MenAreGood
Using Research to Push a Narrative
October 03, 2024
post photo preview

Using Research to Push a Narrative

There’s a noticeable trend in research about men and women that often tells only part of the story. A prime example is domestic violence studies that falsely claim women are the sole victims, while ignoring men’s experiences. This happens in other areas too—like reproductive coercion, teen violence, healthcare, and others. Women’s troubles are spotlighted, while men’s are overlooked. Once you see this pattern, it’s hard to unsee it.

In this post, we’ll look at a study published in July of 2024, that employs a similar strategy—not by lying, but by omission. The researchers present only the part of the story that supports the narrative they want to push. And in this case, it’s clear.

___________________________

I came across a media article about boys and threats to their masculinity. From the picture below that  accompanies the article, I anticipated some dramatic findings on violence or hostility. 

 

The research claimed to investigate adolescent boys' responses to threats to their masculinity. Here's a quick summary of the study:

The study was simple. 207 boys, ages 10-14, were given two quizzes—one on stereotypically feminine topics like flowers, makeup, and dresses, and one on masculine topics like tools, guns, and cars. Regardless of their actual scores, the control group was told they had scored high on the masculine test and were congratulated. The boys in the experimental group, however, were told they scored well on the feminine quiz but poorly on the masculine one. In other words, they were told they were more like the girls—meant as a threat to their masculinity. The boys then took a third quiz, a word completion test designed to measure their level of aggression. The parents took a series of questionnaires to assess their parenting.

The researchers aimed to see if this perceived threat would spark aggression. (One might also ask if the boy's aggression might be sparked simply because they were lied to. After all, they probably were well aware that they knew more about guns and cars than makeup and dresses.)

This type of response has been studied before and has been identified as "threat vigilance," a common reaction to status threats among men and boys, often linked to testosterone levels. Studies show that when a male's status is challenged, he is more likely than a female to respond aggressively, partly due to higher testosterone. However, prepubescent boys typically don't display this aggression, as they have not yet reached the higher testosterone stage of life. Curiously, despite examining what appears to be this same phenomenon, the study in question makes no mention of the previous research about threat vigilance. As we will later discover, the researcher was aware of this concept but chose not to include it in the study.

The media article I first read didn't mention threat vigilance or even mention testosterone, though it's a key factor in this type of research. Thinking I might have missed something, I searched for other articles on the study and found many—but still, no mention of testosterone in any of the articles.

What I did find were media portrayals showing angry, hostile boys, even though the researchers themselves didn’t claim the boys were violent.

 

Here's a quote that appeared in many of the articles: “Beyond just aggression, manhood threats are associated with a wide variety of negative, antisocial behaviors, such as sexism, homophobia, political bigotry, and even anti-environmentalism,” said the researcher, Adam Stanaland. Wait, what? How did we jump from threats to status to sexism, homophobia, political bigotry, and even anti-environmentalism? This felt like a massive leap, though it's worth noting the researchers didn’t directly say boys were violent. It seems the media exaggerated that part as seen in the photos, and I doubt the researchers did much to correct it.

Somewhat confused about this, I decided to find the actual study and read it. Testosterone was mentioned—once—in the limitations section, suggesting that future studies could explore its role. This made no sense, given that existing research clearly links testosterone to threat vigilance and status defense. This puzzled me and I was determined to find out what was going on so I wrote to the researcher with some questions.  He got right back to me and we carried on a conversation.  He was a very nice fellow and I do appreciate his initially taking the time to field my questions.  The sense I got was that he was interested in pushing the "it's all about socialization" ideas.  I looked  up his history and his graduate work was done at Duke University and he was a member of the Duke "Identity and Diversity Lab" for 5 years. The name says it all.  I think my assumptions were pretty close.  He was likely to follow the ideas that socialization is the most critical element of human development.  

 

When I asked him, "Isn't threat vigilance related to testosterone levels?" he responded: “Basal testosterone and aggression are certainly related, but here our focus was figuring out whether a social mechanism (i.e., typicality/masculinity threat) could also cause aggression among adolescent boys (as it does among men), as well as when/why.”

In other words, he didn’t answer the question.  He acknowledged the biological link but chose to focus only on the social aspect. To me, this is like studying a car engine but only looking at the spark plug and ignoring fuel, air, and combustion. A well-rounded study would acknowledge that both testosterone (biological) and socialization play important roles. Omitting one side feels like an intentional way to push a narrative.

I asked the researcher again if he was aware of studies showing testosterone’s role in threat vigilance, and he responded: “Yes, I’m familiar with the complex role between testosterone, threat vigilance, status-seeking, and aggression. My previous explanation was all to say that there is definitely a biological component to aggression, but our results provide evidence that there is also a notable social component.”

Basically, he’s saying, "Yes, testosterone matters, but we’re focusing on the social side." And that’s how narratives are built, by telling only a part of the story. Unfortunately, this study—like many others—implies that boys could be “fixed” if only they were taught to be less aggressive when their masculinity is threatened. But this ignores the biological factor. Once boys hit puberty, higher testosterone levels biologically predispose them to defend their status. Yet, this crucial piece of information is left out of the conversation.

Puberty

The study focused on 10-14 year old males from pre-puberty through mid- and late-puberty stages. The researchers made several statements that highlighted their views on puberty, including this one:

"We contend that puberty represents a developmental shift in boys' psychological relationship with societal definitions of their gender."

The researchers acknowledged that puberty is an important factor in these behaviors, but what does puberty primarily signal? It highlights the increase in testosterone levels in young males. However, the researchers never mention testosterone. Instead, they describe puberty like this:

"We contend that puberty represents a developmental shift in boys' psychological relationship with societal definitions of their gender. Puberty causes boys to recognize themselves—their bodies, their relationships, and so forth—as being adult-like, which means they must now contend with newly discovered societal expectations of manhood: a precarious status that is earned, can be lost, and is only regained by conforming to rigid norms, such as aggression."

Their interpretation suggests that boys, upon recognizing their maturing bodies, must now face "societal prescriptions about manhood." The focus here is entirely on socialization, asserting that boys must conform to rigid societal norms. There's no mention of testosterone—it's all framed around societal pressures, leaving biological factors out of the discussion entirely.

The Word Completion Test

Another issue I had with this study was their method of measuring aggression: a word completion test. The boys were asked to fill in blanks like "GU_" (which could be "gum" or "gun") and "_UNCH" (which could be "punch" or "lunch"). The number of aggressive words chosen supposedly indicated their level of aggression.  I find it hard to believe this test accurately measures aggression, but the researcher assured me it had been validated in other studies.  It seems to me that they are taking a cognitive response and then expecting that cognition to predict an actual behavior.  Seems wonky to me.  I was fairly new to the word completion tests and poked around a bit and found that there is considerable controversy about this.  As there should be. 

I continue to think this is a very weak indicator but the study got magazines to print pics like this based on choosing gun rather than gum:

 
 

These pictures, like the other pictures in this post, imply not only aggressiveness but hostility.  Seems like a jump to me.  There is a big difference between aggressively defending your status, which is what threat vigilance does, and overt hostility or violence.  Looks like they are trying to imply the later.  But this is what the media wants.  Give them some research that shows the men and boys are aggressive and they will put violence on the front page.  Whatever happened to the word assertive which is similar to aggressive?  I think assertive might be a better word for men defending their status.  Their defense in some cases might get aggressive but the norm might be simply responding to the challenge in a strong, rational, and assertive manner.

The Sample 

The sample used in the study also raised some questions. Nearly 90% of the parents involved were mothers, and more than two-thirds were single parents. This is far above the national average for single-parent households, which hovers around 20-25%. Research shows that boys raised by single mothers are more likely to exhibit aggression, yet the study doesn’t address how this may have influenced the findings.

"Regarding the parents themselves, 87.4% identified as women (mothers) and 12.6% were men (fathers). Most parents were the sole primary caretaker of the participant (68.6%) or shared caretaking responsibilities equally with another person (30.0%)." 

I asked the researcher about the chances of a biased sample due to the large number of single mothers and here is what he said:

"I’m not sure that it’s fair to say that our sample comprising a majority of mothers is "strong indication that [we] had a biased sample.” Research has shown that although dads are more involved now in their child’s caregiving than they used to be, moms are still vastly overrepresented (hyperlink) as the child’s primary caretaker. It makes sense, then, that our sample would comprise more mothers than fathers—i.e., it’s representative and not biased (in fact, a sample with half mothers and half fathers would be biased against the reality of parenting in the U.S.)." 

Maybe so, but he doesn't address the over-abundance of single mothers in the sample and how that is far from the norm for parenthood in the US today. I  specifically pointed out the single mothers issue and he simply avoided it and focused on mothers doing the majority of child care.  The link he provided was not about single mothers, it seemed to be about two parent families.  If he had 87% mothers in his sample and they were all from two parent families, then that would be a different story.  But that was not the case.  It was 87% mothers and 2/3rds single parents.  This tells us that it is likely most of those mothers were single parents.  A predominance of single mothers should be a red flag, but not in his view.  Could the excess of single mothers have had an impact on the findings?  I do wonder.

Framing Parents as the Problem

One key takeaway from the study was that boys from conservative, less wealthy families with parents teaching “hegemonic masculinity” were more aggressive in response to the threat. The tool used to assess this was the Male Role Norms Inventory, which includes statements like these:

  • Men should know how to fix cars.

  • Men should be physically tough.

  • It would be awful if a man enjoyed dressing like a woman.

  • A man should be able to fix most things around the house.

  • A man should always be the boss.

  • Men should lead their household.

  • A man should always be ready for sex.

If the parents score high on this questionnaire they are assumed to be teaching their boys to be "hegemonic".  Hegemonic is seen as something bad. It's meant to say that men are controlling and dominant.   It comes from the writing of R. Connell who some time ago became a transwoman.  Many academics seem to find Conell's book as the essential word in Masculinities. The parts I have read seem highly anti-male.  Connell's book brought a great deal of change into the research on men where many of his ideas were unceremoniously and artificially planted into studies like in the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI).  I did a report on the CMNI and the very suspect manner that it was developed with a focus on how Connell's ideas magically appeared.  You can see that one here.

The researchers seemed to focus on the parental pressure (hegemonic attitudes) as being a prime motivator for the boy's aggressive responses.  They titled that variable pressured motivation (PM).  When reading the media articles it seemed that this parental pressure was being portrayed as being a large part of the reasons for the aggressive responses. This would lend credence to the idea that boys could be fixed if parents would just stop teaching them to be hegemonic males.  But wait a minute.  The PM variable (parental pressure) when paired with the threat variable (the word completion test) only had a significance score of p=.835.  Usually a score of .05 or below is considered to be significant so this one was far off the mark.  But they also had a variable that indicated the Degree of Puberty for the Boys (PDS) which showed that the only boys to appear aggressive in response to the word completion were boys who were in mid to late puberty.  When that PDS variable was paired with the threat variable (the word completion test) it came up with a score of p=.095.  Still not considered significant but surely more significant than the parental pressure variable.  When both the PM and the PDS were paired with the threat variable, voila!  They get a significance of <.001. 

Simply put, the data suggest that puberty (and its associated changes) has a stronger influence on the boys' aggression than social pressure alone.  This reinforces the idea that biological factors, like testosterone, may be important drivers for these aggressive responses, even if the study didn’t say so directly.

If puberty is so closely linked to aggression, and testosterone is one of the primary hormones behind puberty, doesn’t it stand to reason that testosterone might be a key factor? The fact that the puberty variable shows a stronger effect than pressured motivation only strengthens the argument that the biological side of adolescence is critical here.

 

One does tend to wonder if defending one’s status as a male is such a bad thing as it is being portrayed in this research.  There are some good reasons for it.  Men are reinforced and rewarded for independence and for their ability to protect.  Being seen as independent and able to protect is a part of the male hierarchy. But in a highly gynocentric atmosphere these once highly valued traits are framed in a negative manner. If you think about it, maybe the boys who failed to defend their status are actually the ones who need help?  

Conclusion

In the end,  I never got answers to all my questions. It’s been a month and a half since the researcher stopped responding, but I’m left thinking this study was designed to push a particular narrative, one that minimizes biological factors and highlights social ones. This leaves people pushed towards the narrative that boys can be fixed (and be more like the girls) if only the parents and the culture would stop teaching them to be aggressive.

It’s true that research often focuses on a specific, narrow aspect of psychology. I’ve read many studies that follow this pattern. However, in those studies, there was always a section that reviewed previous research on the topic and acknowledged earlier work in the field. This study, unfortunately, did not do that at all.

But there’s something important that can be gleaned from this study that even the researchers missed: pre-puberty boys didn’t respond aggressively to threats to their masculinity. This strongly suggests that puberty—and by extension, testosterone—is key to understanding these behaviors. Yet testosterone was never discussed in any meaningful way.

Just as an engine needs both a spark and fuel to run, adolescent boys’ aggressive responses to threats to their masculinity likely involve both social triggers and biological factors like testosterone. By including both in the analysis, we can move beyond a one-dimensional explanation and start to understand the complex interplay of factors that drive behavior during this critical period of development.

In the end, it’s not just about what makes the engine run — it’s about understanding all the components that come together to make it work smoothly. And when it comes to adolescence, testosterone is a big part of that equation.

Men Are Good

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
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

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

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

Worth a watch

September 29, 2025
post photo preview
Masculinity: Assessing the Damage and Reclaiming Your Strengths
 

This is the final stretch in the gynocentrism series. In the earlier posts we looked at a definition of gynocentrism from chatgpt, noted that most of us have at least a little gynocentrism , saw how it operates beneath the surface of our culture, and how it offers women both protection and access to resources. We’ve also seen how feminism took that ancient system and weaponized it, and why men often fail to resist.

Now it’s time to turn the focus inward. This essay is about what you can do — not on a political stage, not in the culture at large, but in your own life and relationships. Before we talk about strategies, we need to start with something more personal: assessing the damage.


How Masculinity Has Been Undermined​?

Over the last 50 years, the constant drumbeat of “toxic masculinity” has worn on men. It has told us that our natural strengths are not strengths at all, but flaws. Instead of celebrating courage, persistence, and logic, the culture tells men that these traits are threatening, outdated, or even abusive.

This has an impact. For many men, the constant assault has created a hesitation to speak plainly, to stand firm, or to trust their own instincts. It has discouraged men from telling the truth when it might offend, or from using reason when confronted with a storm of emotion. And it has silenced countless men in their relationships — men who fear that raising their voice will only make them look like the problem.


Why Logic Has Been Pushed Aside​?

One of the deepest wounds of this shift is the cultural denigration of logic. Logic has always been one of men’s great tools. It doesn’t mean men can’t feel or express emotion, but it does mean they often approach problems through reasoning, structure, and clarity.

Today, those strengths are dismissed. Instead, feelings are elevated above all else. We’ve built a culture where “offense” is treated as the greatest harm and “safety” the highest virtue. That may serve some interests, but it leaves men’s natural ways of approaching life and conflict diminished and distrusted.

And when logic is sidelined, relationships become lopsided. Without balance between reason and emotion, one side gains power while the other is pushed into the doghouse.


Younger Men Carry More of the Weight​?

It’s worth noting that not every generation has felt this equally. Older men — say, those over 60 — may have avoided the worst of the cultural training. They grew up in a time when being masculine wasn’t automatically suspect.

Younger men, though, especially those under 30, have been raised in a world where masculinity itself is under constant suspicion. For them, the damage runs deeper. They’ve been told from childhood that to be a man is to be potentially dangerous, oppressive, or shameful. The result? A generation of young men often hesitant to assert themselves, unsure of their own worth, and deeply confused about what it even means to be a man.


The Yin-Yang Distorted

A useful way to picture this imbalance is through the yin-yang symbol. Traditionally, it represents the balance of opposites: light and dark, masculine and feminine, logic and feeling. Each side is necessary, and each contains a seed of the other.

 

But in today’s cultural climate, the symbol is distorted. Instead of white and black in harmony, we are left with shades of gray and black — too much of one side, not enough of the other. Instead of honoring difference, we are addicted to sameness, to the feminine way, to an exaggerated focus on feeling. Masculinity isn’t balanced with femininity; it is suffocated by it.

 

Reclaiming Your Strengths

This is why men need to take stock of their own strengths — not as a luxury, but as a necessity. Ask yourself:

  • Am I able to stand my ground and speak the truth, even when it’s unpopular?

  • Do I navigate the world based on my own values, not someone else’s?

  • Can I hear feedback, weigh it fairly, and adjust my views without flinching?

  • Do I recognize the positive in my independence, self-reliance, and strength?

These are not flaws. These are gifts. They are the building blocks of masculine integrity.

Reclaiming them doesn’t mean ignoring emotion. It means recognizing your value, owning your abilities, and refusing to let a hostile culture tell you that your strengths are weaknesses.


Moving Forward

In this first step, the work is about clarity — seeing where the damage has been done, and beginning to recognize the strength you already have. In the next piece, we’ll get into the practical side: what it looks like to take those strengths into a relationship, how to set rules fairly, how to remain calm, how to frame your truth, and how to resist gynocentrism in the everyday dynamics of love and partnership.

Because the truth is this: relationships are risky, yes, but men who know their worth as men and practice these skills are far better equipped to navigate them.

​Men Are Good

Read full Article
September 22, 2025
post photo preview
Dismantling Men's Masculinity

 

 

In Chinese philosophy, yin and yang represent complementary forces. Yin, often linked with the feminine, is receptive, inward, intuitive, and fluid. Yang, the masculine counterpart, is active, outward, structured, and bold. Neither is “better” than the other — balance is the point.

Our culture has slipped into imbalance. Instead of valuing both masculine (yang) and feminine (yin) traits, we treat yang traits in men as problems to be corrected while elevating yin traits as the moral ideal. This creates an environment where boys and men are shamed for expressing natural masculine tendencies, while the feminine is glorified as “healthier,” “safer,” or “more evolved.” To make matters worse, men are framed as the problem—legitimizing attacks against them—while women and girls are cast as victims, granting them cultural permission to adopt masculine traits. Boys watch in bewilderment as this double standard unfolds: masculinity is shamed in men but praised in women, and women are celebrated for both yin and yang traits. It defies logic, yet nearly every cultural institution reinforces it. We are living in a truly unbalanced world.

Let’s look at seven primary yang characteristics and how they’ve been discouraged in men.

 

1. Active / Initiating

Yang energy moves forward, takes initiative, acts rather than waits. In boys, this shows up as physical play, restless energy, and risk-taking curiosity.

In schools, this natural boyish energy is often punished. Boys who get up, explore, or speak out are labeled “disruptive.” Increasingly, they’re medicated for ADHD — not because they’re sick, but because they don’t fit a classroom model designed for quiet compliance.

At the same time, receptivity and patience — yin traits — are praised. The quiet child is “well-behaved.” Girls who sit still are called “model students.” Boys learn quickly: initiative will get you in trouble, while passivity earns approval. Yet in a striking double standard, as boys are shamed for their energy, girls are increasingly praised for showing initiative and taking risks.


2. Rational / Analytical

Masculine energy emphasizes clarity and reason. But in relationships and therapy, men who rely on logic are accused of being “emotionally unavailable.” A husband who responds to conflict with analysis rather than emotional validation is told he’s “cold.”

Media reinforces this, portraying rational men as out of touch. Think of the sitcom father who is clueless and insensitive until the emotional wife rescues him with her intuition. Logic in men becomes something to mock or pathologize.

Meanwhile, intuition and emotional fluency are praised as “true intelligence.” Schools teach “emotional literacy” — overwhelmingly in a feminine key — while men’s rational approaches are sidelined. Yet here again, the double standard is obvious: when girls show clarity and reason, they are celebrated as strong and capable, while boys are criticized for the very same trait.


3. Independent / Self-Directed

Yang independence is about autonomy and leadership. In the past, this was recognized as a virtue. Today, independence in men is recast as selfishness.

In therapy, men who assert boundaries are accused of being avoidant. In family courts, fathers who resist intrusive parenting mandates are painted as uncooperative. At work, men who prefer autonomy are accused of “not being team players.”

Meanwhile, collectivist ideals are glorified. “Community,” “collaboration,” and “consensus” are treated as moral goods. The man who pursues his own vision is suspect; the man who dissolves into the group is praised. Yet when women insist on autonomy or self-direction, they are celebrated as “empowered” and “breaking barriers.” The very trait condemned in men is rewarded in women.


4. Expressive / Outward-Projecting

Yang expression is about projecting energy outward — speaking with authority, asserting oneself, showing presence. Today, this is routinely shamed. Men are accused of “mansplaining” when they speak confidently, of “taking up too much space” when they sit or stand naturally. Even in classrooms, boys who speak out are silenced while girls are coaxed to speak more.

Corporate trainings echo the same script: men must “step back” and “make space.” Male outwardness is recast as oppressive, while passivity and listening — yin traits — are presented as the moral high ground. Yet when women speak forcefully or take command of space, they are praised as bold and inspiring. The same assertiveness that earns men censure wins women applause.


5. Confident / Bold

Confidence, a core yang quality, is easily rebranded as arrogance or entitlement. A young man who asserts himself risks being accused of “toxic masculinity.” Ambition is reframed as greed or patriarchal privilege.

In education, boys who compete hard are told to “tone it down.” In dating, confidence is increasingly viewed with suspicion. A man approaching a woman boldly risks being labeled a predator, while tentativeness is reframed as “respect.”

Meanwhile, vulnerability has been rebranded as the new courage. Being hesitant, emotionally raw, or self-doubting is celebrated — but only when men embody it. Boldness is shamed; vulnerability is glorified. And once again, the double standard is clear: when women display confidence and ambition, they are praised as trailblazers and role models. What is condemned in men is applauded in women.


6. Competitive / Striving

Competition once fueled innovation, excellence, and mastery. For boys, striving to test themselves against others was natural.

Today, competition is under attack. Schools downplay winning, cancel scores, and hand out participation trophies. Boys are told that striving to be the best is unfair or mean-spirited. Even in workplaces, ambition is framed as “cutthroat.”

Meanwhile, cooperation is praised as the higher moral good. Equality of outcome — not excellence — is celebrated. The yin trait of blending in is exalted over the yang drive to stand out. And yet, when girls and women show drive, ambition, and competitiveness, they are praised as strong, empowered, and fearless. The very striving that earns boys censure is reframed as heroic when displayed by girls.


7. Stable / Structured

Yang energy provides order and discipline. Fathers setting boundaries, men building institutions, coaches demanding discipline — all are examples of stabilizing structure.

Yet structure is often demonized. Discipline is rebranded as control. Fathers who insist on rules are called authoritarian, while mothers who allow flexibility are celebrated as “nurturing.” In broader culture, structure is portrayed as oppression, while fluidity and openness are presented as progressive ideals.

And here too the double standard is unmistakable: when women take charge, enforce rules, or demand order, they are praised as strong leaders and role models. But when men do the very same thing, they are criticized as rigid, controlling, or oppressive. The masculine contribution of structure is vilified in men while valorized in women.


The “Male Privilege” Narrative

Layered on top of this shaming is the constant accusation of male privilege. Men are told they benefit from invisible advantages that invalidate their struggles. The boy disciplined in school for his energy is “privileged.” The man told his logic is cold is “privileged.” The father stripped of custody in court is “privileged.”

This accusation functions as a silencing tactic: no matter what hardships men face, their yang traits are delegitimized by the claim that they come from an unfair advantage. It’s a clever inversion — turning natural masculine expressions into proof of oppression.

For boys, the effect is especially disorienting. They are punished and shamed for their natural energy, independence, or boldness, yet they watch those same qualities praised in girls as “empowerment.” Imagine growing up in that atmosphere — told that what comes naturally to you is toxic, while applauded when someone else displays it. It creates confusion, self-doubt, and a sense of injustice that borders on madness. Boys learn not just that they are wrong, but that their very strengths are only acceptable when embodied by someone else.

 

When Yin Is Glorified and Yang Is Shamed

Chinese philosophy has a very straightforward warning: when yin and yang fall out of balance, decay follows. Illness in the body, discord in relationships, collapse in societies — all are traced to one side being exalted while the other is suppressed.

Today, our culture is caught in just such an imbalance. Feminine (yin) traits — receptivity, emotion, flexibility — are not only praised, they are presented as the gold standard for everyone. Masculine (yang) traits — activity, logic, independence, boldness, competition, structure — are not only discouraged, they are actively shamed.

From the Chinese perspective, this is a recipe for trouble. Here’s what they would say is coming:

  • Stagnation and Weakness: Too much yin creates passivity. Boys withdraw, men retreat, societies lose resilience.

  • Anxiety and Discord: Suppressed yang resurfaces in distorted ways — aggression, violence, self-destruction.

  • Collapse of Natural Order: Institutions weaken when initiative, structure, and clarity are attacked. Families fracture, schools falter, social trust declines.

  • Loss of Wholeness: When one side is glorified and the other shamed, the creative power of balance disappears. Everyone loses.


Restoring the Missing Balance

Chinese wisdom is blunt: when yin and yang fall out of balance, decline is inevitable. Our culture has tipped hard toward yin, glorifying receptivity, vulnerability, and fluidity while shaming activity, confidence, and structure. We are out of balance.

And balance will not return by doubling down on yin or by continuing to accuse men of “privilege” whenever they show their natural strengths. The way forward is to restore respect for yang.

That means honoring boys’ energy instead of medicating it away. Valuing men’s rational clarity instead of mocking it as cold. Praising independence and confidence in men just as we do in women. Allowing competition and striving to be celebrated, not shamed. And recognizing that discipline and structure are not oppression, but foundations for growth.

Revaluing the masculine does not mean dismissing the feminine. It means returning to the truth the Chinese saw thousands of years ago: life flourishes only when yin and yang stand side by side, each strong, each respected, each essential.

If we continue to shame one half of the human equation, we invite stagnation, confusion, and collapse. But if we restore balance, we give our sons — and our daughters — the gift of wholeness.

​Men Are Good. So is Yang.

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


Finland’s Legacy — Lessons for the World

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


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

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

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


The External Evaluation (1999)

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

The answer was a resounding yes.

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

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

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

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


The Nordic Ripple Effect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Beyond Suicide — Open Dialogue

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

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

Its core principles were deceptively simple:

  • Immediate response — no long waits for care.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The Contrast with the United States

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

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

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

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

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


What the World Can Learn Today

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

The lessons are clear:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Men Are Good

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

Read full Article
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