MenAreGood
3 Leveraging and Weaponizing Gynocentrism
July 16, 2024
post photo preview

The first post in this series offered an exercise to help understand the presence of your own gynocentrism. You can see that one here. The second detailed the many different ways that gynocentrism functions in our world, from relationships to legislators, courts, and beyond. This post will be in two parts. The first part will examine how women have used gynocentrism in relationships by leveraging their gynocentric advantage to influence their male partners. The second part will explore the lethal weaponization of gynocentrism by feminists.

 

Men and Gynocentrism

To understand this process, it's essential to examine how men are influenced by gynocentrism. Testosterone drives men to seek status, which is crucial in attracting women as mates. Higher status means more reproductive choices. Because of this, men strive to impress women to earn their admiration, working hard to prove their high status. Men seek women's approval and avoid their disapproval, as both impact their perceived status. This is driven by biological imperatives.

Equally significant is the social conditioning over thousands of years, where men are taught to prioritize providing for and protecting women. From a young age, cultural norms emphasize respecting and supporting women, reinforcing men's role as providers and protectors. These biological and social factors combine, creating a powerful, instinctual drive in men to support, protect, and demonstrate their value as capable problem-solvers and valuable assets to women.

But wait. Do women have a similar drive to do anything like this for men? I don't think so. While men try to impress women with status in order to gain reproductive access, women's strategy often involves working to be more attractive. The female-dominated cosmetics industry produces over $66 billion a year in products. For perspective, the combined incomes of the NFL, MLB, NHL, and NBA are about two-thirds of that amount ($45 billion).

Gynocentrism impacts both men and women in how they see and navigate the world, particularly in relationships. Let’s get started.

Getting What You Want

While men and women share many similar ways to get what they want in relationships, there are significant differences that start early. One research study by Michael Lewis showed that when 1-2-year-old boys and girls were separated from their mothers by a barrier, they had very different strategies to get back to their moms. The boys would try to knock down the barrier, while the girls would usually sit down and cry.1 These boys took an active strategy, while the girls chose a passive response.

Another example is the classic research of Savin-Williams,2 which showed that boys and girls employed very different strategies in forming hierarchies at a summer camp. The boys were aggressive and challenging each other both physically and verbally to quickly develop a hierarchy in the first couple of days. This told them who was on top and who was not. The girls were different. They were sweet to everyone for the first week but then began using passive relational aggressive techniques to form their own hierarchies. This included gossip, false accusations, selective inattention, and other modes to attain dominance in their group. The girls formed their hierarchies in a more passive and cloaked manner. One hallmark of relational aggression is that it is easily denied with statements like "I didn't mean it like that" or "I was just kidding." This is very different from overt aggression, which is difficult to deny.

We can't draw too many conclusions about these two studies and their impact on adult behaviors in relationships, but we can start to see a pattern. The boys take a direct route, including physical action and aggressiveness, while the girls took a more indirect or passive stance. In relationship troubles, men often take an active stance, usually logic/problem-solving based (what I think), while women are more likely to take a passive stance that is often emotion-based (what I feel/want). Importantly, the female emotional path is nearly always connected to gynocentrism. Yes, women have leveraged gynocentrism to get what they want in relationships.

These behaviors harness the power of gynocentrism to work in her favor. Here's an example:

She wants something, he says no, he doesn't think it's a good idea, and he offers his reasons why. She starts crying. What does this do? It puts him on alert that he is failing to provide/protect and meet her needs. It also shifts the discussion's focus from the topic at hand to her emotional reaction. Now, the focus is on helping her with her tears. Instead of being about the discussed topic, it is now about her! Her hope is that he will shift his position to aid her distress. This is not dissimilar to the 1-year-old girls who, when faced with an obstruction, would simply sit down and cry. What makes this strategy successful? It relies on gynocentrism. The man has an urge within that tells him he needs to meet her needs, to keep her safe and provided for. When it appears he is failing to meet those needs, it sets off warnings in his head that he is not fulfilling his mission. This can be a huge factor in his decision of what to do. Unless he is aware of this inner alarm, the danger is that he will act on it without thinking. He will therefore be much more likely to want to give her what she wants and to ignore his own logic and problem-solving, and his own needs.

But there is more that goes on when a woman's tears start flowing. It is doing more than just shifting the ground of the discussion to her needs. The tears have a direct impact on him. We have known for many years that a man's testosterone actually goes down when the woman cries!3 Women seem to be aware of the power of their tears and use them as needed. So it seems that men in an argument with their spouse can be at a distinct disadvantage both psychologically and physically. But the man still has his power and can still say no, even with the tears and the inner alarm. He can stick to his guns. In some ways, it's a fair fight.

Other ways for women to leverage gynocentrism include things like damseling. This is a strategy that makes one appear to be tied to the railroad tracks with the train coming! Help me quickly! I am in immediate need. Hurry. This strategy calls on the man to save her from some disaster. The tactic alerts him that this is something that needs his attention immediately. Again, the man feels the urge to save her, to keep her safe, and will leave his logic and problem-solving skills behind as he gives up on his own needs to save her from the disaster.

 

So, do men give up their own needs to satisfy their partner's upset? Yup. Anyone who fails to believe this should follow husbands in the midst of a difficult divorce. Time and again, I see some of these men giving away the farm to help their wives while they are left with very little. They are literally in a huge battle for resources, and he sometimes fails to consider his needs and instead wants to satisfy hers. In talking with these men afterward, they will often say something like, "I wanted to help her and to hope she realizes that I care." If one didn't understand the dynamic of gynocentrism and its impact on men, his actions would seem insane.

Emotional outbursts, flirting, emotional appeals, nagging, tantrums, and other forms of relational aggression are used to amplify and justify her need, and all of this is seen as important due to gynocentrism. The emotion alerts the man that she is in need. He senses his own desire to provide for her. The man will think that he is failing to provide and protect if she is left in need, or worse yet, others will find out he is not meeting her needs and will see him as deficient, and he will be publicly shamed.  Could this ever go in the opposite direction, with men using emotion to encourage the woman to give him what he wants? Probably much less often. Firstly, men are not generally allowed tender emotions, largely due to gynocentrism. He is the one who is responsible, and for him to appear emotional and needy is a cultural no-no. Secondly, she does not have the same urge to keep him safe and provided for. It simply wouldn't work. He knows it and won't try it. She knows that these tactics do work for her and also realizes that he has that inborn need to provide and protect her.

This dance between men and women has been going on for ages. Both men and women have found ways to navigate relationships with conflicts that have gynocentrism just beneath the surface. Again, in some ways, this is a fair fight.

Weaponizing Gynocentrism

But when does it stop being a fair fight? That's where the feminists come in. In the early 1970s, feminists began to weaponize gynocentrism. They understood the power of gynocentrism and started introducing pathological elements into the dynamic. Imagine a woman using damseling to get her way. Instead of sticking with the traditional damseling, which men have hundreds of years of experience handling, she starts pathologizing him for not agreeing with her. She implies there's something wrong with him if he disagrees; he must hate women (false accusation). The fight then changes from a disagreement to a question of his character. He gives in. This is the weaponization of gynocentrism. Responding or questioning her becomes forbidden and pathologized. He is declared hateful simply for having a differing point of view. Gynocentrism provides the feminist with a shield to hide behind as she makes overtly false accusations. This gynocentric shield is strong and effective because men are biologically and psychologically wired to provide for and protect women, not to attack them. (never hit a girl) If he attacks, it appears as evidence that her false accusation is accurate. The accusations bind him, preventing him from disagreeing due to his gynocentric need to hold women in high esteem. He can't be seen as a man who hates women. The next time this happens, she uses the same tactic, disallowing any disagreement and labeling him hateful if he disagrees. "No, I don't hate you. I love you. See, I will give you what you want." This is a beginning outline of feminist manipulations.

 

A feminist says, "Men are pigs." A man disagrees, saying that is not true. She responds, "You just don't understand; you could never understand since you are not a woman." He agrees he is not a woman but maintains that men are not pigs. She says, "If you can't see this, you must hate women!" The conflict shifts from whether men are pigs to the unwinnable arena of whether he hates women. It is nearly impossible to disprove a false accusation, but this man tries and ends up frustrated. He withdraws and stops talking with her. He has been successfully silenced. He now sees it is dangerous to disagree. His mission is to provide for and protect women, and he cannot afford to be outed as someone who willfully goes against that gynocentric law. It might make him look like he hates women.  This would be a huge drop in status.

This is what feminism has done on a global level. They have blamed men for nearly every problem a woman might experience, and if any man questions this, they accuse him of misogyny. Feminists believe they are always right, and any dissenting man is part of the patriarchy. When he protests, it is simple to label him a misogynist. All the while, the feminist claims victimhood on cultural, social, psychological, physical, and personal levels. Men are geared to help women who claim victimhood, putting him in a bind if he disagrees.

This kind of manipulation is not new. It has been around for many years. Peter Wright's excellent website gynocentrism.com offers extensive information on gynocentrism's workings. In one article, he quotes Belford Bax, an early anti-feminist writer, from his book "The Fraud of Feminism" (1913):

"Woman at the present day has been encouraged by a Feminist public opinion to become meanly aggressive under the protection of her weakness. She has been encouraged to forge her gift of weakness into a weapon of tyranny against man, unwitting that in so doing she has deprived her weakness of all just claim to consideration or even to toleration."

Bax points out that feminist women over 100 years ago were using this manipulative strategy to silence men. It is an extraordinarily devious yet simple tactic that takes advantage of men's desire to help and serve women. The end result is that men are hog-tied and left in a double bind. If he tells the truth, she will broadcast that he hates women. He can't risk that since it would ruin his reputation. And if he says nothing, she will continue her hate speech. Worse yet, if he agrees with her, then...

Bax said, "forge her gift of weakness into a weapon of tyranny against man." This sums things up. Gynocentrism offers women a facade of weakness that invites men to offer their help and aid. But that facade of weakness now works as a shield due to men's reluctance to "hit a girl." Feminists have been free to fire cannons of shame, blame, and disdain at men while hiding behind a shield of gynocentrism. Gynocentrism allows feminists to hurl damaging and hateful false accusations without hesitation while men are put into a bind that limits their ability to attack the false accusations. Men have many reasons not to fight back against these attacks. The next section will go into more detail about those reasons.

 
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
October 02, 2025
Father Custody: The Solution to Injustices Against Men?

In this conversation, I sit down with Stephen Baskerville and Rick Bradford to explore a provocative idea: could father custody be the key to addressing many of the injustices men face? Both men are leading experts in this area, and together they examine some fascinating angles. One insight is that the legal contract of marriage doesn’t just unite two people — it’s also the mechanism that legally creates fathers. Yet when that contract is dissolved through divorce, the law often strips fathers of their rights, reducing them to mere “visitors” in their children’s lives. This and much more is unpacked in our discussion.

We also point to Rick’s and Stephen’s books (linked below) and to AI tools that allow you to interact with their work directly. (also linked below)

If you’ve ever wondered why custody is such a defining issue — not just for fathers but for the future of men’s rights and well-being — this dialogue offers insights you won’t want to miss.

Men are good, as are you.

Books...

01:18:10
September 25, 2025
Dr. James Nuzzo Cancelled for Challenging Feminism and DEI

Join me as I talk with Janice Fiamengo and researcher Dr. James Nuzzo about the shocking story of his academic cancellation. What begins as one man’s ordeal soon reveals how woke ideology and radical feminism are undermining science, silencing dissent, and eroding academic freedom. Thoughtful, eye-opening, and at times heartbreaking, this video exposes what really happens when universities put politics before truth.

Dr. Nuzzo's GoFundMe
https://www.gofundme.com/f/ChildStrengthResearch

Dr. Nuzzo's Donorbox
https://donorbox.org/the-nuzzo-letter

https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/

Previous Interviews with Dr. Nuzzo on MenAreGood
grip strength https://menaregood.substack.com/p/childhood-sex-differences-in-grip

sex differences in strength https://menaregood.substack.com/p/sex-differences-in-strength-and-exercise

bias against women in exercise research? https://menaregood.substack.com/p/bias-against-women-in-exercise-research

childhood sex differences in strength ...

01:01:31
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
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

New voice that did her PHD theses on female psychopaths. She has some good stuff

September 18, 2025
Jim Nuzzo Cancelled

I’m sure many of you are familiar with Jim Nuzzo’s work on exercise and strength training. A frequent guest on this channel, Jim offers valuable insights into exercise science. I often call him my favorite researcher—and he truly is!

Jim studies boys’ uniqueness and the differences between boys and girls in exercise approaches and physical traits. He has also exposed distortions in claims that past research was biased against women. In doing so, he broke two “rules” of the woke: celebrating boys’ strengths and challenging feminist disinformation. For this, he was effectively cancelled.

Using the Freedom of Information Act, Jim obtained emails revealing the hate behind his cancellation. This post details that story, and Janice and I will do a video with him next week—so there’s more to come.


https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/my-academic-cancellation-story

post photo preview
W​omen’s Studies was Never About Study

W​omen’s Studies was Never About Study

For decades, Women’s Studies has held a privileged place in academia. From its earliest days, it was never a neutral or exploratory field—it was born out of activism, not inquiry. The goal was not to ask open questions about gender, but to advance a political framework that saw women as oppressed and men as privileged. It promised to give women a collective voice and to expose the “hidden structures” of patriarchy, but from the beginning, its conclusions were already written into its premises.

From Activism to Orthodoxy

Women’s Studies emerged in the late 1960s as an explicitly ideological project, shaped by the political currents of second-wave feminism. Its founders were activists first and academics second. The programs they built were not designed to test ideas but to institutionalize a belief system—that society was organized around male domination and that liberation required dismantling it. Rather than studying whether patriarchy existed, Women’s Studies set out to document how it did, embedding the theory of oppression into every syllabus. What began as political conviction soon became academic dogma.

A Closed Loop of Certainty

Once the framework of oppression was installed as unquestionable truth, the field began to police its own boundaries. Dissent was not debated—it was pathologized. To question the narrative of systemic male power was to “uphold patriarchy.” To suggest that men face distinct forms of hardship was to be told you were shifting attention away from women — that you were “making it about men.”​ Even sympathetic scholars who urged more balance found themselves marginalized. In time, Women’s Studies became a self-reinforcing system—its theories generating its evidence, its evidence confirming its theories. The goal was no longer discovery but preservation of the ideology itself.

Theory Without Tether

Much of the writing in Women’s Studies rests on sweeping abstractions: “patriarchy,” “privilege,” “internalized oppression,” “toxic masculinity.” These terms are often treated not as hypotheses to be tested but as truths to be applied. Shulamith Firestone declared that “the goal of the feminist revolution must be… the elimination of the sex distinction itself.” bell hooks wrote that “patriarchy is the single most life-threatening social disease assaulting the male body and spirit.” Such claims are not evidence-based conclusions; they are moral declarations — proclamations of belief.

When theory replaces evidence, conversation dies. Instead of exploring how men and women differ in complex, sometimes complementary ways, Women’s Studies tends to flatten the picture into one story: oppressors and oppressed.

The Disappearing Male

Ironically, as the field expanded into “Gender Studies,” men nearly vanished from the picture except as symbols of privilege or threat. Rarely do these programs explore male pain, fatherhood, or the male experience of relational loss, shame, or sacrifice. When male suffering is acknowledged, it’s often reframed as a symptom of “toxic masculinity” — as though men’s pain merely confirms the theory rather than complicates it.

If academia truly cared about gender, it would study men as carefully and compassionately as it studies women. But in the current climate, even suggesting that balance is considered suspect.

Power, Not Understanding

Modern Women’s and Gender Studies have largely shifted from studying what is to prescribing what should be. The core pursuit is no longer knowledge but power — the power to define social norms, influence policy, and shape language. As a result, universities now graduate students steeped in theory but poorly equipped to engage with those who don’t share their ideological framework. The field’s inward focus breeds division rather than understanding.

Why It Matters

This isn’t just an academic squabble. The ideas born in Women’s Studies now drive policies in media, law, education, and corporate culture. They shape how we talk about men and women, how we define fairness, and how we teach our children about themselves. When a discipline insists that one sex’s narrative of oppression defines the truth, it narrows empathy for the other half of humanity.

A truly balanced study of gender would ask harder questions — not how to dismantle men, but how men and women can understand each other more deeply. Until that shift happens, Women’s Studies will remain less a study of truth than a sermon about power.

Men Are Good


Note:
Next week, Janice Fiamengo, Jim Nuzzo, Hannah Spier, and I will be releasing a video discussion titled “The Evolution of Women’s Studies and Its Terms.” We’ll take a deeper look at how Women’s Studies developed, examine course materials and degree trends, and unpack the language it has generated—terms like microfeminism, antinatal feminism, compulsory heterosexuality, internalized misogyny, and kin-keeping. It should be a lively and revealing conversation.​

Read full Article
October 20, 2025
post photo preview
Reproductive Rights End at Ejaculation: How Men Lost Control Over Parenthood


Reproductive Rights End at Ejaculation: How Men Lost Control Over Parenthood

It’s one of the most unspoken truths in modern life: once conception occurs, men have no reproductive rights. A woman can choose to keep a pregnancy or end it. She can decide to raise the child or place it for adoption. A man, on the other hand, is bound—socially, legally, and financially—to whatever decision she makes.

That imbalance is so normalized that few even notice it. When the topic arises, most people reflexively defend the status quo. “Well, it’s her body.” Of course it is. But what’s rarely considered is that while women have control over their bodies, men have no control over their futures.

“The man’s genetic material, his emotional capacity, his finances, and his lifelong identity as a father or a stranger—all of it hangs on someone else’s choice. A woman’s responsibility is conditional; a man’s is absolute.

And this asymmetry is defended not as a moral dilemma to be resolved, but as a settled truth.


The Silent Consent Trap

We’ve been taught to think that when a man consents to sex, he consents to everything that might follow. But when a woman consents to sex, she still retains the right to decide afterward whether to become a mother.

This moral sleight of hand is stunning once you notice it. One person’s consent is treated as final and binding; the other’s is treated as provisional and revocable.

And yet this assumption—so old it feels invisible—forms the bedrock of modern reproductive law.

If a pregnancy occurs and the man doesn’t want to be a father, the system tells him, “Too bad. You should have thought of that earlier.” If the woman doesn’t want to be a mother, society says, “She has a right to choose.”

Both positions can’t be reconciled under any serious notion of equality.


The Price of Powerlessness

For many men, the consequence isn’t only financial—it’s existential.

Imagine discovering that someone chose to bring a child into the world with your DNA, against your will, and that you’ll now spend 18 years paying for the decision you didn’t make. Imagine learning that a partner deceived you about contraception, or tampered with protection, and you’re told by the court that none of that matters.

Your body, your consent, your word—irrelevant.

The state considers you responsible for what someone else decided to do with your biology.

The irony is brutal: men are lectured about “taking responsibility,” but responsibility without consent is not morality—it’s servitude.

And while precise numbers are impossible to know, the scale of this problem is enormous. Countless men quietly accept pregnancies they would have preferred to avoid—not because they chose fatherhood, but because the law left them no voice in the matter. For every man who speaks out, many more simply submit to a fate decided by someone else. And this imbalance cuts both ways. Just as some men are forced into fatherhood they didn’t choose, others are denied fatherhood they deeply want. Many have stood by helplessly as a pregnancy they hoped to cherish was ended—not because they were careless or uncommitted, but because the law gave them no voice. For them, “her choice” becomes their grief, and that grief is treated as if it doesn’t exist.

And beneath that larger injustice lies an even starker reality: a measurable percentage of pregnancies begin with deliberate deception. Studies conservatively estimate that 1–3% of fathers are unknowingly raising children who are not biologically theirs. Men who uncover the truth and challenge paternity are often ordered to keep paying anyway, because “it’s in the best interest of the child.”

In other words, the legal system tells men that even being lied to about fatherhood doesn’t matter—your wallet still belongs to the child, and by extension, to the mother who deceived you. It’s her body, her choice—and your wallet, her choice too.


Moral Courage and the Empathy Gap

Why is there so little outrage about this? Because when men suffer, empathy tends to vanish.

We can see this in how society responds to female pain—mobilizing instantly, funding shelters, rewriting laws—and how it responds to male pain—with indifference, mockery, or moral lectures.

A man who feels trapped by fatherhood he didn’t choose is told he’s irresponsible or immature. A woman who feels trapped by motherhood she didn’t choose is seen as courageous for seeking control. And when a man feels trapped by abortion—when he longs to protect the life of his own child but is powerless to stop its ending—his pain is dismissed as interference in someone else’s right.

This empathy gap runs so deep that even discussing male reproductive rights feels taboo. People worry it undermines women’s freedom, as if equality for one sex must come at the other’s expense.

But fairness isn’t a zero-sum game. Equality doesn’t mean less compassion for women—it means more honesty for everyone.


The “Financial Abortion” Idea

One idea, sometimes called “paper abortion” or “financial abortion,” proposes that men should be able to relinquish legal parenthood within a set time early in pregnancy—mirroring a woman’s right to choose abortion or adoption.

Critics say it lets men “walk away from their responsibilities.” But this criticism misses the point: responsibility must follow consent. You can’t demand moral or financial duty from someone who had no voice in the decision that created it.

If women can legally choose parenthood, men should at least be able to choose not to be one.

Otherwise, what we call equality is really a kind of gendered servitude—freedom for one sex, obligation for the other.


Consent and Control

At its heart, the issue of reproductive rights for men isn’t about sex. It’s about consent, autonomy, and the meaning of equality.

In every other area of life, consent without control is invalid.
If someone borrows your car without permission, you don’t owe them gas money because “the trip already happened.” If a doctor performs a surgery you didn’t consent to, it’s malpractice—even if they believed it would help.

Yet when it comes to reproduction, we abandon that principle completely.

Men’s consent ends at ejaculation. From that moment on, everything that follows—the pregnancy, the birth, the lifelong obligation—is out of their hands.

And society calls this justice.


The Deeper Consequence

When men feel they have no control over one of life’s most defining events—whether or not they become a father—it fuels a quiet kind of despair. It teaches them that their choices don’t matter, that their voices are disposable, that their role in reproduction is purely mechanical.

It also weakens trust between men and women. True partnership depends on mutual agency and mutual accountability. When one side holds all the power, resentment grows.

This isn’t just a legal problem; it’s a relational one. Many young men today fear relationships precisely because they sense this imbalance—because they know that in the eyes of the law and culture, they have no reproductive rights, only responsibilities.


A Culture That Values Both Sexes

Reproductive fairness shouldn’t be controversial. If we truly believe in equality, then both sexes deserve the same moral and legal respect for their choices.

That means we need to have the courage to ask hard questions:

  • Should men have the right to decline fatherhood when women can decline motherhood?

  • Should paternity testing be standard, to protect both fathers and children from deception?

  • Should reproductive coercion—like lying about birth control—be treated as seriously as forcing a woman into pregnancy?

Equality isn’t about punishing women or freeing men from moral duty. It’s about aligning rights with responsibilities, and recognizing that both sexes have an equal stake in the creation of life.

Until that happens, we’ll keep pretending that justice exists where it doesn’t—and men will keep paying the price for choices they didn’t make.

Because in our culture, reproductive rights still end at ejaculation.

Read full Article
October 16, 2025
post photo preview
The Engineered Isolation of Men
 


The Engineered Isolation of Men

For decades, society has been dismantling the three foundations that once anchored men: work, identity, and family. What we call a “men’s crisis” isn’t just about depression or suicide—it’s about systematic disconnection. When a man loses his place to contribute, his right to belong, and the respect that once gave him pride, he doesn’t merely suffer; he disappears.


1. The First Cut: Economic Displacement

For most men, work is more than a paycheck—it’s proof of worth. Through skill, labor, and persistence, men find identity and belonging. But modern economies have quietly stripped that away. Factories closed, trades devalued, and risk-taking jobs replaced by automation or overseas labor.

Men were told to “adapt,” but few noticed what they were adapting to: a world that no longer needs them in the ways that once gave them purpose. Unemployment doesn’t just steal income—it steals function. And when function vanishes, meaning follows close behind.

History bears this out. During the Great Depression, when millions of men were cut off from productive work, suicide rates climbed to record highs. A man’s worth had been tied to his usefulness, and when society no longer needed that usefulness, despair filled the vacuum. Yet during the world wars, when men were again called upon to serve, build, and defend, suicide rates fell sharply—even in the face of danger and loss. The difference wasn’t comfort, but purpose.

Research confirms what common sense already knows: long-term unemployment raises men’s suicide risk several-fold. Not because men are fragile, but because usefulness was the thread holding their lives together. When that thread breaks, they fall—not from weakness, but from the weight of purposelessness.

A culture that robs men of purpose is a culture engineering their isolation.


2. The Second Cut: Moral Displacement Through Shame

Even men who keep their jobs often lose something deeper—the right to feel proud of being men.

The term toxic masculinity didn’t just critique bad behavior; it redefined maleness itself as suspect. Strength, stoicism, leadership, and competitiveness—traits once considered virtues—became moral liabilities. Men were told that their instincts were dangerous, their achievements oppressive, their nature defective.

This isn’t self-improvement; it’s cultural shaming.
When a man is told his strength makes him unsafe, he hides it. When he’s told his logic makes him cold, he doubts it. Over time, he disconnects—not only from others but from his own nature.

And shame is the most isolating emotion of all. It tells a person, you don’t belong anymore.
A shamed man withdraws, not because he doesn’t care, but because every gesture of care risks being misinterpreted. His silence isn’t indifference—it’s self-protection in a culture that punishes his voice.


3. The Third Cut: The Forced Separation of Divorce

Then there is the wound that goes straight to the heart: divorce.

In countless cases, it’s not just a separation of spouses—it’s the erasure of fatherhood. Courts presume maternal virtue and paternal suspicion. Even loving, stable fathers are reduced to “visitors,” permitted only fragments of the lives they helped create.

For a man whose identity revolves around providing, protecting, and mentoring, losing daily contact with his children is devastating. It is grief without a funeral—a living bereavement he’s expected to endure without complaint.

The statistics are grim: divorced men have some of the highest suicide rates of any demographic. Not because they’ve failed as fathers, but because the system has forbidden them to succeed. When the law itself enforces separation, the message is unmistakable: you’re no longer needed.


4. The Result: A Culture of Quiet Exile

Take these three together—economic displacement, moral shaming, and family loss—and you get the blueprint for male disconnection.
Each cut severs a man from one of the three bonds that make life meaningful:

  • Work (purpose)

  • Identity (dignity)

  • Family (love)

A man without purpose feels restless.
A man without dignity feels ashamed.
A man without love feels invisible.
And when all three disappear at once, the result isn’t just sadness—it’s annihilation.


5. What the Culture Gets Wrong

Modern culture mistakes this for fragility: “Men just need to talk more.”
But talking doesn’t rebuild meaning.
What men need isn’t therapy in isolation—it’s reconnection to the structures that once made their lives coherent.

A man can’t talk his way out of being unnecessary.
He can only live his way back into usefulness, belonging, and respect.

That requires social systems that recognize men as contributors, not relics; as protectors, not problems.


6. The Way Back

The solution isn’t to “save” men—it’s to restore their place in the human story:

  • Rebuild economic paths that value masculine work.

  • Reclaim cultural respect for masculine virtues.

  • Reform family law so fatherhood is a right, not a privilege.

  • Speak openly about the moral injury of being labeled toxic for existing.

Men don’t need saving — they need a place to stand again.
Give them that, and they’ll rebuild everything else.

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