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
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
post photo preview
The Animus of "Should Studies"

This is a brief note on Women’s Studies that came to me while recording the recent discussion with Janice Fiamengo, Hannah Spier, Jim Nuzzo, and me. It was a great conversation, and I’m hoping it will be published on Friday—though we’ll see.

The Animus of “Should Studies”

Something struck me recently about Women’s Studies — or at least the version of it that dominates modern academia. It doesn’t just study women. It tells the rest of us how the world should be arranged around women. It’s less a discipline and more a moral instruction manual.

Carl Jung had a name for the part of the psyche that does this in women: the animus — the inner masculine in women. At its best, the animus offers clarity, strength, and the courage to speak truth. But when it becomes unconscious or inflated, it shifts into something harsher: judgmental, rigid, and convinced of its own righteousness.

Most men are familiar with this but have likely never had a label for the experience. It is when the woman you love goes into a state of mind where the word “should“ is featured and a marked incapacity to hear any feedback is present. in fact, if feedback is offered it is seen as proof that you are a moron. Most men learn to extricate themselves, but the experience is not forgotten. I think it was Jung who said that no man could stand in this for over a couple of minutes.

In Jung’s language, what we are describing is called animus possession — the moment when ideology replaces relationship, and the voice inside says:

“I’m right. You’re wrong.
Here’s what you must fix.”

Sound familiar? It struck me that this is exactly the posture taken by many feminists and by Women’s Studies as a field. They are right—no discussion needed. You should do this, you should do that, and I shouldn’t be treated so badly. Should, should, should.

I’m currently writing the final part of the gynocentrism series, which explores—among other things—best practices for addressing the kind of out-of-control relational aggression that often emerges from this mindset.

Modern Women’s Studies frequently embodies this shadow animus: it begins not with curiosity, but with commandments; not with questions, but with shoulds.

  • Men should act differently

  • Institutions should reorganize

  • Culture should obey

It’s freedom for one group, followed by compliance from another. Or, as I keep coming back to:

Rules for thee,
but empowerment for me.


Liberation for me,
obedience for you.

This is not dialogue. It’s dominance disguised as justice.

And here’s the psychological tragedy:
a worldview built on hostility leads to hostile ways of living.

When you’re taught the world is against you…

  • you become hypervigilant

  • disagreement feels like danger

  • control feels like self-protection

  • anger feels like moral duty

It stops being scholarship and becomes self-defense theater.

But that defense comes at a cost:

Fighting for empowerment every minute
leaves no time to feel empowered.

If the world is always out to get you, you don’t get to relax into love, trust, partnership — or peace. Contentment becomes unreachable, because vigilance never sleeps.

And so I find myself asking a question I didn’t expect:

Are we witnessing empowerment —
or animus possession?

Is this actually helping women flourish?
Or has fear replaced freedom?

If progress means constantly scanning the world for threats, enemies, and micro-offenses… then the victory is hollow. Because the person you must defend yourself from most aggressively… becomes everyone.

A worldview rooted in fear can demand power —
but it cannot deliver peace.

Read full Article
October 27, 2025
post photo preview
Never Date a Feminist: Here’s Why


Never Date a Feminist: Here’s Why

Something precious has been lost between men and women. You can feel it in the awkwardness of modern dating, the cold negotiations of marriage, and the way so many couples approach each other with suspicion instead of trust. What used to be a natural partnership—rooted in complementarity and mutual respect—has been reframed through a political lens that sees power, not love, as the central dynamic.

That shift didn’t happen by chance. Feminist ideology, as it evolved from the 1960s onward, carried a moral story about men and women: that men were the oppressors and women their victims. What began as a call for fairness hardened into a worldview that mistrusts men, glorifies grievance, and turns intimacy into an ideological battlefield.

So when you date a feminist, you’re not just meeting a person—you’re often meeting a worldview that sees you as suspect before you’ve even opened your mouth.


1. The Collapse of Trust

No relationship can thrive without trust, yet feminism has steadily eroded it. When men are portrayed as potential abusers and women as perpetual victims, how can either side relax into genuine affection?

Young women today are taught to approach men as hazards—to “believe all women” and “trust no man.” The presumption of male guilt seeps into dating itself. A man’s simple gestures—holding a door, offering a compliment, expressing interest—are filtered through suspicion. Men, in turn, retreat into silence and self-protection. Many simply stop trying.

Intimacy dies when both sides are afraid of each other.


2. The Pathologizing of Masculinity

For decades, men have been told that something essential about them is wrong. Assertiveness, stoicism, competitiveness, and strength—the very traits that once formed the foundation of male contribution—are now branded “toxic.”

The tragedy is that these traits, rightly directed, make men reliable partners and protectors. A man who masters his aggression and channels his drive is the kind of man a woman can count on. Yet feminism teaches women to distrust those qualities and teaches men to suppress them.

Date a feminist, and you’ll often find yourself apologizing for being masculine at all. She’s been told to want a “strong man,” but only if he never acts like one.


3. From Partnership to Power Struggle

Love used to mean two people combining strengths to face the world together. Feminism recast that partnership as oppression. Marriage became a “patriarchal trap,” commitment a limitation, and dependence a weakness.

In the feminist frame, dating is a negotiation over power. Who pays? Who leads? Who compromises? Every act becomes a political calculation instead of a moment of grace.

But love cannot flourish in an atmosphere of scorekeeping. The best relationships aren’t 50/50 trades but 100/100 offerings—each giving their best without fear of exploitation. Feminism trains women to guard their independence and men to apologize for their strength. No wonder so many couples today feel like opponents instead of allies.


4. The Loss of Gratitude

Healthy love thrives on gratitude—the simple act of appreciating what the other brings. But when one gender is cast as the historical oppressor, gratitude becomes taboo.

Feminist teaching encourages women to expect rather than appreciate. Men are told that whatever they give—income, loyalty, protection—is merely payment on a debt. When giving becomes obligation, affection turns transactional.

That loss of gratitude leaves both sexes empty. Women feel perpetually unsatisfied, and men feel invisible. The dance of masculine offering and feminine appreciation has been replaced by mutual resentment.


5. The Devaluation of Marriage and Family

Feminism’s contempt for traditional roles has devastated family life. Marriage was recast as control, motherhood as limitation, and fatherhood as irrelevant.

A generation of women were told happiness lies in career success and sexual freedom, not in building a life with another person. Many believed it—only to find themselves lonely, overworked, and wondering where all the “good men” went.

Meanwhile, men were told they weren’t needed. Popular culture mocked fathers as fools, and courts treated them as visitors to their own children. The result: rising fatherlessness, falling marriage rates, and a generation of children growing up without stability.

Feminism calls dependence weakness. But love—real love—depends on mutual reliance. It’s not submission; it’s unity.


6. Shame and Fear in Intimacy

Dating used to carry a spark—flirtation, pursuit, playfulness. Feminism replaced it with fear. Men now hesitate to show desire lest it be called predatory; women second-guess their femininity lest it be called weakness.

Sex itself has been politicized. Every gesture is scrutinized through the lens of consent workshops and power analysis. Feminism promised liberation but delivered anxiety. Both sexes now overthink what used to come naturally.

If you date a feminist, don’t be surprised if attraction turns to debate. Ideology kills chemistry faster than rejection ever could.


7. The Weaponization of Blame

In today’s relationship culture, when something goes wrong, the narrative already knows who’s to blame—the man.

Whether the problem is emotional distance, poor communication, or conflict, men are told they must “do the work.” The female perspective is validated automatically; the male one is pathologized. Even therapy has absorbed this bias, treating men as problems to fix rather than people to understand.

Feminism’s “emotional labor” myth—claiming women bear all the relational burden—adds insult to injury. The quiet, reliable men who serve, provide, and protect are invisible to a worldview that only sees female effort.


Final Thought

Dating a feminist often means dating someone who has been taught to see you not as a partner but as an opponent. You can love her, but you’ll be fighting ghosts—the patriarchy, “toxic masculinity,” and every man who ever hurt her.

If you want a relationship built on trust, respect, and admiration, find a woman who believes in men, who sees differences as gifts, not threats.

Never date a feminist—not because you fear her strength, but because you value love too much to let ideology poison it.

Men Are Good.

Read full Article
October 23, 2025
post photo preview
W​omen’s Studies was Never About Study

W​omen’s Studies was Never About Study

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

From Activism to Orthodoxy

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

A Closed Loop of Certainty

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

Theory Without Tether

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

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

The Disappearing Male

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

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

Power, Not Understanding

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

Why It Matters

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

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

Men Are Good


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

Read full Article
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