Maryland Commission for Men's Health Report on Domestic Violence (2010)

MenAreGood

July 23, 2024

I wrote this report when I was the vice-chair of the Maryland Commission for Men’s Health in 2008-2010. This was one of three reports that The Maryland Department of Health tried to deep six. It took us a year to track down what they had done and the reports finally made their way to the legislators. (The story of this event was a chapter in Janice Fiamengo’s excellent book Sons of Feminism: Men Have Their Say.) They really didn’t want this to get out and they succeeded since it was a year late. It was written with the idea of giving legislators a good sense of the bigoted path the domestic violence industry had taken in Maryland. It continues to be a good summary of how the feminists have built a lethal anti-male industry. It is amazing and shocking how little has changed since that time. Sad too.

The attached image was not a part of the original report. lol I couldn’t resist.😀

Perhaps the most confusing, perplexing, and controversial area in which men’s health needs are overlooked is the issue of male victims of domestic violence. One immediately noticeable trend is the strong tendency to focus solely on female victims and ignore male victims. This tendency is seen repeatedly. Most media, whether print or electronic, focuses on female victims of domestic violence and all too often fails to mention male victims. Almost every article in the newspaper and every program on TV about domestic violence focuses on female victims. We see the same focus in academia: courses in sociology and women’s studies repeat the message that women are the primary victims of domestic violence and rarely mention male victims. If you look on the internet at web sites of domestic violence agencies you will likely see a similar bias.1 One oft-quoted statistic is that according to a Department of Justice report, there are 1.5 million women each year in the United States who are victims of domestic violence. What you don’t see is that the same report also found that there are 834,000 male victims of domestic violence each year in the United States.2 Rather than adding the two and saying 2.3 million Americans suffer from domestic violence each year, all too often the only statistic highlighted is the one about women. One side of the story is told and the other side is ignored, as 834,000 men are omitted. Nationally, we have the “Violence Against Women Act” which boldly excludes men from its name. The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (a national group that teaches judges on the issue of domestic violence) offers a typical description which includes women but seems to minimize men: “Domestic violence puts millions of women and their families at risk each year and is one of the single greatest social ills impacting the nation.”3 There is no mention of men who might be at risk. Most organizations promote the idea that females are the overwhelming majority of victims of domestic violence. The general public has heard that message for decades and believes it to be the sole truth. But is it?

The National Council Against Domestic Violence (NCADV) offers a similar message that women are the vast majority of the victims of domestic violence. According to their definition of domestic violence: “There is not a typical woman who will be battered – the risk factor is being born female.”4 If “the” risk factor is being born female, that seems to exclude men from sharing the risk. But a look at their own statistics compiled from state governments tells a very different story. In the state of Maryland, according to NCADV statistics, men comprise 23% of the victims of domestic violence, and women are 23% of the perpetrators.5 Maryland State Police statistics reveal similar estimates, listing men as 25% of all victims of domestic violence.6 These numbers are confirmed and even exceeded when compared with peer-reviewed research. What you find is that men are a sizable portion of the victims of domestic violence, a much larger portion than is usually mentioned through a variety of sources. In fact, peer-reviewed research reveals that most domestic violence is characterized not by one person abusing the other, but by what is termed as “reciprocal” violence: a brawl between two partners.7 The bulk of the research also suggests that women are more often the initiators of the violence.8 This sharp contrast between the commonly-held public view of women as the vast majority of domestic violence victims with men as the sole perpetrators, versus the research and statistics compiled by authoritative sources, paint pictures that are hard to reconcile.

The domestic violence agencies in Maryland are obviously comprised of a compassionate group of people dedicated to fighting a horrible problem. The Maryland Commission for Men’s Health wholeheartedly agrees with them that domestic violence needs our attention and our resources. The issue that the commission finds worrisome is that it appears that only a part of the problem of domestic violence is being addressed in earnest: the female victims. The other parts are taking a back seat: male victims and female perpetrators. Due to this imbalance, some Marylanders go unserved and left in great pain.

There is a saying among NASA engineers that “an ounce of thrust at takeoff can mean thousands of miles down course.” The ounce of thrust that has thrown the domestic violence industry off course is the idea of holding men and masculinity solely responsible for the incidence of domestic violence. In its early years as a cause, many of those working in domestic violence assumed that men were the sole cause of domestic violence and, of course, women were seen as the only victims. It was this contention that has limited their vision to see the complexity of domestic violence and its many victims both male and female, heterosexual and homosexual. Over the years, various organizations and individuals have tried to offer feedback that males are in need of treatment as victims and females are in need of attention as perpetrators, but all too often their voices go noticably unheard.

How did things get to this point?

When domestic violence activism first started in the 1970’s, the leaders were mostly feminists who were rightly concerned about the lives and safety of women. What they saw was shocking: situations where muscular men were beating innocent women. Very quickly these stories started making their way to the media. People were shocked and outraged. The activists kept the stories flowing to the media and the media continued to alert the public to the truly awful horror stories. The feminist activists applied their ideological template to the issues of domestic violence. In the 1970’s, the feminist template presumed men were a major cause of women’s problems and were a large inhibiting factor holding women back from a variety of opportunities. Phrases like “all men are rapists” and “men are pigs” were commonplace. Men were routinely disdained and blamed. The horror of males committing domestic violence gave some reason to believe that these early misandrist stereotypes of men might hold some truth. Uncaring men, using their power to control and beat women, were observed repeatedly in these domestic violence situations, and this led to the assumption that it was men who were the underlying cause of a grievous social problem. Sadly, we now know that this idea of men being the underlying cause of the problem represents a truth but simply not the whole truth. What we now know is that although the stories of women being beaten by bullying men were certainly true, they told only part of the story. Researchers today characterize domestic violence as being 25% men beating women, 25% women beating men and 50% being more of a brawl between the two people.9 The brawling and the violent women had been overshadowed by the more shocking and outrageous examples of helpless women being beaten by bullying men.

This statistical breakdown of 25%-25%-50% is a shock to many and very difficult to believe. However, we have already seen how the premier national domestic violence organization, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV), verifies that in Maryland, for example, men comprise 23% of the victims and females 23% of the perpetrators of domestic violence. Why would people not believe this to be the case? Could it be that an ideology that holds men as the primary culprits in incidences of domestic violence continues to inhibit them from seeing situations in which men are victimized by abusive women?

The feminist idea that men are wholly responsible for domestic violence found immediate traction. The horrible situations that were being reported were all of abusive men terrorizing defenseless women. This sort of scenario struck a chord in both men and women who heard these reports. The women were moved due to their own compassion for other women and children who might be vulnerable and in need. The men were moved since an important part of the man’s biological and social sex role is to provide and protect for women and children. Seeing women abused by out-of-control men was a very strong call to action for most men. It is little wonder then that most states quickly developed laws and the beginnings of support for these female victims. By the 1980s, only a few short years from the early activism of the 1970s, many states had already put domestic violence laws on their books. That’s moving pretty fast, for legislative bodies, who are known for their tendency to be circumspect when introducing whole new classes of penal laws.

What prevented evidence of other forms of domestic violence from coming to the surface? One answer to this question comes from one of the original domestic violence activists, Ellen Pence. Pence was the author of an important book about domestic violence and the influential Duluth Model (discussed below). She was also the founder of the Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project. Pence admits that there was an effort to avoid issues related to women’s violence and highlights the neglect of female abusers:

In many ways, we turned a blind eye to many women’s use of violence, their drug use and alcoholism, and their often harsh and violent treatment of their own children.10

Why would the original activists “turn a blind eye?” Did they not see that turning a blind eye put many innocent people in jeopardy? One of the reasons was surely that the theoretical framework of men being the “only abusers” left no room to see women as anything but victims. The norm for viewing female abusers came to be that a female abuser was considered to have been “abused in the past” and was acting this way out of hurt and self-defense, not evil or anything else. Their view of domestic violence simply did not allow room for the possibility of the woman as the abuser, plain and simple. As in all things, if your theoretical framework doesn’t account for a phenomenon to exist, it is much less likely to be recognized. It is also probably true that the media showed more interest in the stories where women were abused by men. These stories touched a cultural nerve and therefore sold more papers and air time. People wanted to read about female victims, but were not so interested in hearing about males who were abused by women. The early activists must have found that they could get the word out much more quickly and more powerfully by focusing on stories about men beating women.

The focus on male batterers and female victims has left us knowing a good deal less about female batterers. How could the less-physically powerful women ever batter or intimidate men? What we have since found out through research is that violent women make up for their lack of physical strength by using weapons and the tactic of surprise.11 In domestic violence situations, women will often use weapons when men are vulnerable. Think of Lorena Bobbitt who severed her husband’s penis while he slept or Mary Winkler who shot her husband in the back with a shotgun while he was sleeping, or Clara Harris who ran over her husband with her car as her daughter sat next to her. All are examples of women committing domestic violence by using the element of surprise paired with lethal weapons. Interestingly, none of these murders or incidents was ever portrayed by the media as domestic violence. The words “domestic violence” seem to be reserved exclusively for male-on-female violence only. When women do choose to be violent as in the above examples, muscles simply don’t matter. A shotgun will beat muscles every time. The national figures for the United States show that 30% of spousal murders, the most lethal form of domestic violence, are committed by women against their husbands or partners.12

It wasn’t just the domestic violence activists who intentionally ignored women’s violence. Our culture also tends to look the other way. For whatever reasons, a woman’s violence is simply not as upsetting to see. Just watch television shows or movies to see the frequency of women hitting or kicking men. In today’s world it is a given for women to hit men on TV but not the other way around. Everyone sees this but few seem to get upset or to protest. We are living with a huge double-standard where a woman’s violence against a man is something we see in cartoons, movies, commercials, or TV as innocuous or even comical. We see plenty of violence from men towards other men but when we see violence from men towards women it is seen as anything but comical or innocuous; it is seen as deadly. This double-standard likely increases the chances for women’s violence in relationships to be overlooked by the media, the general public and by domestic violence workers.

It is also likely true that once these activists were looking for funding for their endeavors from the government or private institutions, the stories about “vulnerable women in great need of safety” brought much more attention and promises of funding than did a similar story of a man being abused by his wife. Every politician wanted to be seen as the one helping solve this problem by “making women safe in their own homes”. Those stories about men as victims simply didn’t have the same traction. No politician wanted to touch those. For them, rather than help male victims in their lobbying for funds, the stories of abused men would likely muddy the waters and detract from the powerful images of women-in-need. The stories about men-in-need were also completely counter to the growing ideology that men were the source of all domestic violence. An abused man simply didn’t fit into that framework and would likely have decreased the success of any unisex funding efforts.

It is easy to see how the ideology of men as the source of the domestic violence problem likely developed over the initial years of domestic violence activism. It fit with the image that the media was helping to portray. It fit with the feminist idea that men were “the problem” and it surely helped in advocating for domestic violence funding. There were good reasons simply to not bring up men-as-victims.

The Duluth Model

In the early 1980s an important event transpired in the history of domestic violence prevention. A group of domestic violence activists met in Duluth, Minnesota after a particularly gruesome murder of a wife by a husband. The group started to put together what would eventually become the “Duluth Model”, which has since become a staple ideological protocol for most domestic violence agencies in the US. In some states, its use is mandated. In many ways it has become the handbook for those working with domestic violence victims and situations. It is important to understand the initial questions asked by the Duluth gathering at the inception of the Duluth Model theory. Here are questions asked by those at the initial gathering: “Why is she the target of his violence” “Why does he think he is entitled to have power?” “How does the community support his violence?”13 As you can see from the questions, the Duluth Model at its very beginnings was only about male violence towards women. It was never about mutual violence or a woman’s violence towards a man. It was only about men beating women. It had no remarks or suggestions for abused men or about female perpetrators. The flagship theory of the industry only focused on women as victims and men as perpetrators. Australian author Tom Graves has evaluated the Duluth Model and lists its major problems. Here are the first three:

1. It believes that violence is masculine and that men are responsible for violence
2. It refuses to remark or address the fact that men can be the recipients of violence
3. It holds only men responsible as change agents.14

These three errors play a huge part in the failure of the Duluth Model to address the needs of male victims and the needs of female perpetrators. Let’s hypothesize a possible example of the damage that can occur from stereotyping victims of domestic violence: Imagine both wife and husband have been drinking. The wife, in a burst of anger, throws a wine bottle at her husband who was hit on the arm as he blocked the bottle. The wife next comes after him with a wine glass and tries to throw wine in his face. He blocked that also and in the process, the wine glass breaks and cuts his wife. The police arrive. They find a bleeding and crying wife and a husband who claimed that he had been attacked. Their Duluth Model training has taught them that the vast majority of victims of domestic violence are female and so, what do they do? Arrest the man and put him in jail! No matter how much the man might try to explain his actions, the police would likely refuse to listen. In fact, once the wife realizes her husband was going to jail, she would probably start to tell the truth, that she was the attacker. The police would of course hear none of it and off to jail the man would go.

This man would be placed into a mandatory Duluth Model domestic violence “educational” group. He would not be allowed to speak the truth of what had happened. When he would try to explain that it was his wife who had attacked him, he would be told to be quiet and focus on his violence. The truth of his being abused would be seen by the group leaders as an “excuse” that keeps him from taking responsibility for his violence. He would be forced never to mention his wife’s violence. He would have two choices. One would be to tell the truth and not “graduate” from the educational sessions, which would leave him legally vulnerable. The other would be to lie and say he was the abuser. We could guess that this man would choose to lie simply in order to ”graduate” from the “training”.

This sort of example shows how the system can take on the role of what is being called a “third party” abuser. The spouse no longer has a need to batter. The police and community agencies are now taking over that role by treating the falsely-accused man in a manner that lacks respect for him as a human being who has been abused or as a citizen with the right to be presumed innocent or to have his side of a given unwitnessed incident fairly considererd. This is what can happen when pre-judgments arising from stereotypes are used instead of impartial mindsets coupled with factual analysis.

Since its inception, the Duluth Model has been reworked and made more “gender neutral”, but it continues to fail miserably in its capacity to address the needs of men who are victimized and of women who are violent.

If you visit the Duluth Model web site, you can see that their primary focus on female victims continues to this day. The Duluth site claims that women account for as many as 97% of the victims of domestic violence.15 We know from both police reports and from peer-reviewed research that this is far from the truth. It does however show that the Duluth Model continues to be focused on female victims and has failed in taking current thinking and research into account, thus placing male victims at risk and allowing female perpetrators to go unchecked or psychiatrically untreated for their abusiveness.

The Duluth Model spreads to the community

As the domestic violence industry grew, the Duluth Model took a greater and greater hold on the theoretical practices of domestic violence agencies. As it took this greater hold, the ideas of domestic violence being only about men beating women spread farther. As funding grew for domestic violence agencies, the funding for trainings grew correspondingly. The 1994 federal Violence Against Women Act started pouring about one billion dollars per year into domestic violence endeavors. A part of that money was spent on trainings given to the court systems, judges, police, lawyers and domestic violence workers. The message the workshops broadcast was founded on the Duluth Model ideology that women were the vast majority of domestic violence victims and men were only a tiny minority. More and more, the ideas of the Duluth Model became the standard. It was presented as fact that domestic violence is pretty much only about women being abused by men. That ideology is now set firmly in place. The early work of the activists has focused exclusively on abused women and now the theoretical framework that guided their work is firmly planted in an ideology that focuses on female victims but ignores the needs of male victims and the actions of female perpetrators. Now these ideas have been spread successfully into our community agencies and public institutions.

Opposing Voices to the Duluth Model — Researchers

Murray Straus, Richard Gelles, and Susan Steinmetz are early researchers on issues of domestic violence. This group published a book in 1982 that ran counter to the feminist ideology. The book, Behind Closed Doors,16 said clearly that domestic violence was a two-way street with both men and women responsible as perpetrators and victims. The response was swift and powerful. Upon publication, Straus, Gelles and Steinmetz were immediately seen as enemies. Prior to their findings that there is gender symmetry in domestic violence, they had been praised and held in high esteem as instrumental in the early research on domestic violence. But once they found data that contradicted the feminist belief that men were the only perpetrators and women the only victims, things changed drastically. At that point, they lost their glow and became villains to those who supported the ideas of women as the only victims of domestic violence. Death threats and other avenues of intimidation were used to try to silence them. Murray Straus, Ph.D., describes his struggle with intimidation and explains his own reluctance to publish his results that went counter to the feminist domestic violence ideology:

Researchers who have an ideological commitment to the idea that men are almost always the sole perpetrator often conceal evidence that contradicts this belief. Among researchers not committed to that ideology, many (including me and some of my colleagues) have withheld results showing gender symmetry to avoid becoming victims of the vitriolic denunciations and ostracism. Thus, many researchers have published only the data on male perpetrators or female victims, deliberately omitting the data on female perpetrators and male victims.17

In essence, these researchers were being bullied. In fact, Straus published a paper in 2006 that describes not only the intimidation they suffered but also chronicles the specific ways that the feminist researchers made certain that their own data only produced the desired results that reflected the ideology that women were the primary victims of domestic violence.18

The research by Straus, Gelles, Steinmetz, and many others which clearly shows that men are victims has been available through journal articles for years.19 Some activists have drawn from the statistics and findings and tried to use this information to change the system to encourage existing services to include focus on male victims of domestic violence. When activists make such attempts, they are usually met with the same results most every time: the domestic violence industry claims that the peer-reviewed research is inaccurate and cites numbers from their own clinical settings, hospital settings, and emergency rooms. The numbers they cite are very different from the research numbers and clearly show that domestic violence is indeed primarily a “men beat women” problem. So who is correct? The quick answer is BOTH. The research numbers from scientists such as Strauss, Gelles, and Steinmetz are correct from their perspective and from the populations they studied. These numbers were usually drawn from the general population and reflect the “average” person or family.

But how about the domestic violence agencies numbers? Well, they are correct also, but one must note that the sample they draw from is very biased. They draw from a population that has been utilizing services specifically built for women who were abused. It is little wonder that they would therefore be more likely to show greater numbers of female victims. Imagine a hospital that was built specifically for the treatment of caucasian diabetics. When they look at their own numbers and stats they would assuredly say that the majority of victims of diabetes are white! Since their services are built to serve whites, that is exactly what their stats will show. One would also assume that they would be teaching in the community about whites and diabetes and also do Public Service Announcements for whites who might have diabetes. The same thing happens within the domestic violence industry. The entire system was originally built for women. The name of the law the Violence Against Women Act makes that very clear. It is little wonder that the statistics they compile and the research done within the domestic violence industry on their own populations would reflect that women were the primary victims. You see this idea filter down to the clinical level where almost every group for domestic violence victims in Maryland is for women only. The treatment groups are almost always built for male perpetrators and female victims. The overwhelming majority of public service announcements on domestic violence are focused on female victims. When you solicit for a certain type of victim, it is no surprise that your statistics, trainings and treatment will center around that particular type of client.

Opposing Voices to the Duluth Model — Clinicians

While the peer-reviewed research has been noting male victims for years, the clinical side of the equation has now started getting noticed. In 2007, the American Psychiatric Association published an article in the August issue of Psychiatric News titled: “Men Shouldn’t be Overlooked as Victims of Partner Violence.”20 The article cited some of the research findings about women being more likely then men in relationship to initiate domestic violence and focused on issues of reciprocal interpersonal violence versus nonreciprocal violence. Here is a quote from the article:

Regarding perpetration of violence, more women than men (25 percent versus 11 percent) were responsible. In fact, 71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women.

And another:

As for physical injury due to intimate partner violence, it was more likely to occur when the violence was reciprocal than nonreciprocal. And while injury was more likely when violence was perpetrated by men, in relationships with reciprocal violence it was the men who were injured more often (25 percent of the time) than were women (20 percent of the time). “This is important as violence perpetrated by women is often seen as not serious,” Whitaker and his group stressed.

The word is getting out that both men and women are perpetrators and victims of domestic violence.

Opposing Voices to the Duluth Model — The Courts

The courts are also starting to take notice of the discrimination that men face in the domestic violence industry. In the Woods et. al. vs California case in 2008, a Superior Court in Sacramento, ruled that male domestic violence victims had been unconstitutionally denied services. The court held that state laws violated men’s equal protection rights by excluding male victims from state-funded domestic violence services. The court found: “domestic violence is a serious problem for both women and men” and that “men experience significant levels of domestic violence as victims.”21 The court also found a percentage of state-funded programs deny men services they are entitled to receive.

Then, in October 2009, a West Virginia judge struck down state rules for regulating domestic violence shelters because they operate “on the premise that only men can be batterers and only women can be victims” and “exclude adult and adolescent males from their statutory right to safety and security free from domestic violence based only on their gender.”22

Are there men who fall through the cracks?

We have seen how the domestic violence industry has had a history of blaming men and masculinity for domestic violence. This sort of theoretical assumption has a negative impact on the willingness of men to seek help. The men, not unlike the early female victims of domestic violence in the 1970’s who were very reluctant to seek treatment, are certain that no one cares about their situation and are highly unlikely to seek out services when not invited. What compounds this problem for men is that their gender is blamed for the original problem.

We have learned from Maryland State Police statistics that men comprise about 25% of the victims of domestic violence in Maryland.23 What we don’t know is the percentage of males seeking treatment as victims of domestic violence. In checking with a number of Maryland Domestic Violence agencies, they often say that the number of male victims is very small. Some of the treatment centers claim that men are only 4% of their clients. If the State Police count men as 25% of the 20,000 victims of domestic violence recorded annually in Maryland and the agencies that offer treatment for domestic violence say that men are only 4% of the victims that request treatment, that seems to leave a huge number of men who are untreated victims. It seems likely that a large percentage of the 5000+ men who are reported by State Police as victims of domestic violence in Maryland are falling through the cracks and not getting the help they need and are entitled to as citizens and residents.

What once started as a righteous cause to help battered women has evolved over the years to be something that seems to help battered women but also seems to neglect the needs of violent women and battered men and ignores the imperatives that the fundamental demands our tradition of justice holds dear. Both the media and academia seem to focus solely on female victims of domestic violence, with a much smaller focus or none at all on male victims. Researchers doing peer-reviewed research have consistently found evidence that men and women are both victims of domestic violence, but this finding has not been translated to changing the treatment that men receive in domestic violence agencies. Clinical groups such as the American Psychiatric Association are beginning to alert the public and clinicians that men are indeed a sizable percentage of domestic violence victims. The courts have also started pointing out the discrimination that is present in many domestic violence agencies that treat men and women differently.
This report is not claiming that men are never served through domestic violence agencies in the state of Maryland. It is however claiming that Maryland’s domestic violence services have traditionally been created for women only and this has a chilling effect on men’s usage of these facilities.

A Proposal For Practical Change

There is a domestic violence group named “Safe For All” that offers trainings nationwide and is particularly aware of the many issues around domestic violence, including those of male victims and of people in homosexual relationships, also an under-recognized and under-served group. Their web address is http://safe4all.org/24 The National Family Law Legislative Resource Center, www.nfvlrc.org25 represents the nation’s leading authorties, clinicians, and researchers on domestic violence and could also offer trainings and consultations.26

Although calls to Maryland shelters and crisis lines to test for discriminatory handling of reports have at the present time not been conducted, there is no question such testing can be conducted and most likely will be conducted in order to support lawsuits similar to the successful ones used in the legal cases in California and West Virginia cited above. The results of such testing in Maryland would likely mirror these results: In a national poll by Clark University, female researchers studied 302 abused men who sought help. Their key findings were that 63.9% of men who called hotlines were told they only helped women, and 68.7% said the hotlines were not at all helpful. Of those that contacted a local domestic violence (shelter) program, 95.3% said the program gave the impression that they were biased against men, 78.3% said they don’t help male victims, and 63.9% suggested the male caller was the batterer. (See; http://clarku.edu/faculty/dhines/results.htm.27 )

Therefore, in order to avoid costly and time-consuming lawsuits, it behooves the State of Maryland to require all domestic violence service organizations that receive pass-through federal funding or state funding of any type to receive training in non-discriminatory but practical approaches and techniques for handling domestic violence cases and suspected or reported cases. Such training is available via the two organizations referenced above, and also from others.

Whether or not gay and heterosexual men represent a small minority, a large minority, or an equal number of such victims as compared to women in the population is immaterial. The State of Maryland by its policies and procedures is obligated to encourage and support only those organizations that practice inclusion, diversity and non-discrimination. However, not even very large urban areas can financially support “separate but equal” domestic violence facilities and services for men and women. Not only is it not practical, but such a policy does little to combat discrimination and only encourages conflict over funding resources. 1. The purpose of this training is to provide guidance and directives in how to implement a non-discrimination policy in all service areas. 2. As part of this training program, a compliance coordination methodology shall be developed to assure that the non-discrimination policy is being carried out by agencies who participated in the training. 3. The training will provide cost-effective, implementable, and practical steps that each agency or organization can take to eliminate discrimination and incorporate gender and sexual orientation inclusive policies.

We respectfully request the Office of The Governor to immediately begin the implementation of such a training program.

REFERENCES

1 One example is the Allstate page <http://www.clicktoempower.org/> linked from the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence (MNADV) web page that rightly claims that 3 women each day (actually it is closer to 4) die of domestic violence in the United States. They fail to mention that nearly 2 men die each day due to being murdered by their female partner. This is a glaring omission. In 2007 1640 women were murdered by their male intimates and 700 men were murdered by their female partners. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=971 Why are the male victims omitted?

2 “Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey | National Institute of Justice.” Office of Justice Programs. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Dec. 2009. <http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/172837.htm>.

3 “Family Violence.” National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges . N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2009. <www.ncjfcj.org/content/view/20/94/>.

4 “National Coalition Against Domestic Violence.” National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Dec. 2009. <http://www.ncadv.org/learn/TheProblem.php>.

5 “Domestic Violence Facts: Maryland.” National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2009. <www.ncadv.org/files/Maryland.pdf>.

6 “Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence (MNADV).” Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence (MNADV). N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Dec. 2009. <http://mnadv.org/DV_Stats/ucr_stats.html>.

7 Whitaker, Daniel. “Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence.” Journal of Public Health 97.May (2007): 941-947. Print.

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.

10 Pence E. Some thoughts on philosophy. In Shepard M and Pence E (eds.): Coordinating Community Responses to Domestic Violence: Lessons from Duluth and Beyond. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers, 1999, p. 30.

11 McNeely, R. L., Cook, P. W. & Torres, J. B. (2001). Is domestic violence a gender issue or a human issue? Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 4 (4), 227-251.

12 “Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) – Intimate partner violence.” Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) . N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Jan. 2010. <http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=971>.

13 Paymar, Michael, and Ellen Pence. Education Groups for Men Who Batter: The Duluth Model. 1 ed. New York: Springer Publishing Company, 1993. Print.

14 Graves, Tom. Power and Response-ability: the human side of systems. London: Tetradian, 2008. Print.

15 Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, Home of the Duluth Model.” Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, Home of the Duluth Model. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Dec. 2009. <http://www.theduluthmodel.org/wheelgallery.php>.

16 Gelles, Richard J., and Murray Straus. Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family. New Ed ed. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2006. Print.

17 “Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symetry in Partner Violence.” University of New Hampshire. N.p., n.d. Web.18 Dec. 2009. <pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf>.

18 Ibid.

19 “REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY.” California State University, Long Beach. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Dec. 2009. <http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm>.

20 Arehart-Treichel, Joan. “Men Shouldn’t Be Overlooked as Victims of Partner Violence.” APA Psychiatric News 42.15 (2007): 31-33. Print.

21 “Appeals court decision supports battered men.” San Francisco Bay Area — News, Sports, Business, Entertainment, Classifieds: SFGate. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Dec. 2009. <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/15/BA3S13HOLS.DTL>.

22 Press, The Associated. “W.Va. domestic-violence program regulations voided – News – The Charleston Gazette – West Virginia News and Sports.” – – The Charleston Gazette – West Virginia News and Sports. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Dec. 2009. <http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200910080509>.

23 “Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence (MNADV).” Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence (MNADV). N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2009. <http://www.mnadv.org/DV_Stats/ucr_stats.html>.

24 “Welcome!.” Stop Abuse for Everyone. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2009. <safe4all.org>.

25 Robinson, Michael. “National Family Violence Legislative Resource Center.” National Family Violence Legislative Resource Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Jan. 2010. <http://www.nfvlrc.org/>.

26 Please consult with the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Maryland Commission for Men’s Health for more information on these organizations.

27 “Results from Study on Men’s Experiences of Partner Aggression.” Clark University | One of 40 “Colleges that Change Lives”. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Jan. 2010. <http://clarku.edu/faculty/dhines/results.htm>.

Join the MenAreGood Community

To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today

What else you may like…

Videos

Posts

Articles

tgolden@tgolden

July 15, 2026

The Women's Health Narrative Meets the DATA

What if one of the most common claims in health policy simply isn’t true?

We’ve all heard the refrain: women are underfunded, under-researched, and left behind by the medical establishment. It’s repeated so often that most people never stop to ask for the evidence.

In this roundtable, Jack Kammer, Ed Bartlett, Ed Stephens, Jim Nuzzo, and I compare that narrative with the available data. We examine research funding, clinical trial participation, life expectancy, and the unintended consequences of policies that consistently prioritize one sex while neglecting the other.

This isn’t an argument against women’s health. It’s an argument for evidence, fairness, and a healthier future for everyone.

Link to the Feminist pdf that calls for 20 Billion dollars for women’s health!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IKEEZMGXtRNxU4n5K_M1d6k2w-ZP_wVT/view

Jim Nuzzo

The Nuzzo Newsletter on Substack http//jameslnuzzo.Substack.com
X: https://x.com/JamesLNuzzo

Jack Kammer

Jacks Substack Men’s ...

00:35:24

tgolden@tgolden

July 11, 2026

Mantoon: A Visit to the Doc

A visit to the Doc.

00:00:14

tgolden@tgolden

June 13, 2026

The Feminist Fortune Teller

Can you guess what she will say?

00:00:15

JuanGoodman@JuanGoodman

July 21, 2026

Well worth watch it’s good seeing men calling out women’s bull shit when the same women are not use to fair honest responses!

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1JtTnYLC7K/?mibextid=wwXIfr

tgolden@tgolden

July 02, 2026

From Shooter to Heroine: The Glorification of Feminist Violence

I recently joined Hannah Spier, Janice Fiamengo, and Jim Nuzzo for a fascinating discussion about one of our culture’s most striking double standards: why violence by women is so often explained, excused, or even celebrated, while violence by men is treated very differently. We examine Valerie Solanas, the attempted murder of Andy Warhol, the SCUM Manifesto, and the film I Shot Andy Warhol, asking what the celebration and romanticizing of Solanas reveals about gynocentrism, empathy, and cultural bias. I think you’ll find it both thought-provoking and eye-opening.

tgolden@tgolden

June 04, 2026

Feminism and Liberal Democracy, can liberal democracy survive feminism?

I found this essay both thought-provoking and unsettling. The post examines how ideological capture can occur gradually—not through dramatic political revolutions, but through the accumulation of influence within institutions that are expected to remain impartial. The result is an essay that asks difficult questions about feminism, liberal democracy, and the future of open debate. I think many of you will find it worth your time.

https://critiquingfeminism.substack.com/p/feminism-and-liberal-democracy

CRITIQUINGFEMINISM.SUBSTACK.COM

Feminism and Liberal Democracy

Can Liberal Democracy Survive Feminism?

tgolden@tgolden

July 30, 2026

When Research Pushes a Narative

What I Discovered After Reading Amerix Instead of Reading About Him

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

Read full Article

tgolden@tgolden

July 27, 2026

Seeing Men Clearly

The Hidden Lens Shaping How We See Boys and Men

A Note Before You Begin

This is the opening chapter of a book I have been writing called Seeing Men Clearly.

The book grew out of a simple question: Why are some forms of male suffering so difficult for us to recognize, even when the evidence is directly in front of us?

From the beginning, I made a conscious decision to avoid writing a book that assigns blame. Rather than searching for villains, I have tried to understand the deeper historical, psychological, and cultural forces that have shaped how we think about boys and men. My hope is that if we can better understand these underlying dynamics, many of today’s conflicts and misunderstandings will begin to make more sense.

In recent years, more people have begun to recognize that boys and men face challenges that have too often gone unnoticed. Yet conversations about these issues can quickly become polarized, causing people to stop listening before the discussion has truly begun. I wanted to write a book that invites readers to look carefully at the evidence, consider a different perspective, and decide for themselves.

I am sharing this chapter now because I believe its central idea is too important to remain confined to a book or a website. If it resonates with you, I hope you’ll consider sharing it with others who may benefit from seeing these patterns more clearly.

As always, I welcome your thoughts and feedback.

Chapter One

Women and Children First

When the Titanic struck the iceberg on April 14, 1912, and the magnitude of the disaster became clear, a command emerged that would echo through history:

“Women and children first.”

The phrase has since become shorthand for moral decency. It evokes images of courage, sacrifice, and order in chaos. It is taught in classrooms, praised in films, and woven into our understanding of what it means to be honorable. The men who stepped aside that night are remembered as noble. The expectation that they should do so is rarely questioned.

And yet, very few people pause to consider what that command reveals.

The Titanic was not an isolated moment. Maritime tradition had long held that in emergencies, women and children were to be prioritized for survival. The principle was considered civilized. It distinguished order from barbarism.

But beneath the nobility lies a moral asymmetry so familiar we rarely examine it. In moments of mortal danger, women’s lives are prioritized while men’s lives are expected to be risked. This expectation is not controversial. It is not debated. It is instinctively accepted.

The question is not whether the instinct is understandable. It clearly is.

The question is why it feels so natural.

Imagine that the command aboard the Titanic had been:

“Men and children first.”

Most people would recoil instinctively. The order would feel grotesque, unjust, and almost unthinkable. We would immediately ask why women’s lives had been placed below men’s and how any civilized society could accept such a rule.

Yet “women and children first” produces almost no comparable discomfort. It feels honorable. Natural. Even morally necessary.

The facts have changed. Our moral intuition has not. The same moral asymmetry appears in modern institutions.

More than a century later, only men in the United States are required to register for Selective Service. Failure to do so can carry legal consequences. Women are exempt. The justification often rests on combat roles, tradition, or biological difference. But beneath those explanations lies a deeper assumption: in times of national danger, the lives of men are treated as more expendable than the lives of women.

Imagine reversing the arrangement. Imagine requiring only women to register for potential military conscription while exempting men. The reaction would be immediate and fierce. It would be called discriminatory, unjust, and oppressive.

Yet the current arrangement provokes little sustained moral outrage.

Why?

The instinct to protect women and children is often described as chivalry. It is framed as virtue. And in many ways, it is. Throughout human history, men have risked and sacrificed their lives to defend families, communities, and nations. War memorials stand in nearly every town, bearing overwhelmingly male names. The expectation of male sacrifice in defense of others has been normalized for generations.

It is not cruel. It is not consciously malicious. It is simply assumed. And assumptions, when shared collectively, become invisible

The pattern extends far beyond disasters and military service. In public emergencies, evacuation protocols routinely prioritize women and children. In humanitarian crises, aid campaigns frequently emphasize the vulnerability of women and girls. In media coverage of tragedy, particular attention is often drawn to female victims, even when male casualties are numerically greater.

The emphasis feels compassionate. It feels humane. But it also reveals a hierarchy of concern. When women suffer, it feels urgent. When men suffer, it feels unfortunate. That difference is rarely articulated.

It is simply felt.

None of this requires resentment to observe. It does not require hostility toward women. It requires only the willingness to notice a pattern.

The pattern is this: our culture instinctively treats female vulnerability as morally primary. Male vulnerability, by contrast, is often conditional. It must be demonstrated, justified, or placed into context before it receives the same degree of concern.

The phrase “women and children first” is not a policy manual. It is a moral symbol. It tells us something about who we instinctively protect and who we expect to endure. The instinct itself may be rooted in evolutionary pressures, reproductive strategy, social stability, or simple empathy toward those perceived as physically smaller or less capable of defense. Explanations vary.

What matters for our purposes is not origin but operation.

Whatever its origins, this instinct became deeply embedded in our moral thinking. Over time it came to feel less like a preference and more like common sense. As we will see later, blind spots often begin as useful adaptations. The question for this book is not how the instinct originated, but how it continues to shape our perceptions today.

When a moral reflex becomes a cultural default, it begins shaping institutions. Education. Research. Public policy. Funding priorities. Media narratives. Legal frameworks. Over time, what began as an adaptive instinct gradually becomes social structure. And once a structure has existed long enough, it no longer appears to be a structure at all.

It simply feels normal.

If we are to examine modern debates about gender honestly, we must begin here—not with ideology, political movements, or competing grievances—but with the underlying moral gravity that quietly tilts our collective responses.

We admire the men who stepped aside on the Titanic.

We require men to register for war.

We instinctively organize compassion around women and children.

None of these reactions feel unusual. That is precisely the point.

The question is not whether the instinct to protect women is wrong. The question is what happens when an instinct becomes so familiar that we no longer recognize it as an instinct.

Before we can discuss policy, research, or political movements, we must first name the moral pattern that makes those policies and reactions feel so natural.

There is a word for that pattern. In the next chapter, we'll give it a name and begin exploring how it quietly shapes our understanding of boys and men.

Read full Article

tgolden@tgolden

July 20, 2026

Fathers and Divorce: The Grief No One Sees

Why One Divorce Can Feel Like Twelve Different Losses

Fathers and Divorce: The Grief No One Sees

When women divorce, the public conversation often emphasizes freedom, personal growth, empowerment, and the opportunity to begin again. Books, articles, support groups, and even friends reinforce the idea that she is beginning a new chapter of life. Men, by contrast, are far more likely to have their suffering overlooked or minimized. If they struggle, people may assume they are simply angry, bitter, or paying the consequences for their own mistakes. Their grief often goes unseen.

As a therapist who has spent many years helping people through grief, I’ve often been struck by how poorly we understand what divorce can mean for many men. People often talk about divorce as though it were a single event: “The marriage ended.” But for many men, divorce is not one loss. It is ten or fifteen losses, all arriving within a matter of months. No wonder so many struggle.

Part of the reason we miss this is because we misunderstand grief itself. When people think of grief, they usually think of death. A spouse dies. A parent dies. A child dies. We understand that these losses bring grief because something precious has been taken away.

But grief does not only follow death.

Grief follows loss.

And some experiences involve so many losses occurring at once that they can evoke a grief similar to the one that follows the death of someone we love.

Divorce is one of them.

Yet beneath the legal documents and the practical changes, many men are mourning an extraordinary number of losses all at once. Until we begin to see those losses, we will continue to misunderstand why divorce can be one of the most devastating experiences of a man’s life.

The Loss of a Wife

The most obvious loss is the marriage itself. Even when the relationship has been difficult, the loss of a spouse often means losing the person who at one time shared everyday life. The person who knew your routines. Who heard your stories. Who sat beside you at dinner. Who helped create a home. That daily companionship disappears almost overnight. The loss may have occurred long ago—perhaps even shortly after you were married—but it is only now that the loss becomes complete.

The Loss of Being Left

This may be one of the deepest wounds of all. When a spouse dies, the separation is usually beyond anyone’s control. Neither partner chose it, and it is not something either of them wanted. Divorce can be very different. If your wife decides to leave, the loss carries another painful message. Whether she intends it or not, many men hear: “I no longer choose you.” That is an additional loss and a powerful rejection. Many men begin asking questions that are difficult to answer. “If the person who knew me best decided to leave... what does that say about me?” The grief of divorce can often be intertwined with abandonment, shame, self-doubt, and a significant loss of confidence.

The Loss of Children

Perhaps no loss hurts more. Many fathers go from seeing their children every day to seeing them every other weekend—or even less. People often think fathers miss the birthdays and holidays. They do. But they also miss the ordinary moments: helping with homework, driving to soccer practice, bedtime stories, cooking dinner together, watching a movie on a rainy Saturday afternoon. Those ordinary moments, many thousands of them, are what fatherhood is made of. When they’re gone, the loss can be overwhelming.

The Loss of Home

A house is more than wood and drywall. It holds memories: first steps, Christmas mornings, family dinners, laughter, arguments, birthdays, watching your children grow. Leaving the family home often feels like leaving an entire chapter of your life behind. For many men the house is either sold or no longer your residence. That loss can be both painful and disorienting.

These losses bring something that surprises many people: chaos. Life is not simply different—it becomes disordered. The routines, relationships, roles, and sources of stability that once anchored a man’s life can disappear all at once, making it increasingly difficult to find a path back to solid ground.

This kind of chaos is familiar to anyone who has experienced the death of a loved one. Profound grief often shatters the order of life. It is this chaos that many men find most disorienting. The familiar ways of finding their center are gone, leaving them in a landscape that feels unfamiliar, unstable, and profoundly lonely.

The Loss of Purpose

Many men organize their lives around providing for their families. The long hours, the sacrifices, the stress of earning a living all make sense because someone they love depends on them. Purpose is often woven into responsibility.

After divorce, many continue working just as hard. But they return each evening to an empty apartment. The paycheck still arrives. The responsibilities continue. Yet the daily experience of providing has changed. The work remains, but the purpose feels different. For some men, it is as though the “why” behind years of effort has quietly disappeared.

The Loss of Identity

Many men don’t simply lose a marriage. They lose identities they have carried for years: husband, daily father, protector, problem solver, provider, family man. These are not merely titles. They become part of how a man understands himself and his place in the world.

When those identities are suddenly stripped away, many men quietly ask a question they never imagined having to face: Who am I now? Rebuilding a life after divorce often means rebuilding an identity as well—a process that can take years.

The Loss of Financial Security

Divorce often means selling a home, dividing retirement savings, paying attorneys, supporting two households instead of one, and, in many cases, paying child support or alimony. Years—sometimes decades—of careful planning and hard work can disappear with astonishing speed.

The financial impact reaches beyond bank accounts. Dreams are postponed or abandoned. Retirement may be delayed. Vacations disappear. Hobbies are set aside. A home that once represented stability becomes a memory. Financial security is more than money; it is the confidence that tomorrow will be manageable. When that confidence is shaken, it becomes another profound loss layered on top of all the others.

The Loss of Friends and Community

Divorce rarely affects only two people. Friendships often change. Couples choose sides. Churches become uncomfortable. Neighborhoods no longer feel like home. Even familiar restaurants or vacation spots may become reminders of a life that no longer exists.

For many couples, it is the wife who has served as the social conductor—maintaining friendships, organizing gatherings, keeping in touch with extended family, and sustaining the couple’s social life. When the marriage ends, many of those relationships disappear almost overnight. Invitations stop coming. Mutual friends drift away. Family connections become strained or vanish altogether.

A man’s world can quietly become much smaller, leaving him not only grieving the loss of his marriage but also the community that once surrounded it.

The Loss of the Future

When people marry, they almost always carry hopes for the future. They imagine building a life together, raising children, growing old side by side, celebrating holidays, welcoming grandchildren, traveling, retiring, and sharing the ordinary moments that make up a lifetime. These dreams become part of the marriage itself. They are not fantasies; they are emotional investments in a future that both partners expect to share.

When a marriage ends, that imagined future dies as well. The life the couple had been building together suddenly disappears. This is one of the least recognized losses of divorce. People grieve not only what has happened. They also grieve what will never happen.

Birthdays that will never be celebrated together. Vacations that will never be taken. Grandchildren who will never know the family as it was imagined. Growing old together becomes a future that no longer exists.

In many ways, this is grief for a life that was never lived but was deeply loved nonetheless.

The Loss of Being a Father

Many divorced fathers describe another painful loss. They still love their children every bit as much. Yet they may have little influence over daily routines, discipline, schools, medical decisions, or even where their children live. Loving deeply while having limited ability to protect, guide, or simply be present for your children is one of the most painful experiences a father can endure.

The loss is not simply one of control. It is the loss of everyday fatherhood. Bedtime conversations disappear. Helping with homework becomes less frequent. Family dinners, weekend routines, spontaneous hugs, rides to school, and quiet moments together may suddenly vanish or become occasional events governed by a custody schedule.

Many fathers also carry a constant awareness that important moments in their children’s lives are unfolding without them. First accomplishments, disappointments, new friendships, school events, illnesses, and ordinary daily experiences continue, but they are no longer there to witness them. They become spectators to a life they once helped shape.

This is a unique kind of grief because the children are still alive. The love remains fully intact. Yet the opportunity to live that love as a father is profoundly diminished.

The Loss of Reputation

Some men leave divorce carrying accusations. Others simply carry assumptions. People quietly wonder what he must have done. Friends become more distant. Coworkers become more cautious. Invitations become less frequent. Even when no one says anything directly, many men feel that they are being viewed through a different lens.

Our culture often reinforces these silent judgments. Divorced women are frequently portrayed as survivors, as women beginning a new chapter, rediscovering themselves, or reclaiming their lives. Divorced men, by contrast, are often viewed with suspicion. If the marriage ended, many assume he must have been controlling, emotionally unavailable, selfish, or somehow at fault. These assumptions are rarely spoken aloud, but they can be felt in conversations, in changed relationships, and in the subtle distance that develops between him and others.

Of course, some men bear responsibility for the end of their marriages, just as some women do. But cultural narratives often encourage us to ask what happened to her while wondering what he must have done. That difference shapes how compassion is distributed after divorce.

For many men, the result is a quiet but painful loss of reputation. They are not only grieving the end of a marriage; they are grieving the loss of how they are seen by the people around them.

The Loss of Hope

After enough losses accumulate, another danger appears. Some men stop believing that happiness is possible. Not because they are weak, but because everything that once gave their lives stability and meaning seems to have disappeared at the same time.

By now they are swimming in chaos. Every familiar landmark is gone. The routines that anchored them, the people who steadied them, the dreams that guided them, and the roles that defined them have all been disrupted. Chaos has a way of whispering a dangerous lie: There is no way out. Things will never be good again.

That lie can become one of the greatest dangers of divorce. The future begins to look like nothing more than an extension of today’s pain. Hope itself becomes another casualty.

Yet one of the most important truths about grief is that chaos is not permanent. It feels permanent while we are living through it, but it is not. As new routines emerge, new relationships form, and a new sense of purpose develops, hope can slowly return. The challenge is helping men survive long enough to discover that the voice of chaos is not telling the truth.

Death by a Thousand Losses

People sometimes ask why divorce affects men so profoundly. Perhaps they’re asking the wrong question. Imagine losing your wife, your children, your home, your daily purpose, your financial security, your identity, your friendships, your community, your future dreams, your reputation, your confidence, your hope, and the knowledge that someone once chose you above everyone else. Very few human experiences involve so many simultaneous losses. That is why divorce can produce such profound grief. Not because one thing was lost. But because an entire life disappeared.

A Final Thought

One of the greatest misunderstandings about grief is the belief that it belongs only to death. It doesn’t. Grief follows love. It follows attachment. It follows dreams. It follows identity. It follows every meaningful loss we experience.

For many divorced fathers, the deepest struggle is not the legal process itself. It is the accumulation of losses that follow it—the loss of daily fatherhood, home, community, identity, reputation, dreams, stability, and hope. Taken together, these losses create a kind of chaos that can make the future seem impossible to imagine.

Perhaps it is time to stop asking why so many divorced men struggle and begin asking what they have actually lost.

If we can learn to see divorce through the lens of grief rather than failure, we may finally begin to understand the silent suffering of millions of fathers. And with that understanding may come something many of them have long needed but seldom received: compassion.

Read full Article

Available on mobile and TV devices