MenAreGood
Lies and Exaggerations of Feminism
complements via ChatGPT
November 23, 2024
post photo preview


In nearly every crusade feminists have waged, there have been both lies and exaggerations. They have consistently stretched the truth and, in many cases, outright fabricated claims to push society toward a female supremacist agenda.

As I began compiling a list of the many lies told by feminism over the years, I quickly became overwhelmed. There were so many that it was frustrating to organize them all. Then I had an idea: "I wonder what AI would say about this?" Admittedly, I assumed AI would simply repeat the standard “women good“ party line, but I decided to ask anyway. My question was straightforward: "Can you give me a list of feminist lies or exaggerations? Include the lie as the first part, followed by the facts that refute it."

When I plugged in that question, to my surprise, AI generated 20 responses almost immediately. Then it asked, "Do you want more?" Naturally, I said, "Hell yes!" More responses followed. The AI then asked, "Do you want to specify a particular topic?" Intrigued, I said, "Domestic violence." From there, it generated 10 more responses specific to that issue. This continued until I had amassed over 150 responses, spanning various topics.

As I read through the results, it became painfully clear how deeply embedded and pervasive these deceptions have been. A trusting public has swallowed these narratives as if they were 100% true and, to this day, continues to vehemently defend them, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

However, there now seems to be a shift occurring in the United States. Slowly but surely, people are beginning to wake up to the plight of men—an issue that has been systematically obscured for the last 50 years by a pathologically gynocentric parade of false statements. These narratives have painted women as legitimate victims of systemic oppression for thousands of years, while ignoring or dismissing the experiences and challenges faced by men. Maybe with this shift the public is closer to hearing the truth?

I’ll share all 150 examples below. Keep in mind, this isn’t coming from an MRA or a specific ideology—it’s purely AI-generated. In a few spots, I’ve added my own comments, marked with my initials. You’ll also see that ChatGPT included notes under certain sections labeled “Broader Context,” which summarize or tie together specific points.

Let me know what you think of the list and the scope of deception it reveals. Also please put in the comments any areas that are missing.



150 Feminist Lies and Exaggerations

1. Wage Gap: Women earn 77 cents for every dollar a man earns.
The claim implies that women are paid less than men for the same work due to systemic discrimination. However, when controlling for factors like job type, experience, education, and hours worked, the gap largely disappears, revealing differences in choices rather than unequal pay for equal work.


2. One in five women will be sexually assaulted in college.
This statistic is often cited to highlight a supposed epidemic of campus sexual violence. Yet, it comes from surveys with broad definitions of assault and self-reporting, and government crime statistics indicate the actual rate is much lower.


3. Super Bowl Domestic Violence Spike: Domestic violence surges on Super Bowl Sunday.
Feminists claimed that domestic violence spikes during the Super Bowl due to male aggression triggered by sports. This has been thoroughly debunked by studies showing no such trend, and even the originator of the myth admitted it was fabricated.


4. A woman is beaten every 15 seconds in the U.S.
This claim, popularized in the 1990s, was based on questionable extrapolations from a single outdated study. More reliable data shows that intimate partner violence rates are far lower and not so dramatically gendered.


5. Women have been universally oppressed throughout history.
This claim suggests women have always been victims without power or influence. Historical analysis reveals that women often held critical roles in families, communities, and societies, and were protected by laws and customs that recognized their unique contributions.


6. Domestic violence is mostly committed by men against women.
Feminist narratives often portray domestic violence as a one-sided male-perpetrated issue. However, studies consistently show that intimate partner violence is roughly reciprocal, with men and women perpetrating at similar rates, though male victims are less likely to report.


7. Gender is a social construct with no biological basis.
The idea posits that all gender differences are learned and societal rather than inherent. Modern neuroscience and biology affirm that significant, measurable differences exist between male and female brains and hormonal influences, influencing behavior and preferences.


8. 2-8% of sexual assault allegations are false.
This statistic is often cited as proof that false allegations are rare. However, broader studies, such as Kanin’s work, suggest the rate may be higher, and the strict definition of "false" excludes cases that lack evidence or remain unresolved.


9. Women are underrepresented in STEM due to discrimination.
The claim assumes gender disparity in STEM is caused by bias against women. Yet, in more gender-equal societies, women are less likely to choose STEM careers, reflecting personal interests rather than systemic barriers.


10. Women couldn’t own property or vote before feminism.
Feminists often claim women had no legal rights before feminist movements. In reality, many societies allowed women to own property, run businesses, and wield influence, and women's suffrage emerged from broader social changes rather than solely feminist efforts.


11. "Rule of Thumb": Men could legally beat their wives with sticks no thicker than their thumbs.
This myth claims ancient laws sanctioned wife-beating within specific limits. Historical research shows no evidence of such laws, and the phrase likely originates from carpentry, not domestic violence.


12. 150,000 women die annually from anorexia.
This statistic was popularized to highlight issues with eating disorders. It was later revealed to be a gross exaggeration; the actual annual mortality rate from anorexia is significantly lower.  (estimates are about 10,000 trg)


13. Women suffer more in war than men.
Feminists sometimes argue women are the primary victims of war due to displacement and sexual violence. However, men overwhelmingly bear the brunt of war casualties and deaths, often conscripted into combat or targeted directly.


14. Women have fewer rights than men globally.
This claim suggests that women are oppressed in every society due to systematic bias. In many countries, legal frameworks actually favor women, such as in custody disputes, alimony laws, and protections against gender-based violence.


15. Marriage is a tool of female oppression.
Feminists argue marriage subjugates women to male dominance. Yet, data shows that married women tend to be happier, healthier, and live longer than their single counterparts, and marriage benefits men and women differently but positively.


16. Girls are just as interested in sports as boys but lack opportunities.
This claim is often used to justify disproportionate funding for women's sports. Studies show that boys, on average, have stronger natural preferences for competitive physical activities than girls, explaining participation gaps.


17. Women’s suffrage was universally opposed by men.
The narrative assumes men universally resisted giving women the vote. In fact, many men supported women's suffrage, and some women opposed it, especially in regions where suffrage was linked to wartime conscription.



18. Sexual harassment is rampant, and women are powerless to stop it.
Feminists claim workplaces are universally hostile to women. While harassment exists, modern laws and workplace policies in many countries provide robust protections and have significantly reduced such incidents over time.


19. 1 in 3 women globally will experience domestic violence.
This widely-cited claim is based on aggregated data with inconsistent definitions of violence. Many studies find that the actual prevalence varies greatly across regions, and male victims are often underreported. (1 in)


20. Women were burned as witches for being independent or intelligent.
Feminists argue witch hunts targeted women who defied patriarchal norms. Historical analysis shows that accusations often stemmed from local disputes, fear of the supernatural, or political motives, and men were also accused and executed as witches.


21. Feminism is the sole reason women gained the right to vote.
The narrative credits feminism exclusively for suffrage achievements. However, broader social, economic, and political shifts, such as women’s contributions during wars, were significant factors in achieving voting rights.


22. Child custody is biased against mothers.
Feminists claim that courts favor fathers in custody disputes. In reality, family courts overwhelmingly award custody to mothers, often assuming women are naturally better caregivers.


23. 70% of women experience imposter syndrome because of systemic sexism.
This claim attributes feelings of inadequacy in women to external oppression. Research shows imposter syndrome is common in both genders and is influenced more by personality traits and workplace culture than systemic sexism.


24. Pornography causes violence against women.
Feminists argue that pornography directly leads to increased violence against women. Studies have found no consistent causal link; some research even suggests exposure to pornography correlates with lower rates of sexual violence.


25. Women are oppressed because of "unpaid labor" like housework.
This claim frames housework as a form of systemic exploitation. Studies show that while women often do more household chores, men tend to work longer hours in paid labor, resulting in similar total workloads.


26. Women earn less in retirement due to discrimination.
Feminists claim the gender pension gap is a result of systemic inequality. The disparity is largely due to women spending more years out of the workforce for caregiving and opting for less risky investment strategies.


27. The majority of mass shooters are motivated by misogyny.
Feminists often assert that mass shootings are driven by male hatred of women. Studies on mass shooter motives show a complex mix of mental health issues, personal grievances, and social alienation, with misogyny being a rare factor.


28. Only men commit war crimes like sexual violence.
Feminists frame sexual violence in war as a uniquely male-perpetrated atrocity. However, historical records document women committing war crimes, including sexual violence and participation in atrocities.


29. Women have historically been excluded from education.
Feminists claim women were universally denied education. In many societies, elite women were educated, and restrictions often reflected class dynamics rather than gender alone.


30. Divorce leaves most women impoverished due to male exploitation.
Feminists argue that divorce disproportionately harms women. While divorce can be financially challenging, many systems favor women with alimony, child support, and favorable asset division policies.


31. Women are forced into beauty standards created by men.
Feminists claim male-dominated industries impose unattainable beauty ideals on women. Research indicates women are the primary consumers of beauty products, and beauty norms are often reinforced more by female competition than male expectations.


32. Abortion is necessary for women’s mental health.
Feminists argue that abortion access is essential for mental well-being. Studies show mixed results, with some women experiencing regret and negative mental health outcomes post-abortion, while others report relief.


33. Women couldn’t own property before modern feminism.
The claim suggests women had no property rights until recent feminist activism. Historical records show that many societies allowed women to inherit, own, and manage property, especially widows and unmarried women.


34. Feminist reforms have eradicated poverty for women.
Feminists claim their efforts have significantly reduced women’s poverty. In reality, single motherhood and lower workforce participation remain significant contributors to poverty among women, regardless of feminist reforms.


35. Only women are victimized by workplace discrimination.
Feminists assert that discrimination in hiring, promotion, and pay disproportionately harms women. Evidence shows men face discrimination in certain fields, such as education and nursing, where female workers dominate.


36. Women in medieval Europe had no power or influence.
Feminists argue medieval women were entirely subjugated. However, historical accounts show women like Eleanor of Aquitaine and Hildegard of Bingen wielded considerable political and social power.


37. Male-dominated fields are hostile to women.
Feminists often depict male-dominated professions as actively excluding women. While challenges exist, many industries actively encourage female participation through scholarships, quotas, and mentorship programs.


38. Women have been excluded from medical research, resulting in poorer health outcomes.
Feminists claim that women were systematically excluded from clinical trials and medical studies, leaving their health needs ignored. While women were underrepresented in some early trials due to concerns like hormonal variability and pregnancy risks, modern research standards mandate gender inclusion, and many studies specifically focus on women's health issues.


39. Women were excluded from medical research until the 1990s.
This claim suggests systemic neglect of women’s health in clinical trials. While it's true that women were excluded from some early studies, this was primarily due to concerns about potential harm to fetuses and the complexity of accounting for hormonal cycles. By the 1990s, regulatory changes like the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993 mandated the inclusion of women in federally funded research.


40. Male bodies are the "default" in medicine, leaving women at a disadvantage.
Feminists argue that using male bodies as the standard for medical research has resulted in poorer healthcare for women. While early research often prioritized men to avoid variability from menstrual cycles, modern medicine recognizes sex-based differences, and researchers now study both male and female physiology to tailor treatments.


41. Women’s unique health needs, like heart disease, are ignored in research.
This claim gained traction because early heart disease studies focused on men. However, the medical community has since recognized that heart disease manifests differently in women, leading to targeted research and improved diagnostic tools and treatments for women.


42. Medications are only tested on men, putting women at risk.
Feminists argue that drug trials conducted predominantly on men result in unsafe medications for women. While some older studies excluded women, current clinical trials are required to include diverse populations, and sex-specific effects are closely monitored to ensure safety for all patients.


43. Women are excluded because of sexism in medical research.
This claim frames the issue as deliberate discrimination against women. In reality, earlier exclusions were often motivated by ethical concerns over pregnancy and protecting reproductive health, not sexism, and these gaps have since been addressed by policy changes.


44. Women’s pain and symptoms are dismissed because of male-centered research.
Feminists argue that women’s symptoms, particularly for conditions like chronic pain, are ignored due to reliance on male-centered studies. While there is evidence of disparities in pain treatment, these are now being actively addressed, with growing research into conditions that disproportionately affect women, such as fibromyalgia and endometriosis.


45. Female animals are not used in preclinical trials, skewing results.
Feminists highlight the historical preference for male animals in early drug testing, claiming it harms women. While this was true in the past, recent guidelines encourage the inclusion of both male and female animals to better understand sex-specific responses in early-stage research.


46. Women's mental health research has been neglected.
Feminists argue that conditions like postpartum depression and menopause-related mental health issues are ignored. However, these areas have become significant fields of study in recent decades, with dedicated funding and awareness campaigns leading to better understanding and treatment options.


Broader Context

The narrative of exclusion often overlooks progress in addressing these gaps, such as:

  • Increased funding for women's health initiatives, like breast cancer research and maternal health programs.

  • Policies mandating the inclusion of women and minorities in research (e.g., NIH guidelines).

  • A growing focus on sex-based differences in diseases, medication responses, and health outcomes.

While historical underrepresentation in research is a valid critique, framing it as deliberate oppression neglects the ethical, biological, and logistical factors that contributed to the disparity. Today, researchers and institutions are actively working to ensure equity in medical studies.


47. Girls are systematically disadvantaged in education due to sexism.
Feminists claim that patriarchal systems in schools favor boys, leaving girls behind academically. However, data from the last few decades shows that girls outperform boys in most academic measures, including grades, high school graduation rates, and college enrollment, indicating that if biases exist, they may disproportionately affect boys.


48. Textbooks and curricula promote male dominance by excluding women.
Feminists argue that history and literature curricula are male-centered, sidelining women's contributions. While early textbooks often focused on male figures, modern curricula include significant efforts to highlight women’s achievements across all fields, sometimes to the point of sidelining male contributions.


49. Girls are discouraged from pursuing STEM fields by sexist teachers and peers.
The claim suggests that societal biases dissuade girls from entering STEM. Research shows that while there are societal influences, girls often self-select away from STEM careers based on interests, not discrimination, and countries with the most gender equality see the widest STEM gender gaps due to these preferences.


50. Dress codes unfairly target girls and perpetuate rape culture.
Feminists assert that school dress codes sexualize girls and blame them for distracting boys. While dress codes sometimes target specific clothing styles, their intent is generally to maintain a professional environment, and reforms in many schools have aimed at making these rules more gender-neutral.


51. Teachers give more attention and praise to boys than girls.
This claim suggests that boys receive preferential treatment in the classroom. Research reveals that while boys may receive more disciplinary attention, girls often get higher evaluations and encouragement due to their behavior and compliance with school norms.


52. Boys dominate classroom discussions, silencing girls.
Feminists argue that boys overshadow girls in academic discussions due to societal conditioning. Studies show that while boys may speak more frequently, girls tend to provide higher-quality responses and dominate in environments that value academic structure, like honors or AP classes.


53. Title IX was necessary to fix massive gender inequality in education.
Feminists claim that Title IX (passed in 1972) was essential to eliminate widespread discrimination against women in schools. While it addressed legitimate gaps in access to athletics and education, the law now sometimes skews opportunities unfairly against boys, particularly in sports, where male teams are cut to maintain compliance.


54. Women are underrepresented in higher education because of discrimination.
The narrative suggests that sexism keeps women out of college. Yet, women have outnumbered men in higher education for decades, comprising nearly 60% of college students today, with men being the ones lagging behind in enrollment and graduation rates.


55. Standardized tests are biased against girls.
Feminists claim standardized tests favor boys due to question design or test-taking strategies. While boys historically scored slightly higher on math portions, girls outperform boys in language arts and overall GPA, and test revisions have mitigated most gender disparities.


56. Single-sex education is necessary to empower girls.
Feminists argue that girls thrive in single-sex environments because they are free from male-dominated classrooms. Research shows mixed results, with single-sex education benefiting some girls but often failing to outperform coeducational systems in terms of academic outcomes.


Broader Context

In many areas, the educational system has shifted to address previous disparities for girls but now risks neglecting boys:

  • Grade Gap: Boys are more likely to be diagnosed with behavioral issues, receive lower grades, and drop out of high school.

  • Higher Education: Men are now significantly underrepresented in colleges, a trend that continues to grow.

  • Discipline: Boys are disproportionately punished in schools, potentially contributing to lower engagement and academic performance.

The narrative that girls are oppressed in education no longer aligns with the evidence. The focus on empowering girls has been largely successful, but many boys now face systemic challenges that remain unaddressed.


57. 1 in 4 women will be raped in their lifetime.
This statistic is often cited as evidence of a widespread epidemic of rape. However, it originates from surveys using broad definitions that include consensual but regretted encounters, while other data, like the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), reports much lower rates of rape and sexual assault.


58. Rape is a tool of patriarchal oppression.
Feminists claim rape is systematically used to oppress women in male-dominated societies. While rape is a heinous crime that disproportionately affects women, evidence shows that men can also be victims, often overlooked due to societal biases and underreporting.


59. False rape accusations are exceedingly rare (2-8%).
Feminists argue that only a tiny fraction of rape allegations are false, using studies with strict definitions of "false." Broader research, such as Kanin's study, suggests higher rates of false reporting, particularly in cases where allegations are retracted or lack evidence, but exact numbers remain debated.


60. Victim-blaming is universal and systemic in rape cases.
The claim suggests society inherently blames victims for their assault, preventing justice. While some instances of victim-blaming occur, legal systems and public attitudes have significantly shifted toward supporting victims, as seen in widespread "believe the victim" campaigns and legislative reforms.


61. College campuses are 'rape cultures' where sexual assault is normalized.
This claim stems from surveys suggesting that 1 in 5 college women are sexually assaulted. However, these surveys often include non-criminal acts like unwanted touching or drunken regret, and official campus crime reports show far lower rates of forcible rape.


62. Most rapes go unpunished because of systemic bias against women.
Feminists argue that the justice system is designed to protect rapists and discredit victims. While rape cases are complex and often difficult to prosecute due to evidentiary challenges, most developed countries have laws specifically aimed at protecting victims and ensuring fair trials.


63. Marital rape was legal everywhere until feminists changed the law.
Feminists assert that before modern feminism, husbands had total legal authority over their wives’ bodies. While marital rape laws were slow to develop, many societies historically viewed consent as implicit in marriage but condemned extreme violence or coercion. Legal reforms now universally criminalize marital rape in many countries.


64. Rape is all about power and never about sex.
The claim asserts that rape is purely a crime of power and control rather than sexual desire. While power dynamics often play a role, studies show that sexual motives and opportunity are significant factors in many cases.


65. Rape kits go untested because the system doesn’t care about women.
Feminists highlight backlogs of untested rape kits as evidence of systemic indifference. While backlogs exist due to resource constraints, governments have invested heavily in clearing them and improving forensic processes in recent years.


66. Rape is always a male-on-female crime.
Feminists often overlook male victims and female perpetrators in discussions about rape. Data shows that men can also be victims of sexual assault, particularly in prisons, and female-perpetrated assaults are more common than typically acknowledged.


67. Rape has historically been about controlling women’s sexuality.
Feminists argue that laws against rape were created to protect men’s property (i.e., wives and daughters) rather than women themselves. While historical laws sometimes reflected patriarchal values, modern laws focus on personal autonomy and protecting all individuals, regardless of gender.


68. The military is rife with unchecked sexual violence against women.
Feminists often claim that female soldiers face systemic sexual violence in the military. While sexual assault is a serious problem in the armed forces, reforms, awareness campaigns, and increased reporting mechanisms have improved conditions significantly, and male victims in the military are also a significant but less-discussed group.


Broader Context

Rape is a serious issue that demands attention, but exaggerating or misrepresenting claims can:

  • Undermine trust in legal systems and institutions.

  • Create stigma against men, particularly with sweeping generalizations about "toxic masculinity."

  • Overlook male victims, who often face even greater barriers to reporting.

Focusing on accurate data and fair systems is essential to ensuring justice for all victims of sexual violence while maintaining the presumption of innocence for the accused.


69. Abortion is a constitutional right in the United States.
Feminists have argued that abortion is a constitutional right guaranteed by Roe v. Wade. However, the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization clarified that the Constitution does not explicitly guarantee abortion, leaving the issue to states to legislate.


70. Overturning Roe v. Wade will lead to widespread deaths of women from unsafe abortions.
This claim asserts that restricting abortion will force women into dangerous, illegal procedures. Modern medicine, combined with abortion pills and safer options even in restrictive states, makes this scenario unlikely, and countries with strict abortion laws often report lower abortion-related mortality rates.


71. Most women who seek abortions do so because of rape or life-threatening conditions.
Feminists often emphasize these extreme cases to justify widespread abortion access. In reality, studies show that the majority of abortions are elective, with socioeconomic concerns being the primary reason cited, while cases involving rape, incest, or life-threatening conditions account for a small percentage.


72. Abortion is necessary for women’s mental health.
Feminists argue that abortion access is critical to preserving women’s mental well-being. However, research on this topic is mixed, with some studies showing relief post-abortion but others indicating higher rates of depression, anxiety, and regret, especially after later-term abortions.


73. Abortion bans criminalize women and put them in jail.
Feminists claim that abortion restrictions result in women being prosecuted. In most cases, abortion bans target providers, not women, and even restrictive laws often include exceptions for the mother’s health or in cases of rape or incest.


74. A fetus is just a clump of cells until viability.
This claim dehumanizes the fetus to support abortion access. Scientific consensus holds that human life begins at conception, with measurable development milestones like a heartbeat at six weeks and pain sensitivity by 20 weeks, making the "clump of cells" argument scientifically inaccurate.


75. Women have no alternative if abortion is banned.
Feminists argue that abortion is the only option for unwanted pregnancies. However, adoption and increased access to contraception provide viable alternatives, and many organizations offer support for women during and after pregnancy.


76. Restricting abortion disproportionately harms poor and minority women.
This claim suggests that abortion bans uniquely disadvantage underprivileged groups. While access issues exist, some communities see abortion as disproportionately used, with studies showing minority women undergoing abortions at higher rates, raising concerns about systemic exploitation rather than empowerment.


77. Late-term abortions are only performed for severe medical reasons.
Feminists often claim late-term abortions are rare and medically necessary. However, data indicates that while they are rare, many late-term abortions are elective, not tied to health risks, challenging the narrative that they are exclusively a medical emergency.


78. Abortion empowers women to control their own bodies.
This argument posits that abortion is essential for women’s autonomy. Critics argue that this overlooks the ethical complexity of balancing a woman’s rights with the fetus’s right to life and the societal responsibility to support both mother and child.


79. Abortion restrictions turn women into second-class citizens.
Feminists claim that restricting abortion denies women equality. In reality, abortion laws aim to address competing rights—the woman’s and the fetus’s—and many argue that equality doesn’t require unlimited access to abortion but rather better social support systems.


80. Pro-life movements are rooted in misogyny and control over women.
Feminists often claim opposition to abortion stems from a desire to control women. Pro-life advocates argue their stance is based on protecting fetal life, with many women leading the movement and citing ethical, moral, or religious reasons unrelated to sexism.


81. Women will lose access to contraception if abortion is restricted.
Feminists link abortion bans to a loss of birth control access. In reality, contraception is widely accepted even among many pro-life advocates, and no state has proposed banning contraception as part of abortion restrictions.


Broader Context

Abortion remains one of the most polarizing issues, but exaggerations or misrepresentations in feminist arguments often:

  • Oversimplify the ethical and scientific complexities surrounding abortion.

  • Dismiss the rights and perspectives of those advocating for fetal life.

  • Ignore the progress made in supporting women through alternatives like contraception, healthcare, and adoption services.

Framing the debate accurately and fairly is essential to finding compassionate and effective solutions.


82. Disagreeing with feminism means you’re a misogynist.
Feminists often claim that anyone opposing their views inherently hates or disrespects women. In reality, many critics of feminism support gender equality but take issue with specific feminist policies, narratives, or methods that they see as divisive or unfair.


83. Anti-feminists want to maintain male dominance.
This claim suggests that opposition to feminism stems from a desire to preserve patriarchy. Many critics, including women, argue that modern feminism has gone beyond addressing inequality and now promotes double standards or policies that harm men.


84. Anti-feminist women are "internalized misogynists."
Feminists often argue that women who reject feminism are brainwashed by patriarchy. This dismisses the agency of these women, who may have valid reasons for rejecting feminist ideologies, such as prioritizing family roles or disagreeing with victim-centered narratives.


85. Disagreeing with feminism is "violence against women."
Feminists sometimes equate verbal disagreement or criticism with physical harm. This conflation undermines real issues of violence by exaggerating the impact of dissenting views and stifles open dialogue.


86. Men’s rights activists (MRAs) are just misogynists in disguise.
Feminists claim that MRAs are simply men angry at losing power. In reality, many MRAs focus on genuine issues like high male suicide rates, unfair family court systems, and lack of support for male victims of domestic violence—issues feminism often overlooks.


87. Religious critics of feminism are regressive and anti-woman.
Feminists often portray religious individuals who critique feminism as clinging to outdated, oppressive traditions. Many religious critics, however, argue that their views promote a complementary, rather than adversarial, understanding of gender roles, rooted in mutual respect.


88. Criticizing feminism is equivalent to denying gender inequality exists.
Feminists claim that opponents of feminism refuse to acknowledge women’s struggles. Many critics recognize past inequalities but believe feminism no longer accurately reflects current realities or that its solutions create new problems.


89. Opponents of feminism are against progress.
This claim frames feminism as synonymous with progress and its critics as backward or regressive. Many critics argue that progress requires addressing the needs of both men and women, rather than focusing solely on one gender.


90. Anti-feminists are uneducated or uninformed.
Feminists often dismiss criticism by labeling opponents as ignorant. However, many critics of feminism are well-educated and base their arguments on data, historical context, and philosophical perspectives that challenge feminist narratives.


91. Disagreeing with feminist policies means you’re against equality.
Feminists often equate their movement with equality itself, framing disagreement as opposition to fairness. Critics argue that equality can be achieved through non-feminist frameworks, including those that emphasize merit, fairness, and balanced responsibilities between genders.


Broader Context

Criticism of feminism is often dismissed or vilified, creating a polarized environment that stifles productive debate. Common concerns among critics include:

  • Generalizations about Men: Feminist narratives often paint men as oppressors, alienating potential allies.

  • Double Standards: Feminism sometimes promotes ideas (e.g., "believe all women") that conflict with principles of fairness and due process.

  • Neglect of Men’s Issues: Critics argue that feminism often ignores or dismisses challenges faced by men, such as higher suicide rates, workplace fatalities, or family court biases.

Engaging in respectful dialogue and addressing valid critiques is essential to fostering genuine gender equality.


92. Feminists claim they fight for bodily autonomy, but often ignore male circumcision.
Feminists frequently advocate for women’s bodily autonomy, particularly in issues like abortion or female genital mutilation (FGM), but often remain silent on male circumcision. Critics argue that this selective focus neglects the principle of bodily autonomy for boys, who are unable to consent to this permanent procedure.


93. Male circumcision is harmless and not comparable to female genital mutilation (FGM).
Feminists and others sometimes downplay the impact of male circumcision, citing medical benefits or cultural norms. However, circumcision removes functional tissue, affects sexual sensation, and can have lifelong consequences, making it ethically comparable to some forms of FGM in terms of violating bodily integrity.


94. Feminists view circumcision as a male issue and thus outside their advocacy.
Some feminists argue that circumcision falls outside their focus on women's rights. Critics counter that a movement claiming to champion gender equality should oppose all forms of non-consensual genital cutting, regardless of gender.


95. Circumcision is necessary for hygiene and health, unlike FGM.
A common argument is that circumcision prevents infections and diseases, unlike FGM, which has no medical benefits. However, these health claims are debated, with many medical organizations acknowledging that routine infant circumcision is not medically necessary and that hygiene can be managed without surgery.


96. Circumcision is a cultural or religious practice that should be respected.
Feminists often oppose cultural practices like FGM but are more accepting of circumcision, citing religious or cultural significance. Critics argue that ethical principles, such as consent and bodily integrity, should take precedence over cultural traditions in both cases.


97. Opposing circumcision is framed as anti-Semitic or Islamophobic.
Some feminists and advocates avoid addressing male circumcision due to its association with Jewish and Islamic practices. Critics emphasize that opposing circumcision is not about targeting religions but about advocating for universal bodily autonomy and consent.


98. Feminism’s focus on "patriarchy" ignores the harms to boys and men in this context.
Feminists often frame circumcision as a patriarchal practice that benefits men by enhancing their hygiene or social acceptance. However, the practice disproportionately impacts boys, who cannot consent, and often arises from cultural norms that prioritize parental rights over individual autonomy.


99. Medical benefits justify male circumcision, unlike FGM.
Feminists sometimes argue that circumcision is justified due to health benefits, unlike FGM, which has none. However, most medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, state that the benefits of circumcision are minimal and do not outweigh the ethical concerns of performing it on non-consenting individuals.


Broader Context

Circumcision highlights a double standard in gender-based advocacy:

  • Lack of Focus on Boys’ Rights: Feminism’s silence on circumcision suggests a bias in addressing bodily autonomy solely for females.

  • Ethical Concerns: Circumcision is performed on infants who cannot consent, raising serious ethical issues about parental rights versus a child’s bodily integrity.

  • Misguided Comparisons to FGM: While FGM is often more severe, minimizing the harm of circumcision disregards the pain, risks, and lifelong impacts it can have on men.

The principle of bodily autonomy should apply universally, making circumcision a critical issue for anyone advocating for gender equality and human rights.


The issue of divorce courts, particularly in relation to gender bias, is a significant area of debate. Feminist perspectives and critiques of the divorce court system often center on the treatment of women, but some feminist views may also overlook the impact on men. Here’s an analysis of feminist claims and the refutations or alternative views, including gender-related issues in divorce courts:


100. Divorce courts are biased against women, favoring men in custody battles.
Feminists often argue that divorce courts typically favor fathers over mothers when awarding custody of children. However, studies have shown that mothers are granted primary custody in the vast majority of cases, with some estimates suggesting that fathers receive primary custody in only around 10% of cases.


Part two will have 101-150 (locals post length limit)

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
September 03, 2026
False Allegations - What the Numbers Don't Tell Us

We are getting a head start on International Falsely Accused day on Sept 9th!

How many false allegations of sexual abuse are there? We are often told they are extremely rare—perhaps only one to three percent. But those numbers depend on an extraordinarily narrow definition of what qualifies as a false allegation. They usually count only allegations proven to have been deliberately fabricated. Mistaken identity, contaminated memories, misunderstandings, suggestive interviewing, unsupported accusations and even recanted allegations may not be included.

In this conversation, Janice Fiamengo and I speak with Dr. Felicity Goodyear Smith, a physician, forensic medical examiner and professor at the University of Auckland who has studied wrongful allegations for more than three decades. Felicity explains the many different ways an innocent person can be accused, separating deliberate fabrications from allegations that are sincerely believed but untrue.

We also examine how “believe the victim” has ...

01:09:20
July 15, 2026
The Women's Health Narrative Meets the DATA

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Nuzzo

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

Jack Kammer

Jacks Substack Men’s ...

00:35:24
July 11, 2026
Mantoon: A Visit to the Doc

A visit to the Doc.

00:00:14

It seems that one famous plaster body of mother and child was wrong. The “mother” is actually a man and the child is not related to him.
For years the famous image of a mother protecting a child was projection. The DNA shows a man protecting a child that is not related to him.

As I stated before women who actually see men’s rights and general fairness as valid, tend to be the mothers of boys. This video is a great example of them pushing back and it is great to see.

August 10, 2026
Feminism Cannot Be Reformed: It Must Be Destroyed Root and Branch

Janice Fiamengo’s new book is out, and this excerpt from the Foreword gives you a pretty good idea of what to expect. Janice goes straight to the heart of feminism and gives ample reasons for its demolition.

This is an important book. I hope you’ll get a copy for yourself—and maybe send one to someone who is even a little bit open to seeing the reality of feminism rather than the equality mask presented by feminists and so much of the media.

https://fiamengofile.substack.com/p/feminism-cannot-be-reformed

November 05, 2026
post photo preview
When Men’s Grievances Become a Public Health Threat
The Lancet acknowledges men’s suffering, but what happens when men question the causes of that suffering?



When Men’s Grievances Become a Public Health Threat

The Lancet acknowledges men’s suffering, but what happens when men question the causes of that suffering?

In a remarkable article published October 29, 2026, in The Lancet, one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals, authors Sarah Hawkes and Kent Buse make this extraordinary claim:

“The manosphere, a diffuse commercial ecosystem and loose collection of online communities united by shared beliefs about masculinity, misogyny, and male victimisation, is an under-recognised determinant of health harms.”

Think about that. The manosphere is now being described as a public-health harm. Not just a collection of websites where men talk about their problems, but something that supposedly damages people’s health. And as we will see, the authors make this claim while admitting that they have very little solid evidence that the manosphere actually causes these harms.

Something interesting is happening in the way our institutions respond to the problems facing boys and men. For decades, these problems were largely ignored. Boys fell behind in school. Men died by suicide at dramatically higher rates than women. Fathers struggled with family courts and separation from their children. Male victims of domestic violence often found little help. Yet these problems rarely received the attention given to similar difficulties facing women and girls.

But things are changing. The problems facing boys and men have become too obvious to ignore. There is simply too much evidence, and too many people are talking about it.

So what happens now? Instead of ignoring men’s problems, institutions are beginning to acknowledge them. But there’s a catch. They seem quite willing to recognize that men are suffering, as long as men don’t question the accepted explanations for that suffering.

The Lancet article is a perfect example. The authors acknowledge boys’ educational difficulties, men’s loneliness, economic insecurity, and social isolation. These are real problems, and the authors recognize them. But when men suggest that feminism or institutional discrimination might have something to do with these problems, things change.

The authors say that misogyny, or hatred of women, is what unites the manosphere. But they also identify criticism of feminism as one of its defining beliefs. This raises a troubling question: Are they treating criticism of feminism as hatred of women? They acknowledge that men have real problems, but when men question whether feminism has contributed to those problems, their complaints risk being treated as part of the very problem the authors want to eliminate.

The article, titled Reframing the manosphere: a public health response to a commercial ecosystem, compares the manosphere to industries such as tobacco. The authors go on to recommend public-health campaigns, government involvement, stronger content moderation, and using algorithms to promote what they consider positive messages.

In other words, they aren’t simply telling us that the manosphere is dangerous. They are proposing ways to change what people see and hear online. And that raises some very serious questions.

 

They Admit the Evidence Is Scarce

One of the most astonishing passages in the article begins with these words:

“Although rigorous causal evidence is currently scarce”

Read that again. The authors admit that they don’t have much rigorous evidence showing that the manosphere actually causes the harms they are describing.

You might think that would lead them to be cautious. Perhaps they would say more research is needed before reaching conclusions. But that’s not what happens.

Instead, they go on to associate the manosphere with misogyny, violence against women, rape-myth acceptance, sexual aggression, and online harassment. The reader is left with the impression that the manosphere is responsible for a long list of serious problems.

But where is the proof?

Suppose researchers find that men who visit certain websites are more likely to hold negative attitudes toward women. Does that mean the websites caused those attitudes? Or might men who already hold those attitudes be more likely to visit those websites?

Those are two very different possibilities. And there are others. Perhaps men who have experienced rejection, mistreatment, or isolation are drawn to communities where they find people who understand their experiences.

None of this means that genuinely hateful online communities are harmless. But if you are going to claim that something causes a public-health problem, shouldn’t you be able to demonstrate that it actually causes the problem?

Apparently, the authors believe the available evidence is sufficient to begin proposing solutions. And some of those solutions involve regulating what people are allowed to see online.

 

A “So-Called” Crisis?

The authors describe manosphere communities as being concerned with a “so-called crisis of masculinity.”

Why “so-called”?

That phrase is a subtle way of casting doubt on something without directly denying it. By referring to a “so-called crisis of masculinity,” the authors signal skepticism about the crisis before even examining the evidence.

Boys are struggling in school. Men account for most suicides, workplace deaths, and prisoners. Fathers face serious challenges following family separation, and male victims of violence often struggle to be taken seriously. These problems are real, whether or not someone wants to call them a crisis of masculinity.

The authors also tell us that manosphere communities share the belief that feminism has systematically disadvantaged men.

But what if that belief is true?

Could feminist ideas have influenced policies that disadvantage boys? Could feminist theories of domestic violence have contributed to the neglect of male victims? Could decades of portraying masculinity as toxic or dangerous have affected how boys see themselves?

Why aren’t these possibilities being investigated?

So if you believe feminism has harmed men, does that make you part of a dangerous online movement? Is questioning feminism now evidence of a dangerous ideology?

 

Men’s Problems Are Real, but Their Explanations Are Wrong

Here is another revealing statement from the article. The authors say that the manosphere redirects blame for men’s problems toward women and feminism rather than the structural and economic forces responsible.

Notice what they are doing.

They acknowledge that men have problems, but they seem quite certain about what is causing them. Economics and social structures are acceptable explanations. Feminism apparently isn’t.

 


But why can’t feminism be part of those structural forces?

Feminist organizations have influenced laws, government policies, schools, universities, domestic violence services, and the way we think about men and women. These are not minor influences. They are part of the institutions that shape our lives.

Could some of these influences have harmed boys and men? Isn’t that worth investigating?

Of course, blaming women as a group for men’s problems is different from criticizing feminist ideas or policies. But the article does not clearly explain how it separates those two things when discussing the broader manosphere.

And that is a serious problem.

The authors describe men in these communities as trapped in narratives of grievance and hopelessness. But what exactly is wrong with having a grievance?

Women had grievances about discrimination. Black Americans had grievances about segregation. Workers had grievances about unsafe conditions and unfair treatment. Those grievances helped produce important social changes.

Why should men’s grievances be viewed differently?

Surely the question should be whether the grievance is justified, not whether the person expressing it is a man.

 

Nine Out of Ten People Are Biased Against Women?

Here’s another jaw-dropper.

The authors tell us that nearly nine out of ten people hold at least one fundamental bias against women. That’s an extraordinary number, and it certainly makes the world sound overwhelmingly hostile toward women.

But let’s look at where it comes from.

The source is the United Nations Development Programme’s 2023 Gender Social Norms Index. Researchers used seven measures involving attitudes about political leadership, education, employment, and gender roles. If someone crossed the researchers’ threshold on just one of those measures, that person was counted as having at least one bias against women.

And here’s the part the Lancet authors don’t mention in that passage.

According to the UNDP, approximately 90% of men and 87% of women were classified as holding at least one bias against women.

Yes, you read that correctly. By this measure, almost nine out of ten women also have at least one bias against women.

Does that mean almost every woman is a misogynist?

Of course not. It means the researchers have created a very broad definition of bias. Someone who believes men make better political leaders, or college education is more important to men, or being strongly anti abortion, can each be counted as having at least one bias against women, even though these attitudes are very different and seemingly not so directly connected to bias against women .

The statistic is not made up. But presenting it without explaining what it measures can give readers a very misleading impression. Is this an attempt to frame a narrative or is it just sloppy writing. You be the judge.

And here’s something else worth considering. What would happen if researchers created a similar index measuring negative attitudes toward men?

What percentage of people would be classified as biased against males if they were asked whether men are dangerous, emotionally deficient, less deserving of sympathy, or responsible for society’s problems?

Would we get another enormous number?

We don’t know. But wouldn’t it be interesting to find out?

Even a 2024 UN Women discussion paper recognized important problems with the way gender norms are measured, including unclear definitions and weak links between some measurements and policy recommendations.

The larger point is simple. When researchers present an extraordinary statistic, we need to know exactly what they measured before accepting the story they attach to it.

 

When Complaining About the System Becomes Suspicious

The authors cite a survey of domestic violence workers who reported that some men expressed ideas associated with the manosphere.

Among those ideas was the belief that the legal system is stacked against men.

Now think about that.

A man complains that the legal system treats men unfairly. Instead of asking whether his complaint might be justified, the researchers include that belief among examples of manosphere-associated thinking.

What if the man has actually experienced unfair treatment?

What if he is a father who believes he was treated unfairly in a custody dispute? What if he is a male victim of domestic violence who could not find help? What if his experiences have given him good reasons to question the system?

Are those experiences evidence of a dangerous ideology?

The survey may tell us what workers reported hearing, but it does not establish whether the men’s complaints were true or false. Nor does it demonstrate that the manosphere caused those beliefs.

Yet this is how a legitimate grievance can begin to look like a symptom of something unhealthy.

Instead of asking whether the system is unfair, we begin asking what is wrong with the man who thinks it is unfair.

That is quite a reversal.

 

From Ignoring Men’s Pain to Explaining It Away

I have written before about what I see as a change in the way our culture handles male suffering.

For years, the suffering of boys and men was largely invisible. Men were expected to endure difficulties, solve their own problems, and keep going. Their pain simply did not attract the same concern as women’s pain.

I have described this through the idea of gynocentrism, the tendency to place women and their experiences closer to the center of our moral concern.

But something changed as the problems facing boys and men became harder to ignore.

Now we hear much more about boys falling behind in school, men’s loneliness, male suicide, and other disadvantages. That’s good. These problems deserve attention.

But look at how they are often explained.

Boys struggle in school because of restrictive masculinity. Men are lonely because they lack emotional skills. Men die by suicide because they won’t ask for help.

Sometimes these explanations identify real contributing factors. But why do they so often focus on what is supposedly wrong with men?

What about the institutions serving them? What about policies that may disadvantage them? What about the possibility that some feminist ideas have influenced how society responds to male suffering?

The Lancet paper fits this pattern remarkably well.

The authors acknowledge the problems. But when men question whether feminism or institutional discrimination might be contributing to those problems, their explanations become suspect.

The suffering is real. The explanation becomes the problem.

This is a significant change from simply ignoring men’s pain. Now the pain is recognized, but the discussion about what causes it may be steered away from certain possibilities.

 


Six Strategies to Combat the Manosphere

Having acknowledged that rigorous causal evidence is scarce, the authors nevertheless propose six priorities for responding to the alleged health harms of the manosphere.

Some of their recommendations are sensible. They want to address boys’ educational problems, loneliness, and social isolation. They even warn against portraying masculinity as inherently toxic.

I welcome those ideas.

But their fourth recommendation is especially troubling.

The authors compare regulating the manosphere to regulating the tobacco industry. They argue that public-health efforts should target the structures and incentives that promote harm rather than simply blaming the people exposed to them.

They acknowledge that the comparison is imperfect. The manosphere is not a single product, its harms are harder to demonstrate, and online communities can serve useful purposes.

Nevertheless, they recommend stronger content moderation and using algorithms to promote positive messages and norms.

Think about what that means.

They want online platforms to do more to limit certain kinds of content while promoting other kinds of content.

But who gets to decide what is harmful and what is positive?

 

Who Gets to Decide What Men Can Say?

Suppose a man argues that feminist policies have contributed to boys’ educational difficulties. Suppose he believes family courts disadvantage fathers or that male victims of domestic violence receive inadequate support.

Are these legitimate subjects for discussion?

Or are they examples of the harmful grievance narratives the authors want platforms to address?

Now consider someone arguing that patriarchy and toxic masculinity are responsible for men’s problems.

Would that message be treated as harmful? Or would it be promoted as positive and constructive?

The authors don’t explicitly say that criticism of feminism should be censored. That’s important to recognize. Their stated goal is to reduce harmful online environments.

But they also identify criticism of feminism as a central belief within the manosphere, which they describe as a public-health harm.

So where exactly is the line?

There is an enormous difference between threatening women and criticizing feminism. There is an equally enormous difference between encouraging violence and questioning whether institutions treat men fairly.

Any system that fails to make those distinctions risks suppressing legitimate criticism along with genuinely harmful behavior.

And remember, ideas don’t have to be banned to disappear from public view. Algorithms can make some messages more visible and others much harder to find.

If platforms are encouraged to promote approved messages about masculinity while limiting supposedly harmful ones, who decides which ideas deserve to be heard?

That should concern anyone who values open discussion.

 

What If Feminism Is a Public-Health Harm?

Here is a question the Lancet authors don’t appear to consider.

What if we turned their argument around?

They believe that ideas circulating within the manosphere can contribute to poor mental health, harmful attitudes, and social problems.

Fine. Let’s examine that possibility.

But why not apply exactly the same standards to feminism?

What happens to boys who grow up hearing that masculinity is toxic? What happens to male victims of domestic violence when services are organized around theories that primarily identify men as perpetrators and women as victims? What happens when boys repeatedly encounter messages portraying males as privileged, dangerous, or responsible for society’s problems? What happens to fathers who are unjustly removed from their children’s lives?

Could these messages and institutional practices have consequences for male mental health and well-being?

Why wouldn’t we investigate them?

If researchers believe that ideological environments can damage health, then feminist ideas and institutions should be examined just as carefully as the manosphere.

The authors acknowledge that rigorous causal evidence connecting the manosphere to some of the alleged harms is scarce. Yet they propose a broad public-health response.

Would they support the same level of investigation into the possible harms of feminist-influenced policies and cultural messages?

Or would asking that question itself be considered another example of dangerous manosphere thinking?

That’s the question I would like to see answered.

If the manosphere can be investigated as a possible public-health harm, why should feminism be exempt from the same examination?

 

What Exactly Is the Manosphere?

Another problem runs through the entire article. What exactly do the authors mean by the manosphere?

The term is used to describe a remarkably broad collection of online communities. A minority may have misogynistic views. Others sell questionable dating advice. Still others discuss fathers’ rights, male victims of domestic violence, boys’ educational difficulties, or men’s mental health.

Are all these groups really the same?

Does a man become part of a dangerous movement because he believes fathers deserve fair treatment in court? Is someone promoting misogyny because he questions a feminist theory? What about a psychologist who believes traditional masculine characteristics can sometimes be healthy and useful?

The label doesn’t tell us whether any of these people are right or wrong.

Yet when very different groups are placed under one negatively charged label, the worst behavior associated with that label can cast suspicion on everyone else.

That’s particularly troubling when researchers begin proposing interventions that could affect what people are allowed to say or how widely their ideas are shared.

Before deciding how to regulate the manosphere, shouldn’t we be clear about what it actually includes?

 

A Better Way to Help Boys and Men

There is an irony in this Lancet article. The authors recognize that boys and men have serious problems. They acknowledge loneliness, educational difficulties, insecurity, and social isolation. They even warn against treating boys and men themselves as the problem.

Those are welcome observations.

But what if one reason some men turn to online communities is that they believe established institutions are unwilling to listen to them?

What if some of their complaints are justified?

And what happens when researchers describe those complaints as part of a harmful ideology?

Wouldn’t that make some men even less likely to trust the institutions supposedly trying to help them?

A better approach would be to take men’s experiences seriously without requiring them to accept a predetermined explanation for their suffering.

Investigate their complaints. Examine the evidence. Challenge false claims, but don’t assume a complaint is false simply because it criticizes feminism or another influential institution.

 

From Ignoring Men’s Pain to Managing Men’s Grievances

I think we may be witnessing a new stage in the way our culture responds to the suffering of boys and men.

First, their problems were largely ignored. Then, as the evidence became harder to dismiss, those problems began receiving more attention, but were often explained in ways that placed responsibility back on men themselves.

Now we may be entering a third stage.

Men’s problems are acknowledged, but some of the explanations men offer for those problems are treated as potentially harmful narratives that need to be corrected or controlled.

The Lancet paper is an example of why this development deserves attention.

The authors may genuinely want to help boys and men. Some of their recommendations suggest that they do. But good intentions do not replace solid evidence, and concern about harmful online behavior should not become an excuse to discourage legitimate criticism of powerful institutions.

The question is not whether some corners of the manosphere contain hateful or dangerous material.

The question is whether we can address genuine harm without treating men’s complaints about feminism and institutional unfairness as evidence of something unhealthy.

Men deserve more than acknowledgment of their suffering. They deserve to have their explanations taken seriously, examined fairly, and challenged when the evidence warrants it.

And they deserve the freedom to question the causes of their problems without having those questions treated as a public-health threat.

Sources

Read full Article
October 31, 2026
post photo preview
Part 3: Consent, the Only Sexual Norm Left




Part 3: Consent, the Only Sexual Norm Left

Follow the public argument over the Cornell case, or almost any campus sexual assault case, and you’ll notice something. It turns on a single question: was there consent? Other moral questions about the same night barely come up. When someone raises them, they’re usually heard as irrelevant, or as blaming the victim.

Why is consent the only question we can see?

 

Three ideas, briefly

The Family Archetype is the moral logic of a family: protect the vulnerable, care before proof. The Society Archetype is the moral logic of public life: fair procedure, evidence before judgment, individuals responsible for what they did. Matrisensus is the family’s logic taking over public life. It treats groups as victims or villains, and it keeps those it sees as vulnerable innocent by placing all the guilt elsewhere.

 

Consent, and one other

Consent isn’t quite alone. One other sexual norm still gets attention: power. Universities ban relationships between professors and students even when both consent, and #MeToo focused heavily on bosses and subordinates. But power and consent have the same shape. Both put all the moral responsibility on one person’s conduct toward the other: the one who initiated, the one with more power, the one who didn’t get a clear yes.

 

What disappeared

The norms that have faded have the opposite shape. Dignity, sobriety, modesty, fidelity, prudence and self-respect are norms of self-governance. They ask what each person owes to herself, as well as to the other: Did I keep my judgment clear? Does this honor what sex is meant to be? Am I protecting my own worth?

For most of history, these norms did most of the work of sexual morality, and they applied to both people. They didn’t wait for harm and then assign blame. They shaped behavior beforehand, so harm was less likely.

 

Why only consent survives

Here’s the key. Consent is the only sexual norm that fits Matrisensus, because it’s the only one that keeps the protected person completely innocent.

A norm like sobriety or dignity can’t do that. It looks at the choices of the person Matrisensus wants to protect: what she drank, what she risked, what she agreed to. Even mentioning such a norm puts some responsibility on her, so the norm simply stops being seen. Nobody argues against it. It just becomes invisible. Consent passes the test perfectly. Whatever happened, the moral question becomes what the other person did to her. An ethics of consent alone is the only sexual ethics in which innocence and guilt always belong to different people.

There’s a second reason. Consent is the only sexual norm decided by feeling. Sobriety and fidelity are about what you do, which others can see. Consent is about an inner state: did she want it? No one else can check that, and it can be reassessed afterward, as feelings about a night change. When consent is the only standard, what an encounter meant is no longer fixed by what happened. It depends on how one person later feels about it.

And there’s an irony. Consent actually comes from the Society Archetype. It’s a kind of contract: a mutual agreement between adults, judged by what each did and said at the time, with each responsible for their part. What Matrisensus keeps is a version stripped of what made it fair. The mutual agreement becomes one person’s inner state, the time of agreement becomes any later moment, and the shared responsibility falls on one person.

 

How we got here

This isn’t mysterious. The sexual revolution rejected marriage, chastity, modesty and courtship as tools of control. Consent was what was left, because both sides of the new culture could accept it. For those who wanted freedom, it was the limit: anything goes between consenting adults. For those who wanted protection, it was also the limit: no harm without consent. Consent is where “anything goes” and “protect the vulnerable” meet.

 

Three levels of desire

It helps to see desire as working on three levels, each meant to guide the one below it. The first is appetite: wanting pleasure, comfort, recognition. The second is self-control: the desire for order and mastery over ourselves. The third is meaning: the desire for purpose and for contributing to something beyond ourselves. A healthy life doesn’t abolish appetite. It puts appetite under self-control, and self-control in service of meaning.

Consent is permission between two appetites. It lives entirely on the first level. The older sexual morality guided that appetite from both levels above. Chastity, sobriety, modesty and prudence belong to the second level: they’re practices of self-control. Dignity, fidelity and the sense that sex is sacred belong to the third. They place sex inside something larger than one night: a committed relationship, the beginning of families and generations, the worth of a person and not just her pleasure.

An ethics built on consent alone has thrown out both upper levels at once. Self-control is dismissed as repression, and meaning as superstition. What’s left is appetite, with nothing above it but permission.

 

What this costs

The older norms protected in advance. Staying sober, taking time, staying among friends, all made harm less likely before any question of permission came up. Consent only protects after the fact, by judging what went wrong. Women lost protective norms and were given a courtroom norm in their place.

Harms that aren’t consent violations — degradation, being used with your agreement at the time, the emptiness of a night both people regret — no longer have any moral language. The only way to name them is to call them a consent violation. So ambiguous encounters get forced into two boxes: assault, or nothing. That’s why cases like Cornell become battlegrounds, and why the definition of consent keeps stretching to cover harms it was never built to carry.

This isn’t only a conservative argument. Christine Emba, in Rethinking Sex, argues that consent is necessary but not enough, and that a consent-only ethics has failed women. Louise Perry makes a similar case in The Case Against the Sexual Revolution.

To be clear: consent matters, and violating it is a serious wrong. The point isn’t that consent is unimportant. It’s that a culture that can see only consent has lost the norms that protected women before consent was ever in question, and has lost the language even to notice what that has cost.

 

One pattern

Across this series, the same thing has happened three times. Hard cases become battlegrounds because their meaning is open, and open meaning is where the fight between protective feeling and fair judgment gets fought. Juries falter in exactly those cases, because a shared moral story produces the shared blind spot that defeats the reason juries exist. And sexual morality has shrunk to consent, because consent is the one norm that keeps the protected person innocent.

Each time, feeling has moved from signal to verdict. The answer isn’t less feeling. A culture that stopped caring about the vulnerable would be worse than ours. The answer is putting feeling back where it belongs: the first word, not the last. Mercy after truth, not instead of it. And judgment that can still see a particular person and a particular act, rather than the story they seem to fit.

David Shackleton

____________________________

David Shackleton is a writer and cultural commentator whose work focuses on identity politics and gender. His books, Matrisensus, The Hand That Rocks the World: An Inquiry Into Truth, Power and Gender, and Daughters of Feminism: Women Supporting Men’s Equality, are available on Amazon. His website is genderhealing.com.



Sources for the series

Part 1

  • Charles G. Lord, Lee Ross, and Mark R. Lepper, “Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37, no. 11 (1979): 2098–2109.

Part 2

  • Marquis de Condorcet, Essai sur l’application de l’analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix (1785).

  • Franz Dietrich and Kai Spiekermann, “Jury Theorems,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

  • Christian List and Robert E. Goodin, “Epistemic Democracy: Generalizing the Condorcet Jury Theorem,” Journal of Political Philosophy 9, no. 3 (2001): 277–306.

  • Reporting on the Clancy jury by NBC10 Boston, CBS News, NBC News, and the Boston Globe, August–September 2026.

Part 3

  • Jesse Graham, Jonathan Haidt, and Brian A. Nosek, “Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96, no. 5 (2009): 1029–1046.

  • Nick Haslam, “Concept Creep,” Psychological Inquiry 27, no. 1 (2016): 1–17.

  • Christine Emba, Rethinking Sex: A Provocation (Sentinel, 2022).

  • Louise Perry, The Case Against the Sexual Revolution (Polity, 2022).

Read full Article
October 30, 2026
post photo preview
When Feeling Becomes the Verdict Part 2 (David Shackleton)
Part 2: Can a Jury Still Judge?


Part 2: Can a Jury Still Judge?

When the Clancy jury deadlocked, eleven jurors wanted to find her not guilty by reason of insanity. One man refused. Afterward, several jurors described him to the press as “closed off” and unable to explain himself. His lawyer called him heroic for holding his ground. One juror described confronting him forcefully. The defense asked the court to remove him from the jury.

What he was actually thinking is still disputed. But the scene raises a question worth asking: when a whole culture has already sorted people into victims and villains, can a jury still do its job?


Three ideas, briefly

The Family Archetype is the moral logic of a family: protect the vulnerable, care before proof. The Society Archetype is the moral logic of public life: fair procedure, evidence before judgment, individuals held responsible for what they did. Matrisensus is the family’s logic taking over public life, judging people as members of victim or villain groups instead of by what they actually did.


Why juries work

We tend to think of juries as a democratic courtesy, a way of letting ordinary people have a say. But there’s a more precise reason they work, and it was worked out in 1785 by a French mathematician, the Marquis de Condorcet.

His insight was this: if each person in a group is a little more likely to be right than wrong, and each judges independently, then the majority of a group is far more reliable than any one person. Twelve independent judgments, pooled together, beat one expert.

Notice the key word: independently. That’s where it all depends.


When everyone shares the same blind spot

If the jurors don’t judge independently, if they all tend to make the same mistake for the same reason, the advantage disappears. Philosophers who study this have shown it can get worse than that. A jury that shares one blind spot can be less reliable than a single sensible judge, because instead of correcting each other’s errors, the jurors magnify the same one. A bigger jury just repeats the mistake more confidently.

Matrisensus creates exactly this condition. It doesn’t produce twelve people weighing the evidence separately. It produces twelve people applying the same ready-made story to the same facts. A dominant moral outlook doesn’t make people err in different directions. It makes them agree.

And jury selection can’t catch it. Lawyers screen jurors for bias they’re aware of: a conflict of interest, an opinion already formed. But a dominant moral outlook doesn’t feel like bias to the person who holds it. It feels like plain good sense. A juror who holds it will honestly answer “Yes, I can be fair,” and still be wrong in exactly the way the mathematics predicts. You can’t ask someone to disclose a distortion they can’t see.


What the Clancy jury shows

It helps to remember how a criminal trial is built. It doesn’t shut out compassion. It puts compassion in its proper place.

The trial answers a narrow question: did the person do it, and were they capable of being responsible for it? That question is answered from evidence and deliberately protected from sympathy. Only afterward, at sentencing, usually before a judge, do the defendant’s circumstances, history and suffering get weighed in full. Truth first. Mercy after.

An insanity defense brings one narrow question forward into the trial: because of mental illness, could she tell right from wrong, or control what she did? That’s a specific test, decided on evidence.

Several Clancy jurors described reasoning that went around that test. She had been “failed by everyone,” they said; she was “lost in the system.” One said that testimony about what a loving mother Clancy had seemed weighed on her more than the clinical evidence about her state of mind when she killed. That’s sentencing reasoning — sympathy for a whole life — brought into the place reserved for a narrower, harder question.

Then there’s the shape of the deliberations. The jury was nine women and three men, and the lone holdout was its only minority member. Eleven people converged quickly and emotionally on one account. The one person who didn’t was treated less as someone with a view to be considered than as a problem to be fixed. That doesn’t prove the eleven were wrong. It shows what shared judgment looks like from the inside, and how little room it leaves for the one kind of voice a jury most needs: the independent one.


How far this goes

It’s important not to overstate this. In an ordinary contract dispute or burglary trial, nothing triggers a shared moral story, and juries probably work as well as they ever did. The problem shows up in a specific kind of case: one where the parties can be sorted by identity into categories the culture has already judged. That category isn’t small. For those cases, the reason we trust juries may have quietly stopped applying.


Is there a fix?

Not an easy one. Replacing the jury with a judge just puts the same vulnerability in one person, who comes from the same culture. Better instructions can’t reach a bias the juror doesn’t feel as bias. Appeals courts share the same assumptions.

The only real fix is the one that works anywhere: people capable of independent judgment, who can see a case on its own facts instead of the familiar story it seems to fit. That’s a much higher bar than the jury system was designed to require. But it’s the bar we now face.

Next: Part 3 asks why, in arguments about sex, consent is the only question anyone seems able to see.

David Shackleton

____________________________

David Shackleton is a writer and cultural commentator whose work focuses on identity politics and gender. His books, Matrisensus, The Hand That Rocks the World: An Inquiry Into Truth, Power and Gender, and Daughters of Feminism: Women Supporting Men’s Equality, are available on Amazon. His website is genderhealing.com.

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