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
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
July 24, 2025
How Ideology Defeats Truth: The Hand That Rocks The World

Tom Golden and David Shackleton explore the key themes of David’s book The Hand That Rocks the World. The conversation begins with a look at how both sexes use power, with a particular focus on women's power—how it operates, and why it so often goes unseen or unacknowledged. David outlines three distinct forms of female power, each with both positive and negative expressions. The discussion then shifts to human maturity, examining how personal growth can be stalled by ideological identification. And there's much more—insights that challenge conventional narratives and invite deeper reflection.

David’s book The Hand that Rocks the World
https://amzn.to/3TSR80H

00:56:37
July 21, 2025
AI Books

We now have a new section that is accessible in the top navbar of the substack page titled AI Books. It contains links to numerous books on men's issues that each have an AI app that is able to answer detailed questions about the book. The above video gives some ideas of how to use these.

https://menaregood.substack.com/s/ai-books

The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell
Fiamengo File 2.0 Janice Fiamengo
Taken Into Custody - Stephen Baskerville
The Empathy Gap - William Collins
The Empathy Gap 2 - Williams Collins
The Destructivists - William Collins
Who Lost America - Stephen Baskerville
The New Politics of Sex -- Stephen Baskerville
Understanding Men and Boys: Healing Insights - Tom Golden
Boys' Muscle Strength and Performance - Jim Zuzzo PhD
Sex Bias in Domestic Violence Policies and Laws - Ed Bartlett (DAVIA)
The Hand That Rocks The World - David Shackleton

Links below

Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell

The Myth of Male Power - documents how virtually every society that survived did so by persuading its sons to be disposable. This is one of the most powerful books...

00:11:44
June 20, 2025
10 Factors that Help Explain Male Suicides

A quick dive into 10 reasons behind the high rates of male suicide. For a deeper look, check out my two-part series linked here.

part 1 https://menaregood.locals.com/post/3606115/the-truth-about-male-suicide-part-1
part 2 https://menaregood.locals.com/post/4871019/the-truth-about-male-suicide-part-two

00:04:13
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

Has Feminism ruined the Philippines? It seems that the vilance against women and children law in the Philippines can land a man in Jail or prison for 6 years just for arguing (verbal violence) with you girl friend or wife. It can often be used to extort money from the man to drop the charges.

I was tooling around on Youtube and found this: just a moment of positive male role model.

Just some random testosterone with a bit of disposability . Stan Rogers is one of my favorites.

post photo preview
Heterofatalism: or How to Blame Men For Everything


This is a response to a recent New York Times article by Jean Garnett titled The Trouble With Wanting Men. The subtitle says it all: “Women are so fed up with dating men that the phenomenon even has a name — heterofatalism. So what do we do with our desire?”

Sometimes, the best response is a little humor while flipping the script. See what you think.




"Heterofatalism: Or How to Blame Men for Everything, Even Our Socks"

Ah, “heterofatalism” — the brand-new term coined for the collective exasperation of women who, after navigating the complex world of dating, come to the conclusion that men are the root of all relationship woes. You see, the issue isn't just that men are occasionally anxious, emotionally distant, or a little too obsessed with their sports teams; no, the real problem is that these poor souls — with all their confusing desires, communication issues, and tendency to occasionally ghost you after a couple of drinks — are making it impossible for women to live happily ever after.

Who needs "old-fashioned man-woman stuff," right? We should really just get rid of men altogether, except... well, hold on. It seems like the author might still enjoy the idea of men, as long as they’re perfectly self-deprecating, emotionally available, not so needy, and able to decode all of her mood swings without missing a beat. Apparently, we’re supposed to be sweet, gentle, and constantly checking in with how she feels — but also not too available, because that would make us “needy.” Are you keeping up, men? No? It’s okay, because we aren’t expected to.

What If We Flipped the Script?

Now, imagine if the shoe was on the other foot. What if a man had these same expectations of you Jean Garnett? What if you had to live up to these impossible standards every time a relationship or date rolled around?

For example, let’s say you’re trying to date someone, and he expects you to be emotionally available all the time, always knowing exactly what he’s feeling, always ready to discuss his feelings — at his convenience. Now imagine if you were the one constantly apologizing for not responding to text messages in 90 seconds flat because you were busy with life, work, or, you know, anything else. Or imagine being told you were "too anxious" to handle a simple conversation because you were stressed over your busy schedule. Does it seem fair that men are expected to always be the ones to “man up” emotionally, while women are allowed to retreat into their own anxiety and demand validation from men?

Also, here’s a fun thought experiment: What if, as a man, you had to hear all the time about how you were the problem in every dating situation? Imagine your date explaining how she loves the “good guy” archetype but constantly finds him lacking because he doesn’t meet every single emotional need immediately. The “good guy” who’s gentle, sweet, and not too self-deprecating — just enough to make you feel like a glorified emotional ATM. It’d be pretty exhausting, wouldn’t it?

Emotional Labor: A Two-Way Street

Let’s get real for a moment. The whole concept of emotional labor often gets pinned solely on men — the idea that women are somehow left to pick up the emotional slack in relationships. But if we take a closer look, we see a different picture. If the standard is that men should always be emotionally available, always interpret every word and gesture in the right way, shouldn’t women also take on the responsibility of understanding the emotional needs of their partners? Isn’t it unfair to expect men to constantly decode the mystery of “how you’re feeling” without giving them the same space to feel confused, anxious, or uncertain about what’s going on in the relationship?

What if men were to complain about the “hermeneutic labor” they had to perform just to keep a relationship afloat? Imagine if men spent every conversation analyzing why you were saying one thing and meaning something else. If men constantly had to decode your emotional signals — every pause, every silence, every hint — would we be quick to dismiss it as just part of being a man? Or would we call it what it is: exhausting?

Isn’t It Time for a Little Empathy?

Now, let’s circle back to that romantic ideal — the “good guy” who wants to be loved, but can’t seem to get it right because he's “too anxious,” “too confused,” or “too emotionally unavailable” when it matters. But what if, just maybe, the problem isn’t his inability to meet her needs, but the sheer weight of the unrealistic expectations placed upon him? Imagine being a man, constantly told that you are too much or not enough at the same time — one minute, you need to be emotionally open, the next you’re told you’re too emotional.

Let’s flip the script.
Imagine you’re the one who needs a little breathing room — just some space to think.
But your partner won’t let it go:
“Why can’t you just communicate like a grown-up? What are you, emotionally stunted?”
And when you finally admit you’re anxious or overwhelmed, you’re slapped with labels like “needy,” “hysterical,” or “too sensitive.”
Then he runs off to his buddies, and they all have a good laugh at your expense:
“Aww, poor little fraidy-cat princess. Guess she ​just can't woman up.”
Sound familiar?
Because that’s exactly what you and your friends did to him.
Doesn’t feel so good when the joke’s on you, does it?

Rewriting the Narrative

Maybe it's time to see men as humans rather than stereotypes. Men don’t exist just to fulfill emotional needs, and relationships should be about mutual respect, not endless demands. If we really want to evolve into better relationships, we need to recognize the emotional labor on both sides and give each other the space to be imperfect — without judgment.

Here’s a radical idea: instead of blaming men for the failures of the modern dating scene, let’s take a step back and realize that maybe we’re all a little messed up. And that’s okay. You don’t need us to “man up” — you just need us to be real, and we need the same from you.

And if we’re not perfect? Well, at least we’re not trying to make every relationship a philosophical debate about what does it mean to love and how can we both be completely vulnerable and emotionally invulnerable at the same time.

Pro tip: next time your man shows up with a little emotional confusion, give him a break. Men are not puzzles to be solved; we’re just humans trying to navigate a world that often doesn’t make sense to any of us.

And for the record: ​Men Are Good.

Read full Article
July 14, 2025
post photo preview
Why Men Struggle to Stand Together
How competition, culture, and gynocentrism keep men from standing together

It’s no secret that men and women are different—but one of the lesser-known differences, and one of the most socially consequential, is found in how each sex relates to their own group.

Women consistently show strong in-group bias. They support each other socially, emotionally, and politically. They instinctively identify with the struggles of other women. This solidarity forms the backbone of movements, activism, academic departments, and public policy. When a woman sees another woman being mistreated, her response is often immediate: “That could’ve been me.”

Men, by contrast, tend to show weaker and more conditional in-group bias. Their loyalty to other men is context-dependent, usually tied to shared purpose or external threat. A man will stand with another man on the battlefield, on the job site, or on the basketball court—but outside of those types of goal-oriented bonds, that sense of male unity often fades.

Why is that?

Part of it is biological and evolutionary. For men, life has always been a mix of coalition and competition. Throughout history, men had to work together in tribes or hunting parties—but within those groups, they also competed for rank, dominance, and access to mates. That means male bonding has always existed alongside male rivalry. The result? Male loyalty is real, but fragile.

Even today, many men see other men as rivals first, allies second. If another man struggles—loses his job, breaks down emotionally, or gets mistreated in a custody battle—he may not get support. He may get silence. Or worse, blame. Because in the male psyche, weakness often reads as threat. It disrupts the unspoken expectation that men must be strong, self-reliant, and in control. In male hierarchies, weakness can be seen as a liability—something that drags down the group or exposes it to risk. And for many men, seeing another man suffer can stir up buried shame or fear about their own vulnerabilities, leading them to distance themselves rather than lean in. It’s not cruelty—it’s biology and conditioning.

This fragile in-group bias creates a massive hurdle for any effort to advocate for men. Men’s rights movements, fatherhood initiatives, male mental health campaigns—they all struggle not just because society ignores them, but because men themselves often fail to show up for one another. And this problem isn’t just internal. It’s magnified by something even larger: gynocentrism.


Gynocentrism: The Cultural Blind Spot

Gynocentrism is the cultural tendency to prioritize women’s needs, feelings, and safety—often at the expense of men. It’s not just a personal bias; it’s institutional, ideological, and deeply embedded in our narratives about right and wrong. From early childhood, boys are taught to protect girls, to defer to their emotions, and to take responsibility for female wellbeing. “Never hit a girl.” “Be a gentleman.” “Sacrifice for your wife.” These messages, ​no matter how well-meaning, train boys to associate virtue with serving women. They are rarely taught to protect or serve each other. This conditioning only deepens with age. In politics, education, and media, men gain status by defending women—not by defending men. A man who speaks up for women is seen as noble and progressive. A man who speaks up for men is seen as angry, bitter, or fragile—even by other men.

In a gynocentric culture—where women’s needs are prioritized and viewed through a moral lens—advocating for women is seen as virtuous, while advocating for men is viewed with suspicion or hostility.

🟣
 

“Women’s advocacy is empathy”

When women advocate for women (or when men advocate for women), the culture responds with compassion, validation, and support. It’s framed as morally good, emotionally sincere, and socially necessary. Example: “We need to hear women’s voices.” “Support women’s mental health.” “Believe women.”

“Men’s advocacy is grievance”

When men advocate for men, it’s often framed as whining, resentment, or a push to reclaim lost power. Instead of evoking empathy, it triggers defensiveness, mockery, or accusations of misogyny. Example: “Why are you complaining?” “This sounds like toxic masculinity in disguise.” “You just want to take us back to the 1950s.”

Say the phrases out loud “We need to hear men’s voices“ or maybe “Believe men.“ Can you feel the difference?

⚖️
 

So the double bind is:

  • Women can talk about their pain and gain moral authority.

  • Men talk about their pain and risk losing moral credibility.


    In other words:

    If you advocate for women, you’re seen as compassionate.
    If you advocate for men, you’re seen as angry.

    That’s the trap—the double bind—created by gynocentrism. So male in-group bias—already fragile—is further fractured by gynocentric incentives.


The Costs of Division

This has enormous consequences.

When a man is falsely accused, other men don’t rally to his defense—they distance themselves.

When a father loses access to his children, he’s often blamed rather than supported.

When men talk about depression or suicide, they’re often met with discomfort, not compassion.

Meanwhile, female solidarity flourishes. Women have entire university departments, legal protections, and billion-dollar initiatives devoted to their advancement. And they have what men lack: a deep, culturally accepted instinct to care for each other.

The result is a lopsided world: female pain is collectivized and acted upon; male pain is individualized and ignored. It should now be obvious that working as a men’s advocate, a fatherhood proponent, or in any male-focused cause is an uphill battle—while those promoting women’s causes are coasting downhill with cultural tailwinds, institutional funding, and moral permission at their backs.

 

Rebuilding Male Solidarity

If men are to thrive—not just as individuals, but as a group—they must begin to reclaim something long buried: a sense of mutual loyalty. A belief that other men are not your enemy. That another man’s pain is not a sign of his failure, but of a culture that has failed us all.

This doesn’t mean abandoning competition or suppressing masculine traits. It means building solidarity around them. Men’s greatest strength has always been in what they can do together—on the battlefield, in a brotherhood, on a team. The challenge now is to transfer that loyalty into emotional and cultural arenas, where men are bleeding quietly in the shadows.

Men don’t need to become women to support each other. They just need to recognize that being on the same team means protecting the players who are getting crushed—by courts, by culture, by silence.

Male pain is real. Male sacrifice is real. Male disposability is real.

But male brotherhood can be real too—if we decide to make it so.

Men Are Good

Read full Article
July 08, 2025
post photo preview
The Right Length to Reach the Floor: Why Being Offended Matters


At a White House Christmas party, President Abraham Lincoln was mingling with guests, exchanging laughter and good cheer. He came upon a group that included a woman known for her biting tongue. Looking at Lincoln’s tall frame, she quipped, “President Lincoln, don’t you find your legs are far too long?”

Without missing a beat, Lincoln smiled and replied, “No, madam, I have always found them jus the right length to reach the floor.”

The crowd laughed, the moment passed, and the party went on. But in that brief exchange, Lincoln showed something important: there are many ways to respond to offense—and one of the best is humor.


Being Offended Is Part of Growing Up

We tend to treat offense today as a kind of harm. But in truth, being offended is part of life—and even more, it’s part of maturity. Boys in particular seem to intuit this. Watch a group of young males and you’ll see it play out: teasing, poking, sarcasm, verbal sparring. It’s not (usually) meant to hurt—it’s meant to test.

And those tests serve a purpose.

When a boy is told he’s stupid, or too slow, or mocked for his hair or clothes, he learns to respond. He might crack a joke. He might sharpen his wit. He might challenge the premise with logic or brush it off with a shrug. What he’s doing is learning to handle adversity—on his feet and with others watching.

It’s practice for the world.


The Skills Boys Learn Through Being Offended

  • Humor – defusing tension, maintaining dignity

  • Repartee – learning to think and speak quickly

  • Logic – pointing out flaws in the jab

  • Grace – choosing to let it slide

  • Strength – not needing validation to hold his ground

These are not small things. They’re the building blocks of workplace confidence, relational resilience, and emotional independence.


The Cultural Shift: A World Where Offense Is Forbidden

But we now live in a time where being offended is treated as a kind of assault—especially if the offended belongs to a “protected group.” Entire institutions—from universities to HR departments—have adopted the idea that certain people must not be offended, and if they are, someone else must be punished.

But what happens when a group is shielded from offense?

They may never learn to develop the inner muscles that others do. They may never build the grace, wit, or confidence that comes from surviving discomfort. Like the body that withers in the absence of challenge, their maturity is stalled.

In the name of protection, we end up infantilizing them.


The Asymmetry of Offense

Let’s be honest: not everyone gets the same protection. Boys and men are fair game. So are Christians. So are people with dissenting views on political, medical, or cultural issues. These groups are expected—often required—to endure offense without complaint.

Meanwhile, others—especially women, certain minority groups, and favored ideological stances—are shielded from offense. The rules shift depending on who’s talking and who’s listening. But one thing is clear: there is a deep asymmetry in how offense is allowed and punished.

This disparity starts early.

Boys are more likely to be offended because they’re less protected. In fact, they often grow up in environments where ridicule, teasing, and verbal jousting are common—and not discouraged. In contrast, girls are more likely to be shielded from offense. Schools, parents, and media tend to be quicker to intervene when girls are targeted. The result? Boys get toughened. Girls get guarded.

Some call this compassion. But what if it’s something else? What if we’re unknowingly denying girls a chance to build the same emotional endurance we demand of boys?

This has serious implications.

Being offended, and learning how to respond constructively, builds the skill set necessary for leadership. Leaders must take criticism, navigate hostility, and remain calm under pressure. That doesn't come naturally—it comes from experience.

So if we raise boys to expect offense and learn to handle it—but raise girls to expect protection and institutional outrage on their behalf—we shouldn't be surprised if more boys grow into leaders. They’ve been trained for conflict, while girls may have been trained to avoid it.

And here’s the twist: when we limit offending women, we may also be limiting their capacity to lead.

This isn’t about discouraging kindness. It’s about understanding that discomfort is the engine of maturity. If we teach one group to handle offense and deny another that chance, we create a lopsided playing field—not by talent, but by tolerance.

We also send a subtle but damaging message: this group is strong enough to be offended, but that group isn’t. That’s not respect. That’s condescension.


“Offense becomes a weapon, not a wound.”

Traditionally, being offended was understood as a personal emotional response. Someone says something, you feel hurt, insulted, or challenged—it’s unpleasant, maybe painful. A wound. But it’s something you deal with, like Lincoln did, through humor, logic, or resilience.

But in today’s culture, offense is often treated not as an emotional experience, but as a moral accusation.

Now, when someone says, “I’m offended,” they’re not just saying, “That hurt my feelings.” They’re saying:
“You’ve done something wrong, and I now have the right to punish you.”

  • Careers are destroyed over tweets.

  • Public apologies are demanded for misstatements, jokes, or even factual claims.

  • Institutions overreact, fearing backlash—not because harm was caused, but because someone claimed harm was felt.

This turns offense into a strategic tool—a weapon to silence disagreement, gain status, or assert dominance. And here’s the deeper truth: this behavior often stems from an inability to respond maturely to the offending message. When someone lacks the internal tools—humor, logic, composure—they may externalize the discomfort instead. Rather than engaging the message, they attack the messenger.

The more ruthlessly someone wields this strategy, the more power they acquire in certain environments—media, academia, HR departments, online culture. And the more others scramble to appease them.

Society begins to bend not to the wise or the strong, but to the emotionally volatile. This doesn’t promote dignity or equality. It promotes fragility and fear.


Real Maturity: Offense and Reciprocity

True equality means that everyone has:

  • The right to offend

  • The duty to withstand offense

Lincoln didn’t file a complaint. He didn’t lecture the woman. He made a joke and moved on. That’s what strength looks like.


Conclusion: Offense as an Opportunity

When we forbid offense, we shut down an ancient and necessary process. Human beings grow not by being protected from all discomfort, but by facing it and finding a way through.

Let’s stop pretending that offense is violence. It’s not. It’s a signal, a chance, a test. And if we meet it well—like Lincoln did—we just might reach the floor with our dignity intact.

Men Are Good.

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals