Maybe It’s Time We Invented a Few Words Too

It is truly remarkable how feminism has been able to create words that bolster their ideology and simultaneously demean men. Some of these have been accepted by the general culture and have even become household terms.

Over the years we‘ve seen mansplaining, manterrupting, bropropriating, himpathy, misogynoir, kyriarchy, toxic masculinity, gender washing, leg hair harassment, and ​many others.

​These words have a double punch. They not only describe a behaviour, they also imply a motivation. For example, mansplaining describes a man who is explaining a phenomenom but it also carries the idea that he is doing this out of sexism, arrogance, or a desire to assert male superiority.

​So these phrases don’t merely describe a beahviour, they shape it.​ And underneath it lies the reality that these phrases are actually relational aggression in a more hidden form. Hurtful words that are easy to deny.

Once a behavior has a ​c​atch phrase ​attached, people begin to notice it everywhere. ​And sometimes it encourages people to agree with the feminist lens of its creator.

So I started wondering...Why ​not create a counterpoint? Perhaps it’s time the rest of us invented a few words of our own. Not because we need more labels​ and not because we revel in using relational aggression. But because satire often reveals something ordinary argument cannot.

Here are a few candidates.

Feministsplaining

 

the act of a ​f​eminist explaining something to a man in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner, without regard to h​is own expertise.

EmpathyGapping

 

​The act of offering compassion and empathy to everyone...except when it comes to men.

OvaryActing

 

Finding patriarchy in places where normal people would just call it a bad day.

NarrativeProofing

 

When all the data, even contradictory evidence proves the narrative is sound.

Herpocrisy

 

The remarkable ability to spot bad behavior in men while somehow missing the identical behavior in women.

TheoryWashing

 

When inconvenient facts show up, cover them with enough theory until nobody notices.

Patriarchoscope

 

A precision instrument used to locate patriarchy in any situation. Batteries never included. Confirmation bias always is.

Examples:

• Boys failing in school? Patriarchy.

• Men dying younger? Patriarchy.

• Men committing suicide? Patriarchy.

• Men working dangerous jobs? Patriarchy.

• Men drafted into war? Believe it or not... patriarchy.

Of course, these definitions are satirical.

​Well, maybe....

The interesting thing about satire is that it exaggerates just enough to expose a pattern.

If you ​h​ad a chuckle while reading these, ask yourself why. Is it because the​y are ridiculous? Or because they ​are plausible? That may be the larger point.

The words we invent ​are not simply descriptive—they encourage us to interpret reality in particular ways. Maybe that​ is why creating new ​words has become such a powerful part of modern political and academic movements​?

So here’s my challenge. Can you invent a new satirical term?

Leave it in the comments.

Who knows?

If enough people use it, maybe one day some graduate student will cite it in a journal article.

Men Are Good

Last week I shared the opening chapter of Seeing Men Clearly. This chapter introduces the central concept on which the rest of the book is built. My hope is not to assign blame, but to better understand the hidden forces that shape how we think about boys and men. As always, I welcome your thoughts.

 

What Is Gynocentrism?

The pattern described in the previous chapter has a name: gynocentrism.

The term is unfamiliar to many readers. It is sometimes misunderstood and often assumed to be accusatory.

Properly understood, however, it is neither an accusation nor a criticism.

As used in this book, gynocentrism refers to a cultural tendency to treat female vulnerability as morally primary. It does not mean hatred of men. It does not mean women are favored in all domains. It does not mean women never suffer injustice.

Rather, it describes a reflex—a hierarchy of concern that operates quietly beneath policy debates, media narratives, and social assumptions. When harm occurs, we instinctively ask: “How does this affect women and children?” We are often slower to ask: “How does this affect men?”

That asymmetry is not always conscious. In fact, it rarely is.

Not a Conspiracy—A Reflex

Gynocentrism is not a coordinated plot. It is not an organized agenda. It is not a secret doctrine taught in classrooms. It is a moral reflex that predates modern politics.

Its origins are open to debate. Some argue it reflects evolutionary pressures in which societies that protected reproductive capacity were more likely to survive. Others point to historical realities in which women were more physically vulnerable in violent environments. Still others emphasize psychological empathy biases that lead human beings to respond more strongly to those perceived as vulnerable.

These debates are worth having. But they are not central to this book. The central question is not origin. It is operation. What happens when a reflex becomes institutional default?

From Instinct to Structure

When a bias is widely shared, it begins shaping decisions without requiring coordination. It influences headlines, research questions, funding priorities, policy language, and perceptions of moral urgency. Over time, the reflex becomes structure. And structure often feels neutral. It rarely is.

If female vulnerability is treated as axiomatic, institutions will naturally become skilled at detecting and remedying harms affecting women. Male vulnerability, by contrast, will often require additional explanation before receiving equivalent attention. This does not require malice. It requires only default settings.

The Hierarchy of Urgency

Consider public reactions to harm. When women are victims of violence, the response is often swift and collective. Advocacy groups mobilize. Media attention intensifies. Funding initiatives follow.

When men are victims—even in substantial numbers—the reaction is often more muted. The suffering may be acknowledged, but it is less likely to be framed as a systemic moral emergency. The difference lies not in the worth of individual lives. It lies in the hierarchy of urgency.

Gynocentrism is the cultural gravity that helps create that hierarchy.

Why It Is Difficult to See

The hardest biases to recognize are often those that align with our moral self-image. Most people see themselves as compassionate. We celebrate protection. We admire sacrifice. We view concern for the vulnerable as a virtue.

When a bias appears in the form of kindness, it does not feel like bias. This is one reason gynocentrism often goes unnamed. To question it can feel like questioning compassion itself. But examining a reflex is not the same thing as rejecting it. It is simply asking whether the reflex should remain invisible.

The Question This Book Asks

The purpose of this book is not to argue that women should be protected less. It is to ask what happens when the protection of one group becomes the default moral frame through which all gender issues are viewed.

When that frame becomes embedded within institutions, predictable patterns begin to emerge. Educational practices may assume a single developmental model. Policies may allocate resources asymmetrically. Research may frame male suffering as secondary. Cultural narratives may normalize male disposability. These patterns are not random. They follow from the reflex.

Gynocentrism is not the enemy. Unexamined bias is the problem.

If we are serious about fairness, equality, and moral consistency, we must be willing to examine the hierarchies we have inherited—especially those that feel virtuous. The chapters that follow explore how this reflex operates in modern institutions. Not to inflame. But to illuminate.

 

We've seen how a hidden moral hierarchy can shape the way we respond to suffering. But how does that hierarchy become embedded in schools, research, laws, and public policy? In the next chapter, we'll explore how a cultural reflex gradually becomes an institutional reality.

I recently read an article in the journal Men and Masculinities about a Kenyan health care worker and masculinity writer who goes by the name Amerix on X. The paper described him as an influencer with more than two million followers and expressed deep concern about what it saw as his misogyny and harmful influence on men.

I had never heard of Amerix. So before reading any further, I decided to spend some time reading his posts on X for myself. Here are a few:

1. Amerix
It is easy to blame your:
• Childhood
• Parents
• Tribe
• Government
It is much harder to accept responsibility for your own decisions.

The day a man stops looking for someone else to blame is the day he begins taking control of his life.

2. Amerix
Men,
A man who can:
- Cook
- Wash his clothes
- Clean his environment
- Organize his closet
- Mend & sew his clothes
- Budget his money

Cannot be manipulated by women.

Be this man!

3. Amerix

Men,
How to be a loser in life:
- Download TikTok,
- Start scrolling mindlessly,
- Ogle at naked women, laugh at shit videos & dumb jokes.

If you consume shit, you will become shit.

After reading dozens of posts like these, I found myself wondering if I had somehow landed on the wrong account.

What I found surprised me. I expected to find someone whose main focus was attacking women. Instead, I found someone consumed with challenging men.

• Get healthy.

• Stop making excuses.

• Save your money.

• Read books.

• Learn a skill.

• Exercise.

• Build friendships with other men.

• Take responsibility.

• Become the kind of man others can depend upon.

What I found was a man who thought highly of masculinity and cared deeply about men who were struggling to find their place in a world that openly criticizes men as being toxic. He challenged them to stop making excuses, take responsibility, and work on themselves as men. I can’t remember hearing a comparable message from feminist writers directed toward women. Their emphasis has generally been on the obstacles women face, the ways society has failed them, and their claims of victimhood. Amerix’s message was very different. He held men accountable and urged them to become stronger, healthier, more disciplined, and more capable.

Why would millions of men and boys be drawn to someone like Amerix?

I don’t think it’s much of a mystery.

His message is remarkably simple: You matter as a man. Now get to work.

He challenges men to improve themselves while offering practical guidance on how to avoid the traps that derail so many lives. Beneath that challenge is another message—one many men have rarely heard—that they have value simply because they are men.

In a culture that casually speaks of toxic masculinity while rarely celebrating the positive possibilities of manhood, that message is powerful. Amerix tells men they have value, but he doesn’t stop there. He also tells them they have a responsibility to live up to that value.

Does Amerix talk about women? Absolutely. He has some strong opinions about women and repeatedly urges men to be cautious in their relationships. He encourages men to value themselves, maintain their own purpose, and not lose themselves in trying to satisfy every desire of a partner. I can understand why many feminists would object to some of his views. He is often blunt and sometimes makes sweeping statements about women. But after reading a number of his posts, I simply can’t say that women are the center of his work. They aren’t. Men are. His central project is encouraging men to become stronger, healthier, more disciplined, and more responsible.

Here’s one of his tweets about women:

Men, You are the driver of your bus. The bus is your life and the route is your purpose. A woman is a passenger in your bus. If you are a careless driver, she will alight. Don’t follow her. Improve your skill & keep going. Another passenger will board.

The paper concludes that Amerix’s message is ultimately dangerous. Here’s how the authors summarize their concern:

Amerix’s ideology thereby not only reproduces the experience of pressure, failure, depression and stress caused by the expectation to fulfil the role of the breadwinner (cf Schmidt 2024), but also fosters a sense of masculine entitlement among Kenyan men (cf Kimmel 2019) that, in case of ongoing lack of success, might produce feelings of rage and aggression. What presents itself as a form of self-scaling (Schmidt and Kibuye ) masculine repair might thus rather be a vicious cycle of destroying oneself, other men, society, and women.

I paused when I read that.

This is not merely a criticism of some of Amerix’s ideas about women or relationships. It is a much broader claim. The authors argue that his overall message of masculine self-improvement ultimately becomes “a vicious cycle” that destroys the man himself, other men, society, and women.

That is an extraordinary conclusion.

Extraordinary conclusions deserve equally strong evidence.

What surprised me was how little attention was given to the positive themes that dominate so much of his work—discipline, health, responsibility, purpose, and accountability. Those themes receive relatively little discussion, while the paper concludes that his overall message leads toward entitlement, aggression, and ultimately the destruction of oneself, other men, society, and women.

Then, a few pages later, the paper makes another striking claim: (emphasis mine)

Amerix’s suggested practices of masculine self-repair thus have three important
characteristics differentiating them from other forms of social repair. They are, firstly, not outward-oriented but practices of caring for one’s masculine self. They are, secondly, prone to paranoia because changing their masculine self will cause a change in how men see the world, namely as interlaced with feminist ideology and micro-practices that need to be uncovered and corrected. Lastly, masculine self-repair is considered self-scaling, that is small acts of (re)masculinizing are believed to cause changes in men’s relations to other people as well as cause the world to run according to its masculine nature again. According to Amerix, masculine self-repair therefore leads to a revelation of the fact that men live in a perverted world that can, however, be tilted back onto its masculine trajectory if enough men decide to repair their masculine selves.

Wait a minute.

The authors argue that Amerix’s message makes men “prone to paranoia” because they begin to see feminist ideology woven throughout modern society.

Really?

But that immediately raised another question in my mind.

If encouraging men to see feminist influence throughout society is said to foster paranoia, shouldn’t we also ask whether encouraging women to see patriarchy throughout society might produce a similar effect?

The point is not that either movement is necessarily paranoid.

The point is that the same psychological standard should be applied consistently.

If one worldview is examined for its tendency to heighten suspicion, then competing worldviews deserve the same scrutiny.

That seems reasonable to me.

This also brngs up a related issue. The authors seem upset that Amerix would make sweeping negative generalizations about women, Okay. But if they are going to take that route shouldn’t they also hold the same judgment against all of the sweeping generalizations about men that are made on a daily basis? Men are toxic, men are privileged, etc. I have never heard a feminist or feminist researcher hold themselves accountable in that manner. Have you?

I finished reading Amerix with a more positive impression than I expected.

I finished reading the paper with a more negative impression than I expected. Not because it criticized Amerix. But because I don’t think it gave an accurate representation of him.

Before we criticize anyone, we have an obligation to understand what they are actually trying to accomplish.

After reading both, I came away believing the paper understood Amerix’s most controversial statements. I’m not convinced it understood Amerix himself.

Men Are Good.

Amerix X account