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
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
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
August 20, 2025
Meet TheTinMen

In this conversation, I sit down with George from The Tin Men—a powerful voice bringing clarity, humor, and hard-hitting truth to men’s issues. George has a unique talent for condensing complex topics like male loneliness, the dismantling of men’s spaces, suicide, and the gender pay gap into short, sharp, and digestible messages. Together, we react to some of his videos and dive into everything from fatherlessness and gangs, to the “man vs. bear” debate, to the failures of therapy for men, and even the overlooked crisis of suicide in construction. It’s a wide-ranging discussion that highlights both the challenges men face and the hope we’re starting to see for real change.

Georges Links!

Instagram — https://www.instagram.com/thetinmen/

Youtube — https://www.youtube.com/@TheTinMenBlog

LinkedIn — https://www.linkedin.com/in/gohorne/

X— https://x.com/TheTinMenBlog

Tom's post about 15 things Maryland can do for boys and men.
...

01:04:30
August 07, 2025
Are Men Great of Good? Yes!

Time for a male-positive message. I created this video a while back, but its message remains as important and timeless as ever. I’d love for it to reach boys who’ve been told—explicitly or implicitly—that there’s something wrong with being male. After so much negativity about men and masculinity, they need to hear something different. They need to hear something true, strong, and affirming.

00:04:59
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

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

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

Worth a watch

August 04, 2025
False Accuser Exposed in World Junior Hockey Trial Verdict - Janice Fiamengo

Janices essay brings to life the idea that when falsely accused men are found not guilty they still lose. Worse yet, the false accuser reaps benefits. Thank you Janice for pulling this informative and infuriating piece together. Men Are Good.

https://fiamengofile.substack.com/cp/170141035

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


Finland’s Legacy — Lessons for the World

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


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

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

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


The External Evaluation (1999)

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

The answer was a resounding yes.

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

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

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

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


The Nordic Ripple Effect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Beyond Suicide — Open Dialogue

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

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

Its core principles were deceptively simple:

  • Immediate response — no long waits for care.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The Contrast with the United States

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

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

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

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

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


What the World Can Learn Today

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

The lessons are clear:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Men Are Good

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

Read full Article
September 12, 2025
post photo preview
Who Really Glorifies Violence? Incels vs. the Radical Left

Who Really Glorifies Violence? Incels vs. the Radical Left

For the past several years, the media has been obsessed with incels. Scroll through the headlines and you’ll see the same story over and over: young men, alienated and angry, gathering in online spaces that are supposedly breeding grounds for misogyny and extremism. The word incel has become shorthand for “potential terrorist.”

But when you actually look at what incels say and do, a very different picture emerges. These are not young men plotting the downfall of society. They are young men drowning in despair. Their anger is almost always turned inward. The statistics are overwhelming: nearly 40% report daily suicidal thoughts. Large numbers are neurodivergent. Most have histories of bullying and rejection. The overwhelming danger for incels is not that they’ll kill someone else. It’s that they’ll kill themselves.

And here’s the striking thing: if you spend time in incel forums, you won’t see people celebrating murder. You won’t see a culture of glee when someone they disagree with dies. If anything, incels fear the lone outlier who lashes out violently, because every such case is used as proof that the entire community is dangerous. Violence by incels isn’t glorified—it’s seen as another blow to an already stigmatized group.

Now let’s compare that to what we see in radical activist circles today, particularly on the left. Here the dynamic is inverted. When someone on the “enemy” side is harmed, the reaction is not horror or sadness—it’s laughter, memes, applause.

Take the case of the young man who murdered the CEO of an insurance company. Instead of universal condemnation, there were corners of the activist left that hailed him as a hero. They justified the killing as a righteous strike against capitalism, a blow against corporate greed. A man lost his life, a family lost a father and husband, yet in certain circles his death was something to cheer.

Or look at the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Almost instantly, social media lit up with celebration. Jokes, laughter, memes of joy. Whatever you think of Kirk’s politics, the act of gloating over his murder reveals something chilling. This wasn’t despair—it was cruelty. This wasn’t pain turned inward—it was hate turned outward.

Here lies the real moral difference. Incels may be troubled, confused, even bitter. But they are not celebrating the killing of their opponents. They are not laughing when someone they disagree with lies bleeding in the street. The radical left, on the other hand, has a documented record of doing exactly that.


Despair vs. Cruelty

It’s important to linger on this distinction, because it cuts to the heart of what we mean when we use words like “dangerous” and “evil.”

Despair—even toxic despair—is tragic. A young man who feels he has no chance in love, who spends hours online venting his frustration, who thinks daily about ending his own life—this is heartbreaking. It’s not something to excuse, but neither is it something to demonize. The harm is largely self-directed. He sees himself as the enemy, not his neighbor.

Cruelty is something else entirely. When activists laugh about a murder, when they hail an assassin as a hero, when they gloat over the death of a political opponent, that crosses into the territory of evil. Because cruelty doesn’t just accept suffering—it delights in it. It revels in the humiliation and destruction of others.

That difference matters. It matters morally, and it matters socially. A society that stigmatizes despair while excusing cruelty is one that has its compass broken.


The Media’s Inversion

Yet this is exactly what we see. Incels, who mostly hurt themselves, are branded as ticking time bombs. The media frames them as violent extremists, sometimes even as potential terrorists. Politicians repeat the line that they are a public danger. Entire studies are funded to examine whether incels might pose threats to others.

Meanwhile, when activists openly celebrate the killing of someone they dislike, the response is muted. There’s always a rationalization ready at hand: the victim was powerful, privileged, oppressive. The killer was “lashing out” against injustice. The laughter and memes are brushed aside as dark humor.

This inversion should make us pause. We’ve reached a point where the group that rarely, if ever, glorifies killing is treated as the greater danger, while the group that openly delights in murder gets a cultural pass. It is as if we’ve lost the ability to recognize cruelty for what it is.


Why the Double Standard?

There are several reasons this inversion persists.

First, the media has found incels to be a perfect bogeyman. They fit a ready-made narrative: disaffected young men, angry at women, festering in online echo chambers. It’s a story that generates clicks and moral outrage, even if it wildly exaggerates the real level of risk.

Second, there is a cultural reluctance to hold activists on the left to the same moral standard as others. If someone claims to be fighting for justice, their actions—even violent ones—are easier to excuse. The cause sanctifies the cruelty. This is how cheering a murder becomes acceptable in certain circles: the victim was “bad,” the killer “brave.”

Third, there is a deep gynocentric bias in how we view male suffering. When young men suffer, we blame them. When young men despair, we mock them. When young men kill themselves, we shrug. But when activists (especially women or minorities) express rage, we are trained to sympathize, even when that rage crosses into violence.


The Real Danger

None of this is to say that incel communities are healthy. Many are filled with bitterness and hopelessness. The despair is corrosive, and it can reinforce unhealthy worldviews. But that’s a very different problem than celebrating death.

The real danger to social life is not despair—it’s cruelty. Despair ends lives, yes, but cruelty erodes the fabric of community. When groups begin laughing at the deaths of their opponents, society loses the ability to see opponents as fellow citizens. Violence becomes not just acceptable, but entertaining.

That’s where evil lies.


Restoring Moral Clarity

We desperately need to restore moral clarity here. It is not incels who pose the greatest threat to public life. It is those who celebrate violence, who revel in the killing of their enemies, who turn human suffering into a punchline.

We should stop demonizing the wrong group. Incels are not a death cult. They are a community of wounded men, most of them quietly self-destructing. They need compassion, not caricature.

The real confrontation belongs elsewhere: with the activists who strip others of their humanity and cheer their destruction. That’s where the true corrosion is happening. That’s where the real evil lies.


Conclusion

A society that confuses despair with cruelty has lost its way. Despair deserves our empathy; cruelty demands our opposition. Incels, for all their flaws, are not celebrating murder. The radical left, disturbingly, has shown that it will.

If we are serious about protecting life, if we care about the moral health of our culture, we need to get this distinction right. The young men drowning in loneliness and self-loathing are not our enemies. The people laughing when someone is assassinated are.

Until we can tell the difference, we will continue to aim our outrage at the wrong targets—and the real evil will keep smiling.

Men Are Good

Read full Article
September 08, 2025
post photo preview
From Research to Action — How Finland Helped Its Men
Post 2 in a series on what the world can learn from Finland’s suicide prevention efforts

In the last post, we saw how Finland took an extraordinary first step: instead of shrugging at suicide rates, they studied every single case in the country for a full year. They learned who was dying, where, and why.

But research alone doesn’t save lives. The true test came next. Could Finland turn this knowledge into action?

In 1992, the government launched the National Suicide Prevention Project, a sweeping, nationwide effort that would run for five years. Its ambition was bold: to translate the research into targeted interventions across every layer of society — from army barracks to hunting cabins, from classrooms to church pulpits.

The official goal was clear: reduce suicides by 20% in ten years. But the real innovation lay in how Finland went about it.


The National Strategy (1992–1996)

The project was structured into four phases:

  1. Research (1986–1991) — the “Suicides in Finland 1987” study and its provincial reports.

  2. Strategy formation (1992) — drawing up a national action plan based on those findings.

  3. Implementation (1992–1996) — launching over 40 subprogrammes across sectors.

  4. Evaluation (1997 onward) — both internal and external reviews of what worked and what didn’t.

Unlike typical health campaigns, this was not limited to posters or hotlines. It was a multisectoral strategy, pulling in schools, the military, the church, health services, media, and community associations. Each was asked the same question: What role can you play in preventing suicide, based on what we now know?

This was Finland’s genius. The national strategy was not a blunt instrument. It was a framework that allowed each institution, each community, to shape prevention in a way that made sense locally.


Tailoring Interventions to At-Risk Groups

The 1987 research had given Finland something precious: a map of where suicide risk was concentrated. The next step was to design interventions for those specific groups.

Hunters and Rural Men

Middle-aged rural men were at the very center of Finland’s crisis. Many were farmers or hunters, living in isolation, often drinking heavily, and reluctant to seek formal help. The suicide data showed that licensed hunting rifles were among the most common methods.

Instead of preaching from afar, Finland did something remarkable: they went into the hunting clubs themselves. The idea was simple but powerful — hunters already cared about their “mehtäkaveri,” their hunting mate. So why not train them to look out for each other’s mental health as well?

This became the foundation for what later grew into the Hyvä Mehtäkaveri (“Good Hunting Mate”) programme: peer-support training that taught hunters how to ask the difficult question — “Are you doing okay?” — and how to connect someone with help if they weren’t.

Conscripts and Rejected Recruits

Finland’s system of compulsory military service turned out to be both a risk and an opportunity. The research showed that young men rejected from service for health or psychological reasons faced a sharp rise in suicide risk. The rejection carried stigma — it marked them as different at precisely the age when they most wanted to belong.

So the Defense Forces became a frontline partner. Officers and military doctors were trained to spot vulnerable recruits, offer counseling, and refer them to civilian health care when needed. Rejection from service was reframed, not as abandonment, but as a moment to connect a young man with support.

Beyond counseling, Finland also recognized the practical challenges these young men faced. Initiatives supported by the A-Clinic Foundation and the Finnish Association for Mental Health provided concrete assistance: vocational guidance, social support, and structured activities to help rebuild identity and belonging. These efforts aimed to ensure that rejection from the army did not mean rejection from society. One notable example was the “Young Man, Seize the Day” project (1997), which worked with rejected recruits in several cities to provide vocational guidance, structured activities, and community belonging.

Rural Networks and Gatekeepers

Beyond the army and the hunting cabin, Finland leaned on local gatekeepers — the people already embedded in small communities. Teachers, clergy, police officers, even farmer’s association leaders were given training to recognize warning signs and start conversations. The principle was clear: suicide prevention wasn’t just the job of psychiatrists. It was the job of the whole community.

Alcohol Misuse

Alcohol had long been tied to Finnish male suicide, and the research confirmed its role. The project partnered with the A-Clinic Foundation, Finland’s leading addiction services, to integrate substance treatment into suicide prevention. Men who might never walk into a psychiatric clinic might still accept help for their drinking — and through that doorway, receive broader support.

Suicide Attempters

One of the most striking findings from the research was how many people who died by suicide had already made a prior attempt — but had never received proper follow-up care. The project responded by pushing hospitals to change their protocols: no longer would a suicide attempt be treated only as an emergency to be “patched up.” It was to be seen as a red flag demanding structured aftercare.


Engaging Institutions Beyond Health Care

One of the most radical features of Finland’s approach was the insistence that suicide prevention was not just a medical problem. It was a problem for the whole of society — and so the whole of society was asked to respond.

Schools

Teachers and guidance counsellors were trained to notice the early signs of distress in students. Peer-support programs were introduced so that young people themselves could be allies for one another. The idea was to catch suffering early, long before it showed up in statistics.

Churches

In rural Finland, the local parish was often more trusted than the clinic. Clergy were trained to recognize warning signs, offer crisis counseling, and support families after a suicide. By drawing pastors and priests into the project, Finland tapped into one of its most powerful social institutions.

Media

The project also confronted one of the most sensitive issues: how suicide was reported in newspapers and on television. Journalists were given new guidelines — no sensationalism, no detailed descriptions of methods, and always include information about where to find help. The aim was to prevent copycat deaths and shift the narrative from despair to support.

Workplaces

Though less developed than other strands, workplaces were not ignored. Employers were encouraged to recognize stress and depression among workers, especially men in male-dominated industries like farming, forestry, and manufacturing. Early versions of employee assistance programs began to take shape.


The Male Coping Strategies Programme (Planned but Unfinished)

Among all the subprogrammes Finland envisioned, one stood out for its directness: the Male Coping Strategies Programme.

The research had made it impossible to ignore: Finnish men — especially rural, middle-aged men — were at the center of the suicide crisis. They were less likely to seek help, more likely to drink heavily, more likely to use firearms, and more likely to die by suicide.

The Male Coping Strategies Program was designed to tackle this head-on. Its aim was simple but radical:

  • To help men talk openly about their struggles.

  • To normalize seeking help.

  • To strengthen resilience in ways that fit male culture.

The plan included a public information campaign that would have framed help-seeking not as weakness but as strength. It also envisioned building spaces for men to talk — whether through workplaces, community organizations, or even informal networks.

But the program ran into the one barrier no research can overcome: funding. It never received the resources it needed to stand on its own. Instead, pieces of it were absorbed into other projects, most visibly in the military programs for conscripts and rejected recruits.

Even so, its very existence was telling. In the 1990s, Finland was willing to say openly what many countries still refuse to: male suicide is a gendered issue, and if you want to prevent it, you must address men directly.

And although the national campaign never fully materialized, its spirit lived on. Later, local projects like Hyvä Mehtäkaveri in Kainuu — which embedded suicide prevention into rural hunting clubs — were, in a sense, the Male Coping Strategies Programme reborn in community form.


Results

By the mid-1990s, Finland’s gamble was starting to pay off.

Suicide rates, which had climbed steadily for decades, peaked in 1990. Then, during the years of the project’s implementation, they began to fall. By 1996, suicides had dropped by about 20% from that peak, bringing the numbers below where they had started a decade earlier.

The change wasn’t just in the statistics. Across Finland, you could see new practices taking root:

  • Hospitals no longer discharged suicide attempters without follow-up.

  • Journalists wrote about suicide more responsibly.

  • Teachers and clergy were equipped to recognize distress.

  • Hunters and soldiers had begun to see suicide prevention as something that concerned them too.

An internal evaluation in the late 1990s found that 43% of service sectors reported adopting suicide prevention measures as a result of the project. More than a dozen working models had been developed, along with 70+ publications, training guides, and handbooks.

An external international review in 1999 concluded that the project’s achievements outweighed its shortcomings. The reviewers praised its breadth, creativity, and impact. They noted some gaps — the elderly had been largely overlooked, and the long-term anchoring of prevention into municipal structures was still weak — but the core finding was clear: Finland had changed the trajectory of suicide in the country.

The numbers proved it. And behind those numbers were lives saved.


Why This Matters

The Finnish project showed something the world badly needed to see: suicide prevention works when you meet people where they are.

Instead of waiting for men to walk into clinics, Finland brought prevention to the places where men already lived their lives:

  • In the forests and hunting cabins with their friends.

  • In the army barracks or on the day they were turned away from service.

  • In the pulpit, the classroom, and the local newspaper.

They refused the fatalism of “men won’t seek help.” They built a system that didn’t rely on men crossing the threshold of a psychiatrist’s office. It relied on communities, networks, and everyday institutions to notice, to care, and to act.

And the results speak for themselves: a 20% reduction in suicide rates during the project period. Hundreds of lives saved. A culture shifted.

The contrast with the United States could not be starker. Here, suicide among men — especially middle-aged rural men — is often treated as an inevitability. Our prevention strategies remain vague, underfunded, and detached from the very communities where the deaths are happening.

Finland’s lesson is clear: if you want to prevent suicide, you cannot stop at awareness campaigns and crisis hotlines. You must go out and build support into the fabric of everyday life — in the places where people already gather, work, and belong.


Coming Next: Finland’s Legacy

By the end of the 1990s, Finland had achieved something unprecedented: a national, research-based suicide prevention program that actually bent the curve downward. It wasn’t perfect — some groups were overlooked, funding wasn’t always secure, and not every community took the work as far as it could go. But the results were undeniable.

The project left behind more than lower suicide rates. It left behind a set of models, training tools, and cultural shifts that would ripple across the Nordic region and, eventually, far beyond. Other countries began to take notice. And at the same time, another Finnish innovation — a quiet revolution in psychiatric care called Open Dialogue — was spreading internationally, offering yet another way to reduce suffering and save lives.

In the next post, we’ll look at Finland’s legacy: how their suicide prevention ideas influenced other nations, what worked and what didn’t, and how a small country in the north became a global leader in rethinking how we respond to despair.

Men Are Good

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