MenAreGood
The Reality of False Rape Allegations
November 19, 2024
 

Throughout history, no culture has believed that all people are inherently truthful, although some societies have put great trust in people while imposing severe penalties for dishonesty. The feminist movement, however, introduced the idea that women, specifically, should be believed without question. The slogan "Believe all women" became prominent, following years of advocacy suggesting that women, as a group, are inherently pure and trustworthy. One especially controversial claim has been that women never lie about rape.

This idea faced backlash when public figures and researchers provided data to the contrary. For instance, Linda Fairstein, a former Manhattan district attorney, estimated that false rape accusations in cases she observed ranged from 40-50%. Feminist circles reacted strongly, as they also did to Charles McDowell’s research, which suggested that approximately half of all rape allegations were false. Why does this narrative provoke such a reaction? The answer may lie in the feminist movement's reliance on relationally aggressive strategies—social tactics that depend on an unquestioned acceptance of women's statements. Casting doubt on the veracity of such claims could undermine the foundation of these strategies.  Without the prevailing assumption that women always tell the truth, feminism would lose much of its power.

Why is it important to question and even dismantle these myths of women's global truthfulness?  Several reasons. First, men are facing serious hardships due to false accusations, which are notoriously difficult to disprove. A quick look at the Innocence Project reveals that the vast majority of cases they overturn and release an innocent man from prison, involve wrongful convictions for rape. There is also a total ignorance and indifference to the severe trauma men go through when falsely accused. For some reason it just doesn't seem to matter. It is also important to hold the false accuser accountable, not only for the sake of the accused but also for the sake of the false accuser.  Allowing someone to live in a lie is quite hurtful. Another reason is that this "believe women" myth serves as a foundational pillar of feminist narratives. Without it, their arguments and reason for being fall apart. Any movement or group that relies on falsehoods for legitimacy needs to be challenged, dismantled, and thrown into the dustbin of history.

Despite various studies showing significant percentages of false accusations, feminist efforts have often focused on vehemently downplaying or dismissing these findings. One example is the study by Eugene Kanin, whose research has faced massive efforts to limit its visibility and acceptance. This article will explore Kanin’s study, its findings, the importance of his work, and the criticisms it received.

 

Evaluating Eugene Kanin’s Study on False Rape Allegations: Findings, Motivations, and Criticisms

Eugene Kanin’s research on false rape allegations, conducted in the early 1990s, stands as one of the most cited and revealing studies in discussions about the complexities of sexual assault accusations. His work, which involved analyzing recanted rape allegations in both a small Midwestern police department and later at two universities, concluded that a surprisingly high percentage of accusations were false. 

Kanin’s study in the police department covered several years and was based on a set of strict guidelines for determining when an accusation could be classified as false. His limiting false allegations to only those women who admitted they had lied was aimed at eliminating any ambiguity about the truth of the accusation. Furthermore, the complainants were informed that admitting to a false allegation could potentially lead to fines and legal consequences, thereby adding an element of deterrence against easy recantations.

In his findings, Kanin reported that 41% of the accusations made to the police department were determined to be false. This meant that the accuser admitted to her false accusation and also explained her reasons for lying.  When he later conducted a similar study on two university campuses, he found an even higher rate of 50%.   I am guessing that Kanin was aware that his findings would be controversial and therefore documented a range of personal motivations of the false accusers. This was brilliant on Kanin's part.  It is simple to disregard numbers but not so easy to ignore actual stories of women falsely accusing. Hearing the actual stories of women lying about rape is a very powerful way of  making it real and makes it much more difficult for the average person to deny. Let's take a look at the three categories of motives for lying and the actual stories Kanin related in his study.


Motivations for False Allegations

Kanin’s study didn’t just focus on the rate of false accusations; he also explored why individuals might be driven to make these claims. By examining the reasons behind each recanted report, he identified three recurring motives, revenge, providing an alibi, and seeking attention. 


 

1. Revenge

​One of the primary motivations Kanin found was revenge.  Twenty-seven percent (n = 12) of the cases clearly seemed to serve this function. In some cases, complainants used false allegations to retaliate against individuals who had hurt them, betrayed them, or otherwise caused them emotional pain. Revenge as a motive is a powerful factor, especially in situations where the accused had a close or personal relationship with the accuser.

These are examples taken directly from the Kanin study, of women with a revenge motive for the false accusation of rape: 

​1. An 18-year-old woman was having sex with a boarder in her mother's house for a period of 3 months. When the mother learned of her behavior from other boarders, the mother ordered the man to leave. The complainant learned that her lover was packing and she went to his room and told him she would be ready to leave with him in an hour. He responded with "who the hell wants you." She briefly argued with him and then proceeded to the police station to report that he had raped her. She admitted the false charge during the polygraph examination.


​2. A 17-year-old female came to headquarters and said that she had been raped by a house parent in the group home in which she lived. A female house parent accompanied her to the station and told the police she did not believe that a rape had occurred. The complainant failed the polygraph examination and then admitted that she liked the house parent, and when he refused her advances, she reported the rape to "get even with him."


​3. A 16-year-old reported she was raped, and her boyfriend was charged. She later admitted that she was "mad at him" because he was seeing another girl, and she "wanted to get him into trouble."


 


2. Providing an Alib​i

Kanin’s research also found cases where individuals filed false allegations to create an alibi for themselves, often to avoid criticism or punishment for consensual actions that might be frowned upon by family, friends, or partners.  Approximately 56%, (n = 27) were in this category. 

​1. An unmarried 16-year-old female had sex with her boyfriend and later became concerned that she might be pregnant. She said she had been raped by an unknown assailant in the hopes that the hospital would give her something to abort the possible pregnancy.


2. A married 30-year-old female reported that she had been raped in her apartment complex. During the polygraph examination, she admitted that she was a willing partner. She reported that she had been raped because her partner did not stop before ejaculation, as he had agreed, and she was afraid she was pregnant. Her husband is overseas.


​3. A divorced female, 25 years of age, whose parents have custody of her 4-year-old child. She lost custody at the time of her divorce when she was declared an unfit mother. She was out with a male friend and got into a fight. He blackened her eye and cut her lip. She claimed she was raped and beaten by him so that she could explain her injuries. She did not want to admit she was in a drunken brawl, as this admission would have jeopardized her upcoming custody hearing. 

4. A 16-year-old complainant, her girlfriend, and two male companions were having a drinking party at her home. She openly invited one of the males, a casual friend, to have sex with her. Later in the evening, two other male acquaintances dropped in and, in the presence of all, her sex partner "bragged" that he had just had sex with her. She quickly ran out to another girlfriend's house and told her she had been raped. Soon, her mother was called and the police were notified. Two days later, when confronted with the contradictory stories of her companions, she admitted that she had not been raped. Her charge of rape was primarily motivated by an urgent desire to defuse what surely would be public information among her friends at school the next day, her promiscuity.

Such examples illustrate how the desire to avoid criticism or punishment can lead to false accusations as a defensive strategy.

 

3. Attention Seeking

The third major category Kanin identified was those seeking sympathy and attention.  Approximately 18% (n = 8) of the false charges clearly served this function. 

​1. An unmarried female, age 17, abruptly left her girlfriends in the park one afternoon allegedly to go riding with a young man, a stranger she met earlier that morning who wanted her to smoke marijuana with him. Later that day, she told her friends she was raped by this man. Her friends reported the incident to the police, and the alleged victim went along with the rape charge because "I didn't want them to know that I lied to them." She explained that she manufactured this story because she wanted the attention.


​2. An unmarried female, age 17, had been having violent quarrels with her mother who was critical of her laziness and style of life. She reported that she was raped so that her mother would "get off my back and give me a little sympathy."


​3. An unmarried female, age 41, was in post divorce counseling, and she wanted more attention and sympathy from her counselor because she "liked him." She fabricated a rape episode, and he took her to the police station and assisted her in making the charge. She could not back out since she would have to admit lying to him. She admitted the false allegation when she was offered to be polygraphed.


What is learned?

Hearing statistics about false allegations is one thing. It's easy for some to argue about them and downplay their importance. But when confronted with real stories of women making false accusations, it’s much harder to dismiss. These stories make clear that false allegations of rape do exist, challenging feminist assumptions about female purity and inherent trustworthiness. To me, they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that false accusations occur and often go unnoticed.

In Kanin’s study, over 40% of rape allegations were determined to be false—meaning a woman lied, and her lie could have put an innocent man in jail. What kind of mindset does it take to do that? I believe it reflects a highly narcissistic individual, someone who thinks only of themselves, has poor impulse control, low empathy, and a lack of accountability. People like this do exist, and Kanin’s findings remind us that some women are capable of such actions. This reality should dismantle the feminist argument that false rape allegations don’t happen. They do happen, and that should compel us to protect innocent men from such harm. The feminist push to deny the possibility of false allegations has led to reduced safeguards for accused men, making it almost unquestionable to challenge an accuser. This system of unchecked allegations encourages dishonesty and must change.


Criticism

Did this study impact the feminist movement? Not at all. In fact, you may have never even heard of it, likely due to what’s known as the "lace curtain"—an invisible filter that blocks information contradicting feminist objectives. It seems to have worked effectively to keep this study under wraps.

Some criticisms of the study centered on the definitions of false accusations and whether some findings could reflect recantations due to external pressures or fear rather than actual falsification. This criticism seems unfounded to me. Did they even read the Kanin study? The women in his study explained in detail why they lied, and their explanations aligned with their false reports. It all made sense. These weren't ambiguous cases; Kanin’s study captured them clearly. Yes, these women may have felt fear—but that’s unsurprising, as their lies had been exposed.

One predictable feminist critique was that findings like Kanin's could deter actual victims from reporting rape. Sure enough, some argued that his study might reinforce harmful stereotypes and discourage reporting. I think the opposite is true. Kanin's research could instead deter false accusers from making the damaging decision to ruin an innocent man’s life. Some of those so-called “harmful stereotypes” are, in reality, justified concerns with real consequences.

There were also claims that Kanin's study was a statistical outlier and therefore irrelevant. This, of course, is incorrect, as similar findings emerged from studies at the Air Force Academy, which reported false accusation rates comparable to Kanin’s. Many law enforcement professionals have also corroborated these findings, sharing similar estimates based on their field experience. Other studies have shown that false rape allegations do exist, though often at lower rates. But even if the rate is as low as 2%, that should still compel us to protect the innocent from the devastation of a false accusation. Like any other crime, a rape charge must be proven true.

The only valid criticism I found of the Kanin study is that the sample was too small and lacked diversity. While this limits the ability to generalize its findings, it doesn’t diminish the importance of shedding light on the reality of false accusations of rape.


Conclusion

Eugene Kanin’s study serves as a powerful reminder of the complexities surrounding rape allegations and the necessity of addressing false accusations with the seriousness they deserve. His meticulous documentation of motives and real-life cases underscores a truth often downplayed or ignored: false allegations happen, and their consequences can be devastating, particularly for the falsely accused. While the feminist narrative often dismisses or obscures such findings, the evidence from Kanin’s research and similar studies calls for a more balanced approach—one that ensures justice for actual victims while safeguarding the rights of the accused.

Challenging the myth that women always tell the truth about rape is not about silencing victims; it is about ensuring fairness and accountability in a system where both are often lacking. By ignoring the reality of false accusations, society perpetuates a dangerous double standard that harms everyone involved. Men falsely accused face irreparable damage to their reputations, careers, and mental health, while the broader justice system suffers a loss of credibility.

It is essential to engage in honest discussions about these issues, free from ideological bias, to build a justice system rooted in fairness and truth. Acknowledging and addressing the existence of false rape allegations is not only a matter of justice but also a step toward restoring faith in a system too often swayed by cultural narratives rather than evidence.

I wanted to write this article as a prelude to the next installment in this series on gynocentrism, specifically focusing on how feminists have weaponized it to silence men. Much of their advocacy for increased benefits for women has been built on falsehoods, including lies and false accusations—particularly those targeting men. The next post will delve deeper into this issue.

Kanin’s Research https://www.aals.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Bowen-Kanin-False-Rape-Empirical.pdf

 

community logo
Join the MenAreGood Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
0
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
Articles
April 02, 2026
Are Family Courts at War with the Constitution?

In this conversation, I sit down with longtime scholar and author Stephen Baskerville to take a hard look at modern family courts, no-fault divorce, paternal rights, and the assumptions behind shared parenting. Stephen argues that what many people take for granted in divorce and custody law may be far more troubling than they realize—not only for fathers and children, but for the rule of law itself. Join us in this challenging and thought-provoking discussion that raises questions most people never hear asked.

Stephen's Substack
https://stephenbaskerville.substack.com/

01:02:28
March 30, 2026
Blame it on the Manosphere

This short video takes a humorous look at the current panic among feminists and the media over what they call the manosphere. In reality, the manosphere is one of the places where their false narratives are being exposed. What we are seeing now is the creation of a straw man—something to blame, distort, and use as a distraction from the truth that is coming to light. More and more people are waking up to the game and beginning to see the hostility and self-interest that have been there all along.

(This video was produced largely with AI. I wrote the script, and the music and images were AI-generated.)

Men are Good!

00:03:05
March 23, 2026
From Description to Smear: The Guide to the Manosphere

Today’s video is a lively and revealing conversation with Jim Nuzzo about the growing panic over what the media and academia call “the manosphere.” Together, we take a close look at a new Australian guide for teachers that claims to help schools deal with so-called misogynistic behavior among boys. What we found was not careful scholarship, balanced concern, or genuine curiosity about boys. What we found was a familiar pattern: boys portrayed as the problem, their questions treated as threats, and their frustrations dismissed before they are even heard.

Jim brings his scientific eye to the discussion, and that makes this exchange especially valuable. We talk about the sudden explosion of academic and media attention on the manosphere, the way fear is being used to drive the narrative, and the striking absence of empathy for boys who feel blamed, dismissed, and alienated. We also explore something the guide never seriously asks: why are boys drawn to these spaces in the first ...

00:48:43

The rules of the “Red Pill Glasses”

Once you put them on you can’t taken them off.

Once you see it you can’t unsee it.

You can’t force others to where them

You end up saying the sky is blue and they will not believe you!

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1Cak9m6uiY/?mibextid=wwXIfr

Women can they just won’t!

This is on point and even this will be seen as anti woman

21 hours ago
post photo preview
Don't Take The Bait
Understanding the Animus—and What Men Can Do About It

 

 

 


There’s an idea from Carl Jung that has largely disappeared from modern conversation, but once you see it, you begin to recognize it everywhere.

He called it the animus.

In simple terms, the animus is the inner masculine side of a woman’s psyche. Just as men have an inner feminine (anima), women have an inner masculine. But that simple definition doesn’t go far enough, because the animus doesn’t just sit quietly in the background. At times, it can take over.



What the Animus Looks Like in Real Life

Jungian writers like Emma Jung and Marie-Louise von Franz described this very clearly. When the animus is active, it tends to speak in opinions that feel like absolute truth—not reflections, not curiosity, not a back-and-forth, but conclusions delivered with certainty.

Most men have experienced this moment, even if they didn’t have a name for it. You’re in a conversation, and suddenly you’re no longer being heard. Your words don’t land. The tone becomes sharp, certain, even prosecutorial. You are no longer an individual—you are “men.” And perhaps most telling: it doesn’t feel like her.

That’s the moment.



A Simple Tip-Off: Listen for “Should”

One of the clearest signals I’ve found is a small word that shows up again and again: “should.”

“You should know better.”
“Men should…”
“You shouldn’t feel that way.”

“Should” often signals that the conversation has shifted from what is happening to what must be true—from reality to judgment, from relationship to prosecution. It’s not that the word itself is bad, but when it shows up with certainty and heat, it often marks the moment when you are no longer in a discussion—you’re in something else.



Not Every Argument Is the Animus

This matters. Not every disagreement is an animus moment. Two adults can argue, disagree, challenge each other, and even get emotional while still being in a real conversation. That’s not what we’re talking about here.

A real argument still allows for movement. Animus possession does not.

So these strategies are not for normal discussions. They’re for those moments when nothing lands, everything is certain, and you can feel the shift.



The Bait

The animus, much like relational aggression, offers something very specific: it offers bait. The bait is emotional, and the hook is reactivity. If you take it—even for a moment—you’ve already lost, because now the conversation is no longer about what happened. It’s about how you reacted.



What Works Instead

Over time, I’ve seen something else work. Not perfectly, not always, but often enough to matter. When a man can stay calm, clear, and grounded while simply stating the truth, something changes.

Not immediately. In fact, the attack often continues in the moment. But without a counterattack, the conflict has nowhere to go but inward.



What This Sounds Like

Staying grounded doesn’t mean staying silent. It means speaking clearly—without heat, without defensiveness, and without trying to win.

For example:

“I care about you, but I’m not going to accept being spoken to as if I’m the enemy.”

“I’m willing to talk about what happened. I’m not willing to stand here as a symbol for all men.”

“I hear that you’re upset. I don’t agree with how you’re describing me.”

“I’m open to this conversation—but not in this tone.”

“I don’t think more arguing is going to help us right now.”

“I’m going to step away for a bit. I’m open to talking when we can both speak to each other as people.”

These responses don’t escalate, don’t submit, and don’t take the bait. They simply hold reality steady.



The “Next Day” Effect

I’ve seen this pattern many times. When I don’t take the bait—when I stay steady and speak plainly without heat—the moment doesn’t resolve right away. But later, something shifts.

Sometimes hours later. Sometimes the next day.

The woman comes back—not because I won the argument, but because I didn’t give the argument anything to grow on. Without escalation, she’s left with something different: she has to sit with what happened. And when there is maturity, that can lead to reflection.



But This Only Works With Maturity

This is important. This approach is not a universal solution. There are women who, in the heat of the moment, lose themselves and later come back, and there are women who never come back.

You need to know the difference.

If there is no reflection, no softening, and no awareness afterward, then you are not dealing with a moment—you are dealing with a pattern. And continuing to offer calmness into that pattern does not fix it. It sustains it.



This Takes Practice

None of this is easy. In the moment, your body is activated, your instincts are to defend or counterattack, and the pressure to respond is real. Staying calm and clear under those conditions is a skill, and like any skill, it takes practice.

You won’t do it perfectly. You’ll take the bait sometimes. Everyone does. But over time, you begin to recognize the moment sooner—and respond differently.



Calm Is Not Weakness

One of the challenges today is that this kind of steadiness is often misunderstood. Calmness is labeled as avoidance, logic as cold, and non-reactivity as disengagement. But those labels often miss something essential:

There is a difference between withdrawal and discipline.

I saw this growing up. Men who could sit with intensity, listen without collapsing, and respond without heat. They didn’t always fix things in the moment, but they didn’t make them worse either—and that mattered more than we realized.

As a man, you likely have strengths in logic, calmness, and clarity. These natural masculine qualities have been steadily undermined and, at times, openly shamed by feminists and modern cultural currents. Don’t give them up—use them.



The Real Skill

The real skill is not dominance, and it’s not submission. It’s something far more difficult: clarity without reactivity.

Because clarity doesn’t escalate, and reactivity is what the conflict feeds on.



The Line You Don’t Cross

This is not about becoming endlessly patient. It’s not about absorbing attack indefinitely. At some point, a man has to recognize:

If my steadiness is never met with awareness—only more attack—then I am no longer helping the relationship.

That’s where a different kind of strength is required—the willingness to stop participating in a pattern that does not change.



Final Thought

You can’t force someone to see themselves clearly. But you can refuse to cloud the mirror.

And sometimes, when you do that, they come back and see it on their own.

Men are good, as are you.

Read full Article
May 01, 2026
post photo preview
Tucker on Fatherhood: Here's What He Forgot



Fatherhood matters.

That’s the message at the heart of Tucker Carlson’s documentary Fathers Wanted—and it’s a message worth hearing.

A man who gives his time, his energy, and his life to his children is doing something deeply meaningful. There’s no controversy there.

But as I watched the film, I kept noticing something else.

Not what it said.

But what it didn’t.

Because by the end, the story felt strangely incomplete—like watching a documentary about lung cancer that never once mentions smoking.


The framing begins immediately.

Within the first moments, we are told that young men are choosing pornography, video games, and drugs over marriage and family. The implication is clear: the problem is not just that fatherhood is declining, but that men are turning away from it—opting for comfort, distraction, and indulgence instead.

That may be true in some cases.

But starting the story this way does something important. It establishes, from the outset, that the primary driver of fatherlessness is male behavior.

Everything that follows is filtered through that lens.


The film goes on to frame fatherlessness largely as a cultural and moral failure.

Men, we’re told, are retreating. Avoiding responsibility. Choosing comfort over commitment. Losing faith. Losing purpose.

By the end, the message is unmistakable: good men step up, bad men walk away.
And if a father abandons his children, Carlson makes it clear—he deserves contempt.

That’s a powerful claim.

But it rests on a narrow frame.


Because what the film barely examines—if at all—is the system in which modern fatherhood actually exists.

There is no serious discussion of:

  • family courts

  • custody outcomes

  • child support structures

  • no-fault divorce

  • or how fathers often lose daily access to their children

These are not minor details.

They are central to understanding what happens to fathers in the real world.


In many cases, fathers do not simply walk away.

They are separated—from their children, from their role, from their identity as fathers—by processes largely outside their control. A man can go from being an everyday presence in his child’s life to being a visitor—or, in some cases, a paycheck. And yet, culturally, the outcome is often interpreted the same way:

He left.

But that is not always what happened.


There is another layer here the film only partially acknowledges. For decades, men have been broadly portrayed as:

  • oppressive

  • emotionally deficient

  • disposable

  • dangerous

  • ​toxic

These ideas have been reinforced across media, education, and public discourse—under the influence of feminist frameworks that carry a deep skepticism and contempt toward men.

At the same time, we have seen something very different happen on the other side.

Single motherhood has increasingly been framed not as a difficult circumstance to be supported and stabilized, but as something to be celebrated—even idealized. Cultural messaging often elevates the strength and independence of mothers raising children alone, while saying very little about the cost of a father’s absence.

The contrast is striking. Fathers are questioned. Their role is diminished. Their presence is treated as optional. While single motherhood is often presented as sufficient—sometimes even preferable. The result is a contradiction we rarely confront: We tell men they are not needed. We question their value. We undermine their role.

And then we ask why they hesitate to step into it.


​When structural forces are ignored, a complex social problem ​can get reduced to a simple moral failure. And when that happens, the burden of explanation—and blame—falls almost entirely on individuals.

In this case, on men.


Carlson is right about something important:

Fatherhood matters.

But if we want more fathers present in their children’s lives, we need to do more than praise the ideal We need to examine the systems that shape the reality. Because until we do, we will keep asking the same question—

Why aren’t men stepping up?

—without fully understanding what they are stepping into.

Men Are Good, as are you.

Read full Article
April 27, 2026
post photo preview
She Sees the Problem-But Not The Imbalance
The conflict between men and women isn’t just mutual—it’s shaped by a culture that amplifies one narrative and attacks the other.

In a recent piece for The Globe and Mail, Debra Soh takes on a topic that is long overdue for honest discussion: the growing hostility between young men and women, and the role online spaces play in fueling it.

To her credit, she does something that many commentators still avoid. She acknowledges that the problem is not confined to the so-called “manosphere.” She names the existence of a “femosphere” and recognizes that it, too, can promote distrust, manipulation, and even outright hostility toward the opposite sex.

That matters.

For years, the dominant narrative has been that toxicity flows in one direction—that men are the primary source of gender-based hostility, and women are largely reacting to it. Soh challenges that assumption. She points to polling data showing that young women, in some cases, hold more negative views of men than men do of women. She highlights the cultural double standards that allow anti-male messaging to pass with far less scrutiny than anti-female messaging.

All of this is important. And it takes a certain degree of intellectual independence to say it out loud.

But this is where her analysis stops just short of something deeper.

Soh ultimately frames the problem as a kind of mutual escalation—two sides locked in a feedback loop of resentment, each needing to step back, see the other more clearly, and abandon the worst impulses of their respective online cultures.

It’s a reasonable conclusion. It’s also incomplete.

Because it assumes that these two forces exist on roughly equal footing.

They don’t.

The hostility toward men that Soh describes is not simply emerging from fringe online communities. It is reinforced—often subtly, sometimes explicitly—by the broader culture itself. Media narratives regularly cast men as dangerous, deficient, or morally suspect. Academic frameworks frequently position men as privileged agents and women as vulnerable recipients. Institutional policies are often built on these same assumptions.

Over time, this does something powerful: it transforms a perspective into a kind of cultural default.

It begins to feel less like an opinion and more like reality.

By contrast, the hostility that emerges from the manosphere exists in a very different environment. It is not institutionally reinforced. It is challenged, criticized, and often condemned outright. Again, that does not make it accurate or healthy—but it does mean it operates under constraints that the opposing narrative largely does not.

This creates a playing field that is far from level.

One set of ideas is amplified and legitimized. The other is policed and marginalized.

And that asymmetry matters more than we often acknowledge.

Because when one narrative is embedded in institutions, it shapes not just opinions, but outcomes. It influences how boys are educated, how men are treated in courts, how male suffering is perceived—or overlooked. It becomes part of the background assumptions people carry without even realizing it.

Meanwhile, the reactive spaces that emerge in response—however flawed—are then judged as if they exist in isolation, rather than as downstream responses to an already tilted system.

This is the piece that Soh only partially touches.

She sees the hostility. She sees the polarization. She even sees that anti-male sentiment is more widespread than many are willing to admit.

But she does not fully account for the cultural forces that sustain and legitimize that sentiment.

And without that, the solution she offers—mutual correction—risks placing equal responsibility on two sides that are not equally empowered.

To be clear, none of this is an argument for excusing hostility—whether it comes from men or from women. We need to resist the pull of the worst elements on either side. Dehumanization, wherever it appears, damages everyone involved.

But understanding requires clarity.

And clarity requires us to ask not just what is happening, but where the weight of the culture rests.

Until we do that, we will continue to describe the conflict between men and women as a symmetrical breakdown in understanding—when in many ways, it is something much more lopsided than that.

Men are good, as are you.

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