaped by norms

  • Socialized into restriction

  • Influenced by expectations

What they almost never frame men as is this:

Targets of prejudice.

This matters more than it might seem.



Why “prejudice” is not the same as “socialization”

Siddiqi’s dissertation makes a distinction that is obvious once you see it — and strangely absent from much of clinical training.

Socialization asks:

“What messages did you absorb growing up?”

Prejudice asks:

“How are you perceived, judged, dismissed, or morally framed by others right now?”

These are not the same thing.

A man may be distressed not only because he learned to suppress emotion — but because when he does express vulnerability, he is:

  • Not believed

  • Seen as dangerous

  • Treated as less worthy of care

  • Assumed to be at fault

The APA Guidelines speak at length about helping men change themselves.
Siddiqi asks whether psychology has done enough to question how men are viewed.

That shift alone is quietly radical.



The empathy gap we don’t name

One of the strongest parts of Siddiqi’s work is his discussion of what he calls the male gender empathy gap — the tendency to respond less sympathetically to male suffering, especially when it conflicts with familiar narratives.

This is not framed as cruelty. It is framed as normalization.

Some prejudices persist not because people hate a group — but because dismissing that group’s suffering has become socially acceptable.

Siddiqi outlines several mechanisms that maintain this acceptability:

  • Trivialization (“It’s not that serious.”)

  • Denial (“That doesn’t really happen.”)

  • Justification (“There must be a reason.”)

  • Intimidation (“You can’t say that.”)

If you’ve worked with men long enough, you’ve heard these dynamics described — often haltingly — in the therapy room.

The APA Guidelines warn clinicians not to invalidate clients.
Siddiqi shows how invalidation happens when male distress falls outside approved frames.



When good intentions become blind spots

Perhaps the most uncomfortable implication of Siddiqi’s dissertation is this:

Clinicians themselves may unintentionally participate in prejudice against men — precisely because their training never gave them a framework to recognize it.

When a man describes feeling:

  • Disbelieved in a conflict

  • Treated as disposable

  • Assumed to be dangerous

  • Morally pre-judged

A well-meaning therapist may instinctively:

  • Reframe the experience

  • Redirect responsibility

  • Minimize the injury

  • Interpret it as defensiveness or entitlement

Not out of malice — but out of habit.

The APA Guidelines urge psychologists to be self-reflective about bias.
Siddiqi asks whether psychology has reflected deeply enough on its gender asymmetries.



A question the Guidelines never quite ask

The APA is comfortable naming androcentrism — male-centered bias — in culture.

Siddiqi raises a quieter question:

What happens when cultural sympathy flows primarily in one direction?

He uses the term gynocentrism not as an accusation, but as a descriptive lens — a way of understanding how concern, protection, and moral framing may cluster unevenly.

Whether one accepts the term or not, the phenomenon it points to is familiar to many men:

  • Female suffering is presumed legitimate

  • Male suffering is often contextualized, explained, or doubted

The APA Guidelines never directly address this imbalance.
Siddiqi does — calmly, clinically, and without rhetoric.



Why this matters now

In recent years, we’ve seen growing concern about:

  • Male loneliness

  • Male suicide

  • Boys disengaging from school

  • Men dropping out of institutions

Many responses still default to:

“Men need to open up.”
“Men need to change.”
“Men need better coping skills.”

Those may help.

But Siddiqi’s dissertation suggests something deeper:

If we never examine how men are seen, we will keep asking men to adapt to environments that quietly misperceive them.

The APA Guidelines aim to help boys and men.
Siddiqi’s work asks what those guidelines truly require — if we apply them without exemptions.



A final thought

This dissertation does not reject psychology’s values.

It takes them seriously.

And in doing so, it reveals a simple, uncomfortable possibility:

We may believe we are being fair to men — while still failing to see them clearly.

That is not an accusation.
It is an invitation.

And it is one psychology would do well to accept.

Read full Article
February 16, 2026
post photo preview
Institutional Sexism: The Bias We’re Not Allowed to See - Part 3 - Conclusion



Institutional Sexism: The Bias We’re Not Allowed to See - Part 3 - Conclusion

If institutional sexism against men is so pervasive, why can’t we see it?
Why can a society capable of diagnosing “microaggressions” and “implicit bias” remain blind to its own structural prejudice against half its citizens?

The answer lies in a deeper psychological bias — one older than feminism and broader than politics. It’s the instinct to center women’s needs first: gynocentrism.

Gynocentrism isn’t hatred of men; it’s compassion with blinders on. It’s the moral reflex that sees women as fragile, men as durable, and suffering as legitimate only when it’s female. It shapes our empathy map from childhood — the little girl who cries is comforted; the boy who cries is told to toughen up. By adulthood, that reflex is baked into the culture.

When feminists in the 1960s began describing institutions as oppressive to women, they were building on this foundation. The public accepted the narrative easily because it fit the moral intuition that women need protection and men need correction. The idea of institutional sexism against women felt right; the idea of institutional sexism against men felt absurd.

But intuition isn’t truth.

Gynocentrism acts like an ideological shield: it protects women from scrutiny while leaving men exposed. When a woman fails, the system failed her; when a man fails, he failed himself.
The result is a self-reinforcing loop — a feedback mechanism that rewards female victimhood and punishes male vulnerability.

Even academia, which claims neutrality, is steeped in this moral reflex.
Gender-studies programs that once promised to challenge inequality now function more as temples of ideological maintenance. Their role is not to question whether men face systemic bias, but to explain away any data suggesting they do. The assumption is always that men hold the power, even when they demonstrably don’t.

That’s not scholarship; it’s theology.

And like all theology, it protects itself by defining heresy. The heretic, in this case, is anyone who points out that compassion has been rationed by sex.



7. The Human Cost

When systems consistently favor one sex’s pain over the other’s, people learn. Boys learn it first.

They learn it in classrooms that scold their energy and reward compliance.
They learn it in media that depicts them as bumbling, violent, or disposable.
They learn it in families where fathers are peripheral, or where mothers wield the quiet authority of assumed virtue.

By adulthood, many men have absorbed the lesson: your feelings are a burden, your needs are negotiable, your failures are proof.

This is how institutional sexism becomes internalized.
Men stop expecting fairness, and worse, they stop expecting empathy. When injustice occurs — in courts, workplaces, or relationships — they don’t see it as systemic. They see it as personal ​failure or weakness.

That resignation is perhaps the cruelest outcome of all.
Because institutions don’t have to oppress loudly when their subjects have already consented to being overlooked.

The emotional toll is enormous but unmeasured. It shows up in statistics — suicide rates, addiction, homelessness — but the deeper wound is existential. When a man realizes that the society he contributes to has little instinct to protect him, something vital in his spirit hardens.

As one father told me after losing custody of his children, “I didn’t just lose them. I lost faith in the idea that fairness even applies to me.”

Institutional sexism isn’t only about policies. It’s about the quiet message that some lives merit more compassion than others. And that message, delivered generation after generation, corrodes our collective sense of justice.



8. Reclaiming the Term

It’s time to reclaim the language.

If systemic bias means patterns of disadvantage embedded in structures, then we must be willing to name those patterns wherever they occur — not just where they fit a fashionable narrative.

Institutional sexism should never have been gendered. It describes a process, not a direction: the way institutions absorb moral assumptions and translate them into policy. Sometimes those assumptions favor men. Increasingly, they favor women. The honest mind must be able to see both.

Reclaiming the term doesn’t mean denying women’s​ or men’s historical struggles. It means applying the same analytical lens to everyone. It means intellectual consistency.

We’ve built a society where calling attention to male disadvantage is considered controversial, while calling attention to female disadvantage is considered virtuous. That asymmetry is itself a form of institutional sexism — the kind that hides behind moral approval.

The first step toward balance is honesty. We must be willing to ask the forbidden question:

If equality truly matters, why are we afraid to see when the system tilts against men?

If we can’t even name institutional sexism when it harms half the population, then the word equality has lost its meaning.

The goal isn’t to replace one victim class with another. It’s to restore integrity to the moral compass of our institutions — to remind them that fairness, by definition, cannot be selective.



Closing Note

Perhaps someday, a university course on “institutional sexism” will examine both sides honestly. Students will study how empathy, once a virtue, became gendered; how compassion was politicized; how language turned from a tool of truth to a weapon of ideology.

Until then, it falls to those outside the institutions — writers, thinkers, fathers, teachers, ordinary men and women — to hold up the mirror.

Because the greatest act of equality is not claiming more compassion for one sex.
It’s extending it, finally, to both.

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