MenAreGood
Lies and Exaggerations of Feminism Part 2
two parts due to so many lies!
November 23, 2024
post photo preview

101. Men always have more financial resources and thus avoid fair alimony or child support payments.
Feminists sometimes claim that men exploit the divorce system to avoid alimony or child support payments. In reality, men often face disproportionately high child support obligations, while the enforcement of alimony or spousal support can be inconsistent, with some men being burdened by support orders despite financial hardship.


102. Divorce courts impose burdens on women.
 Some feminists argue that the legal system can unfairly impose emotional and financial burdens on women, such as assuming they are the primary caregivers without adequate support. However, many men face significant disadvantages, such as paying for long-term alimony or dealing with biased assumptions about their ability to care for children.


103. Men are often unfairly treated in divorce settlements and lose significant financial assets.
Some feminists argue that men use their financial advantages to manipulate divorce settlements. However, men are often required to give up substantial assets, including business interests and real estate, and pay high levels of alimony or child support, especially in long marriages or where the wife has had a lower earning potential.


104. Domestic violence is often minimized in divorce proceedings, particularly when women are the victims.
Feminists claim that domestic violence is often overlooked or minimized in divorce courts, especially when women are the victims. However, some studies suggest that men can also be victims of domestic violence, but their experiences are often underreported, leading to the perception that male abuse is less frequently acknowledged in legal proceedings.


105. Fathers and Custody Disputes
Fathers often report challenges in obtaining equal access to their children after divorce. Statistics show that mothers are awarded primary custody in the majority of cases, which some argue reflects biases in family courts that favor traditional gender roles. Fathers may face difficulties securing fair visitation rights or shared custody, even when they are equally capable and committed caregivers.


106. Divorce courts reinforce patriarchal norms by assuming women are the natural caregivers.
Feminists claim that divorce courts uphold patriarchal assumptions by assuming that women should be the primary caregivers. However, many critics argue that these assumptions can harm men, who may be unfairly denied custody or parenting time, despite being capable and willing to provide a stable home.


107. Men often use the divorce court system to exploit women financially.
Some feminists argue that men manipulate the legal system to financially exploit their ex-wives by evading support payments or dragging out divorce proceedings. While financial abuse can occur in divorce proceedings, women are also at risk of being financially exploited, particularly when courts fail to enforce child support and alimony orders consistently.


108. Divorce settlements unfairly reward stay-at-home mothers with lifelong financial support.
Feminists argue that stay-at-home mothers should be entitled to support because their work within the home is undervalued. However, critics argue that permanent alimony can be problematic, creating dependency rather than encouraging women to re-enter the workforce, and men often end up paying for long-term alimony without the possibility of modification.


109. Men’s rights activists (MRAs) misunderstand the issue by focusing too much on fathers’ rights.
Some feminists claim that MRAs focus too much on fathers' rights in the divorce system, rather than addressing the broader gender-based inequalities that women face. However, MRAs argue that both parents should be treated equally in custody decisions, and that men’s rights, including equal access to their children, deserve attention alongside women’s issues.


Broader Context

The divorce court system reflects a complicated intersection of legal, economic, and social dynamics:

  • Gender Biases in Custody: Despite feminist claims, studies indicate that the assumption of maternal preference in custody battles may be shifting, and many courts are recognizing the value of shared parenting.

  • Financial Disparities: Both men and women can be disadvantaged in financial settlements, depending on factors like child support, alimony, and asset division.

  • Domestic Violence: Domestic violence is a serious issue, but it affects both men and women, and there is growing recognition of the need for the legal system to address male victims of abuse.

The divorce court system has its flaws, but the complex dynamics between gender, power, and legal decisions need to be understood in a balanced way. Many advocates now call for reforms that would ensure fairer treatment for both men and women in divorce proceedings.


The issue of reproductive rights is one of the central themes in feminist discourse, but there are various claims made by feminists and critiques of those claims. Below is a breakdown of some common feminist views, their exaggerations or misrepresentations, and the counterpoints or refutations:


110. Abortion is an essential component of women’s reproductive rights.
Feminists often argue that abortion access is critical to women's autonomy and reproductive rights. However, some critics point out that reproductive rights should also include access to contraception, comprehensive healthcare, and education, with abortion being just one part of a broader conversation about family planning and maternal health.


111. Women’s reproductive rights are being systematically stripped away in the U.S. and other countries.
Many feminists argue that the erosion of abortion rights, such as the Dobbs decision in the U.S., signifies an ongoing systematic attack on women's reproductive rights. Critics argue that the debate over abortion rights often overlooks the fact that access to contraception, fertility treatments, and maternal healthcare continues to expand in many places, and that reproductive rights extend beyond abortion to include access to education, healthcare, and support systems.


112. Restrictions on abortion disproportionately affect women of color and low-income women.
Feminists claim that abortion restrictions disproportionately impact marginalized groups, such as women of color, immigrants, and those in poverty. While it's true that these women may face greater barriers to accessing abortion, critics argue that broader systemic issues like healthcare access, education, and poverty, not just abortion restrictions, contribute to these disparities.


113. The right to choose abortion is a matter of bodily autonomy.
Feminists assert that abortion is necessary for women to maintain control over their bodies and make autonomous choices about their reproductive health. However, some opponents of abortion argue that bodily autonomy must also include the rights of the unborn fetus and that there needs to be a balance between the rights of the mother and the fetus.


114. Abortion should be allowed at any time during pregnancy, for any reason.
Some feminists support unrestricted access to abortion, arguing that women should have the right to terminate a pregnancy at any stage. Critics argue that later-term abortions raise ethical concerns due to the fetal development of consciousness and viability outside the womb, suggesting that restrictions may be necessary after a certain point of fetal development.


115. Contraceptive access is a non-issue and widely available.
Feminists sometimes claim that contraception is universally accessible, thus solving the issue of unintended pregnancies. However, many critics argue that access to contraception can be inconsistent, especially for low-income women or in areas where healthcare resources are scarce. Additionally, not all women have access to the information or healthcare required to make informed choices about contraception.


116. The “War on Women” narrative regarding reproductive rights.
Many feminists assert that any attempt to restrict abortion or limit reproductive health services constitutes a "War on Women." Critics argue that this narrative oversimplifies the issue by focusing on abortion while ignoring other aspects of reproductive health, including the need for comprehensive sexual education, support for single mothers, and access to adoption services.


117. Forced childbirth is a violation of women’s rights.
Feminists claim that restricting abortion is a form of forced childbirth and violates women’s rights to personal liberty and bodily autonomy. However, some critics point out that discussions about forced childbirth should also consider the autonomy and rights of the fetus, raising questions about where the rights of the woman end and the rights of the unborn child begin.


118. The fight for reproductive rights is a fight for gender equality.
Feminists often link the fight for abortion access and reproductive rights to broader gender equality, claiming that limiting women’s reproductive choices undermines their equality in society. Critics argue that equality should include both men's and women's reproductive rights, which involve more than just abortion access—such as shared parental leave, access to healthcare, and equal opportunities for both genders in parenting and family planning.


119. Men have no right to be involved in reproductive decisions.
Feminists often argue that reproductive decisions are entirely women’s choices, dismissing the role of men in these decisions. Critics argue that men should be allowed a voice in reproductive matters, particularly regarding the decision to father a child, and that shared responsibility for reproductive choices is vital for achieving true gender equality.


Broader Context

While the feminist movement has been instrumental in advocating for women’s reproductive rights, some areas of the debate are characterized by exaggerations, one-sided narratives, or overlooked aspects:

  • Focus on Abortion vs. Other Reproductive Issues: The conversation often focuses heavily on abortion, while issues like birth control access, prenatal care, adoption options, and family leave policies are given less attention, despite their importance for comprehensive reproductive rights.

  • Access vs. Choice: Feminists advocate strongly for choice, particularly in the context of abortion, but some ignore the fact that access to reproductive healthcare services, including contraception and prenatal care, remains inconsistent and unequal, especially for disadvantaged groups.

  • The Role of Fathers: While reproductive rights are framed largely around women’s autonomy, some critics argue that reproductive rights should include both parents, focusing on how men’s rights and responsibilities are often overlooked in the reproductive decision-making process.


Reproductive rights are about more than just abortion; they encompass a range of issues from contraception to healthcare access, which requires an inclusive, balanced conversation that recognizes the rights of all involved, including women, men, and children.

Paternity fraud is an issue that often goes underrepresented in feminist discourse, despite its significant impact on men and families. Here’s an exploration of feminist claims about paternity fraud, their exaggerations or omissions, and the refutations or counterpoints:


120. Paternity fraud is a rare issue that affects only a small number of men.
Some feminists argue that paternity fraud is a rare problem and not something that should be prioritized in the conversation about men’s rights. However, studies have suggested that the incidence of paternity fraud (where a man is unknowingly raising a child who is not biologically his) could be higher than commonly acknowledged, with estimates suggesting that 1-3% of men in established relationships might be victims of paternity fraud. (3% would mean over 2 million men in the US are victims of paternity fraud. trg)


121. Paternity fraud victims should just accept the child as their own.
Feminists sometimes claim that men who discover they are not the biological fathers of children they’ve raised should accept their parental responsibilities without question. This dismisses the emotional and financial toll on men who may have been deceived, and ignores the ethical issues around deception, as well as the fact that men may have a right to know their biological connections to children.


122. Paternity fraud victims can always seek legal recourse for child support obligations.
Feminists argue that men can simply challenge paternity in court if they discover they have been victims of fraud. In reality, legal systems often hold men accountable for child support obligations, even in cases of paternity fraud, and some men are forced to continue paying for children they did not father because of the legal “best interest of the child” doctrine.


123. The child’s well-being should always come before the father’s rights in paternity fraud cases.
Many feminists assert that the child’s interests must always take precedence, which sometimes means that men are forced to continue financially supporting children they did not father. Critics argue that the father’s rights are also important and that legal frameworks should be more balanced, recognizing that a father has a right to know the truth about his biological connection to the child and to make decisions based on that knowledge.


124. Paternity fraud accusations are usually made by men trying to avoid responsibility.
Some feminists and others claim that men who accuse women of paternity fraud are simply trying to avoid their financial or emotional obligations. However, many men who are victims of paternity fraud have actively raised children believing them to be their own, only to discover the truth much later, often after years of emotional bonding and significant financial investment.


125. Paternity fraud cases are more about men's desire to avoid paying child support than any real harm.
Feminists sometimes argue that the primary concern in paternity fraud cases is men’s desire to avoid paying child support. While financial loss is a major issue, the emotional distress and psychological impact of being deceived into raising a child that is not biologically theirs are significant, and many victims experience a profound sense of betrayal.


126. The focus on paternity fraud detracts from the real issue of women's rights and reproductive health.
Feminists often argue that the conversation about paternity fraud distracts from important discussions on women’s reproductive rights, including access to abortion and contraception. While these issues are crucial, ignoring paternity fraud silences men’s experiences and creates a one-sided narrative that neglects the need for gender equality in family law.


127. Men should not be entitled to a paternity test if they are married and the woman claims the child is his.
Some feminists argue that men should not demand paternity tests in marriages where the woman claims a child is his, as this can undermine trust and harm the family. Critics argue that men have a fundamental right to verify biological paternity, especially in cases where they suspect fraud, as it affects their emotional and financial responsibilities.


128. The stigma of paternity fraud affects the women, not the men.
Feminists may argue that paternity fraud accusations unfairly stigmatize women, painting them as deceitful or untrustworthy. However, many men who are victims of paternity fraud face significant stigma themselves, including public humiliation and emotional damage from being deceived, and these cases also often affect the child’s relationship with both the biological father and the man who raised them.


129. Paternity fraud doesn’t harm the child as much as it harms the father.
Some feminists argue that the child’s emotional or psychological needs should outweigh the father’s claim to know his biological connection. However, it’s important to consider the long-term emotional effects on both the child and the father when paternity fraud is revealed, as the child may have developed an attachment to a man they believed was their father, only to later discover the truth, leading to confusion and potential identity crises.


Broader Context

Paternity fraud highlights a complex intersection of ethical, legal, and emotional issues that often go unaddressed in mainstream feminist discourse:

  • Legal and Financial Consequences: Men who discover they are victims of paternity fraud can face severe financial and legal consequences, including the continued obligation to pay child support for children they did not father. Legal frameworks often prioritize the child’s well-being over the father’s right to knowledge about his biological connection.

  • Bodily Autonomy and Deception: Paternity fraud raises ethical questions about bodily autonomy, deception, and the right to make informed decisions about parenthood. The decision to raise a child should ideally be based on the truth, including knowing one’s biological connection to the child.

  • Emotional and Psychological Impact: Victims of paternity fraud often experience profound emotional trauma and psychological consequences from the deception, including issues with trust, self-worth, and family relationships. These issues are often overlooked or dismissed in the discussion about gender equality and family law.


Paternity fraud is an important issue that affects men and families, and discussions about gender equality must consider the legal, emotional, and financial impact on all parties involved. A more balanced approach to family law would address paternity fraud alongside women’s reproductive rights, ensuring fairness for both men and women.

False accusations, especially in the context of sexual assault and domestic violence, are a highly sensitive topic, and feminist discourse often emphasizes the importance of believing and supporting victims. However, there are claims made by feminists regarding false accusations that are sometimes exaggerated or misrepresented, and the issue is often more complex than the narratives suggest. Below are common feminist claims about false accusations, followed by the refutations or counterpoints:


130. False accusations of sexual assault are rare and should not overshadow the voices of real victims.
Feminists often argue that false accusations of sexual assault are exceedingly rare and that the focus on false claims detracts from the real issue of sexual violence. While false accusations are indeed rare, studies suggest that around 2-10% of sexual assault claims could be unfounded, and this number should not be dismissed as insignificant, as false accusations can cause irreparable harm to the accused, including emotional distress, damage to reputations, and legal consequences.


131. Most women who report sexual assault are truthful, and false claims are the exception.
Feminists frequently assert that the vast majority of women who report sexual assault are truthful, and false accusations are the exception. However, the presumption that only a small number of women lie about sexual assault may overlook cases where the accusations are false, misleading, or distorted by the accuser’s own biases or motivations. The possibility of false accusations should be taken seriously, as they can harm innocent people, just as real victims of sexual assault deserve to be believed and supported.


132. Men are always the perpetrators in false accusations, and women are always the victims.
Many feminist narratives suggest that false accusations are typically made by women out of malice or revenge, targeting innocent men. In contrast, research and case studies show that false accusations can be made for various reasons, including personal grievances, attention-seeking behavior, or misunderstandings, and while men are disproportionately accused, women can also be falsely accused, especially in domestic violence or child custody disputes.


133. False accusations of sexual assault are part of a broader societal effort to undermine the #MeToo movement.
Some feminists claim that highlighting false accusations is a tactic used to discredit or undermine the #MeToo movement and the experiences of real victims. While it’s important to support victims and advocate for justice, overlooking the potential harm of false accusations can damage the credibility of the movement and lead to miscarriages of justice, especially when due process is not followed.


134. False accusations of domestic violence or sexual assault happen because of a societal bias against women’s credibility.
Feminists often argue that the primary cause of false accusations is a societal tendency to dismiss women’s claims of abuse, while the false accusations themselves are framed as a response to systemic misogyny. While it's true that women’s claims of abuse historically have been downplayed, false accusations can arise from a range of personal, social, or psychological reasons that go beyond systemic gender bias, and both false accusers and victims should be treated with due diligence in the legal system.


135. The presumption of innocence in sexual assault cases is often weaponized to protect male perpetrators.
Feminists sometimes argue that the presumption of innocence in sexual assault cases is used to shield men from responsibility, especially in cases involving false accusations. In reality, the presumption of innocence is a core tenet of criminal justice systems, and while it can protect the guilty, it also safeguards innocent individuals from wrongful punishment, underscoring the need for a fair and impartial investigation in all cases.


136. False accusations of sexual assault rarely lead to legal consequences for the accuser.
Some feminists claim that false accusers rarely face legal consequences or criminal charges, which they argue reflects a broader bias in favor of the accused. However, many jurisdictions do have laws in place that allow for criminal prosecution if someone is found to have deliberately made a false accusation (e.g., perjury or filing a false police report). The challenge is that such cases can be difficult to prove, and the legal system often does not hold false accusers accountable, leading to a perception that the consequences are too lenient.


137. The legal system is overly focused on protecting the rights of the accused, at the expense of the accuser.
Feminists often argue that the legal system, particularly in sexual assault and domestic violence cases, prioritizes the rights of the accused over the rights of the accuser, leading to a hostile environment for women to come forward with their allegations. While it is essential to support victims and ensure they have a safe space to report abuse, the justice system must balance the rights of both the accuser and the accused to ensure fairness and due process, especially when accusations are false.


138. Men who claim to be victims of false accusations are using the "men’s rights" movement to dismiss the real issue of sexual violence.
Some feminists argue that men who focus on false accusations are using the men’s rights movement to detract from the real issue of sexual violence and the #MeToo movement. However, men who are victims of false accusations also deserve legal protections, as false accusations can ruin lives, destroy reputations, and cause significant psychological harm, even if the accused man is eventually exonerated.


139. False accusations of sexual assault are always made for malicious reasons.
Many feminists claim that false accusations are intentionally malicious and are used as tools for revenge, manipulation, or other negative purposes. While some false accusations may indeed stem from intentional malice, others could be the result of misunderstandings, mental health issues, or misguided motives. It’s crucial to distinguish between intentional falsehoods and genuine mistakes to ensure fair treatment for both the accuser and the accused.


Broader Context

False accusations, particularly in the context of sexual assault, are a sensitive issue that raises important questions about justice, due process, and gender dynamics. Both accusers and the accused deserve protection, and the justice system should strive to:

  • Protect the Rights of the Accused and the Accuser: It’s essential to create a legal framework where both victims and the accused are treated fairly and equitably, with protections for both. False accusations harm not only the person being accused but can also undermine real victims’ credibility, which can be detrimental to the cause of fighting sexual assault.

  • Promote Fair Investigations: Thorough and impartial investigations are key to ensuring that justice is served, and that both false accusations and genuine claims are handled appropriately.

  • Ensure Accountability for False Accusations: While rare, false accusations of sexual assault or domestic violence can have significant consequences. Ensuring that false accusers face appropriate legal consequences can help deter wrongful accusations and promote fairness.


The issue of false accusations cannot be ignored, as they represent a profound injustice not only to the accused but also to the integrity of the legal system. The challenge lies in maintaining a balance between supporting genuine victims of sexual violence and ensuring that due process is upheld for those accused.


Sentencing disparity is a topic that often comes up in feminist discourse, particularly in relation to gender, race, and social class. Feminists may argue that disparities in sentencing reflect systemic biases that disproportionately affect women and marginalized groups. However, there are also several claims related to sentencing disparity that are either exaggerated or misrepresented. Below is an exploration of common feminist claims about sentencing disparity, along with counterpoints and refutations.


140. Women receive lighter sentences than men for similar crimes.
Feminists often argue that women are given more lenient sentences than men, particularly for violent crimes, due to gender biases in the criminal justice system. While studies show that women are sometimes given more lenient sentences, this is not necessarily because of gender-based discrimination but rather due to factors like the role of women in society, perceptions of women as primary caregivers, and judges' assumptions about the likelihood of reoffending. In fact, men are statistically more likely to receive harsher sentences for similar crimes, particularly for violent offenses.


141. Sentencing disparities between men and women are a form of gender bias.
Some feminists claim that the disparity in sentencing between men and women is a clear example of gender bias, where women are treated more leniently because of outdated stereotypes about their nurturing roles. However, sentencing disparity may also arise from differences in the nature of crimes committed by men versus women, as men are more likely to commit violent crimes, which typically carry more severe penalties, whereas women are more likely to commit non-violent or less serious offenses.


142. Women convicted of violent crimes are often sentenced less harshly due to their perceived maternal role.
Feminists may argue that women who commit violent crimes receive shorter sentences because they are seen as mothers or caregivers, and their maternal roles are deemed worthy of compassion or leniency. While this is sometimes true, it overlooks the reality that men, too, may have familial responsibilities, and the perception of women as caregivers could lead to perceptions of them as less dangerous or more redeemable. Additionally, this argument can be problematic as it suggests that women’s worth in the eyes of the law is linked to their roles as mothers, reinforcing patriarchal views of women's value.


143. Women are more likely to be imprisoned for less severe offenses than men.
Some feminists claim that women are more likely than men to be incarcerated for non-violent crimes, such as drug offenses or theft, and that this reflects a systemic bias against women. However, this is an oversimplification. Women are incarcerated for crimes related to poverty, addiction, and abusive relationships, but when controlling for factors like the severity of the offense and prior criminal history, men are still far more likely to be incarcerated overall, particularly for violent crimes.


144. Sentencing disparities reflect patriarchy’s criminalization of female behavior.
Feminists may argue that the criminal justice system disproportionately criminalizes women’s behavior, particularly women who engage in what society deems non-normative or “unfeminine” actions (e.g., women who commit violence). While it is true that women may be subjected to different standards of behavior than men, the larger trend in sentencing disparity is that men tend to receive harsher sentences, especially for violent crimes. Moreover, many gender-specific factors, such as mental health or socioeconomic status, can influence sentencing outcomes for both men and women.


145. Women are given shorter sentences for crimes due to empathy from the legal system.
Feminists often claim that women benefit from an “empathy gap,” where judges or juries are more sympathetic to women and, therefore, impose lighter sentences. While studies have shown some empathy toward women in certain cases, such as those involving domestic violence or self-defense, the issue of sentencing disparity is more complex. In many cases, male defendants also receive empathy, particularly in cases where they may be victims of childhood abuse or mental illness. The disparity is influenced by many factors, including the crime, the criminal's history, and the circumstances surrounding the offense.


146. Black women are sentenced more harshly than white women, exposing racial bias in the justice system.
Feminists often highlight the intersectional impact of race and gender, arguing that Black women face harsher sentences than white women due to racial and gender biases. While racial bias in sentencing is well-documented, it is important to note that Black men are far more likely to receive harsher sentences than white men, and race-based disparities affect both genders. Studies have shown that Black men receive disproportionately long sentences, especially in drug-related offenses, and while Black women do face challenges in the justice system, the racial disparity in sentencing is most pronounced among men.


147. Sentencing disparity between men and women is a result of societal sexism, where women are viewed as less threatening.
Feminists claim that sentencing disparities exist because society views women as less dangerous or violent, and this assumption affects the way the criminal justice system treats them. While women may be perceived as less threatening, this view is often influenced by gender stereotypes that underestimate women's capacity for violence. However, when women commit violent crimes, particularly in cases involving domestic violence or self-defense, they can still face harsh sentences depending on the specifics of the case. This claim overlooks the broader trends where men, especially men of color, tend to receive significantly harsher sentences for similar crimes.


148. Sentencing disparities are part of the patriarchal structure that diminishes women's agency.
Some feminists argue that sentencing disparities reflect how patriarchal structures undermine women’s autonomy, with the justice system favoring men and excusing women’s criminal behavior. While there are disparities in how men and women are treated in the criminal justice system, the overall trend in sentencing data shows that men are more likely to receive longer sentences for violent crimes, and systemic issues such as socioeconomic status, prior criminal history, and the nature of the offense are more significant than gender alone in determining sentencing outcomes.


149. The legal system discriminates against women by sentencing them too harshly for “women’s crimes” like abortion or infanticide.
Some feminist arguments focus on the criminalization of so-called "women’s crimes," such as abortion (in places where it is illegal) or infanticide, claiming that women are often punished more severely than men for these crimes. While it is true that the criminal justice system historically has treated crimes related to women’s reproductive rights and motherhood in a gendered manner, the sentencing disparity in these cases is less about systemic bias and more about the legal status of these actions. In regions where abortion is illegal or infanticide is criminalized, women face penalties that may not be proportionate to the crime, but these are often political or cultural issues rather than inherent gender bias in sentencing.


Broader Context

While sentencing disparity is a real issue, particularly when considering the intersection of gender, race, and socioeconomic factors, the overall evidence often suggests that men, especially those from marginalized communities, face harsher sentences than women for similar offenses. The criminal justice system’s approach to sentencing is influenced by numerous factors, including:

  • Gender Bias in Different Directions: While women may sometimes receive lighter sentences for violent crimes, men are generally sentenced more harshly, especially for violent crimes and offenses involving higher levels of aggression.

  • Impact of Intersectionality: Racial and class-based disparities are deeply entrenched in sentencing, and while gender plays a role, the intersection of race, gender, and class often determines the severity of sentences.

  • Stereotypes and Social Perceptions: Gendered perceptions, such as the idea of women as "nurturers" or men as "more dangerous," influence how sentences are imposed, but this is only one factor among many that affect sentencing outcomes.


150. Patriarchy causes men to oppress women systematically.

The "patriarchy" narrative assumes men as a group conspire to maintain dominance over women. Historical and sociological evidence suggests that most societal structures are built to protect and support women and children, with men often taking the most dangerous and sacrificial roles.

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
November 19, 2025
The Relentless War on Masculinity

Happy International Men's Day! It's a perfect day to acknowledge the relentless war on masculinity? Here we go!

In this video I sit down with four people I deeply respect to talk about a book I think is going to matter: The Relentless War on Masculinity: When Will It End? by David Maywald.

Joining me are:

Dr. Jim Nuzzo – health researcher from Perth and author of The Nuzzo Letter, who’s been quietly but steadily documenting how men’s health is sidelined.

Dr. Hannah Spier – an anti-feminist psychiatrist (yes, you heard that right) and creator of Psychobabble, who pulls no punches about female accountability and the mental-health system.

Lisa Britton – writer for Evie Magazine and other outlets, one of the few women bringing men’s issues into women’s media and mainstream conversation.

David Maywald – husband, father of a son and a daughter, long-time advocate for boys’ education and men’s wellbeing, and now author of The Relentless War on Masculinity.

We talk about why David wrote this book ...

01:05:19
November 17, 2025
Cancel Culture with a Vengeance

Universities and media love to brand themselves as champions of free speech and open debate. But what happens when those same institutions quietly use legal tools to gag and erase the very people who challenge their orthodoxies?

In this conversation, I’m joined by two of my favorite thinkers, Dr. Janice Fiamengo and Dr. Stephen Baskerville, to dig into a darker layer beneath “cancel culture.” We start from the case of Dr. James Nuzzo, whose FOIA request exposed a coordinated effort by colleagues and administrators to push him out rather than debate his research, and then go much deeper.

Stephen explains how non-disclosure agreements, non-disparagement clauses, and mandatory arbitration have become a hidden system of censorship in universities, Christian colleges, and even media outlets—silencing dissenters, shielding institutions from scrutiny, and quietly stripping people of their practical First Amendment rights. Janice adds her own experience with gag orders and human rights complaints, and ...

00:57:23
October 02, 2025
Father Custody: The Solution to Injustices Against Men?

In this conversation, I sit down with Stephen Baskerville and Rick Bradford to explore a provocative idea: could father custody be the key to addressing many of the injustices men face? Both men are leading experts in this area, and together they examine some fascinating angles. One insight is that the legal contract of marriage doesn’t just unite two people — it’s also the mechanism that legally creates fathers. Yet when that contract is dissolved through divorce, the law often strips fathers of their rights, reducing them to mere “visitors” in their children’s lives. This and much more is unpacked in our discussion.

We also point to Rick’s and Stephen’s books (linked below) and to AI tools that allow you to interact with their work directly. (also linked below)

If you’ve ever wondered why custody is such a defining issue — not just for fathers but for the future of men’s rights and well-being — this dialogue offers insights you won’t want to miss.

Men are good, as are you.

Books...

01:18:10
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

This guy is really laying it out. Great stuff.

This is just one example of the most toxic affects of gynocentrism,
It goes to approaching women, to shut up and sit down and shut up to you are taking up space and more women need to be in the jobs you are in.
Reality does not matter only women's feelings do. This message is so pervasive and so saturated in our modern society that if you are a kind and sensitive man it can feel crippling. Unfortunately sensitive boys often see the only way out as go full Andrew Tate or killthem selfs. To fully reject the whole of society and counter project back or exit. It's toxic and I and many others are more than a lot angry about it.

The kids are all right!

22 hours ago
post photo preview
The Bias We Pretend Doesn't Hurt Boys
How a Culture Built to Protect Girls Leaves Boys Unseen and Unheard


Every now and then, a simple classroom exercise reveals something profound about human nature. Jane Elliott’s famous “blue-eyes/brown-eyes” experiment did exactly that. Many of you will remember it: the day after Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated, Elliott, a third-grade teacher in Iowa, decided her students needed to understand prejudice in a way a lecture could never accomplish.

So she divided the children by eye color.

One group was told they were smarter, kinder, and better behaved. The other group — their own classmates and friends — were told they were not. Nothing about the children changed except the message they were given.

That was enough.

Within minutes, the “favored” students stood taller and spoke more confidently. They completed work more quickly and volunteered answers with pride. The disfavored group wilted. Their shoulders rounded. Their test scores dropped. Some withdrew, others grew angry. A few even began to believe the negative things said about them.

Elliott hadn’t created new children. She had created a new context — one in which the adults in power defined who deserved approval and who didn’t.

The experiment showed something we often forget: children are exquisitely sensitive to the attitudes and expectations of the people who guide them.

Even subtle cues from authority can become destiny. A raised eyebrow, a dismissive tone, a slogan on the wall — all of it shapes who children believe they are allowed to be.

Elliott’s students went through only a single day of being “favored” or “disfavored,” and it changed their behavior, confidence, and even cognitive performance.

Imagine, for a moment, what would happen if one group of children lived like this not for a day, but for years. Imagine if the message they heard — from teachers, media, curriculum, and culture — told them that something essential about them was wrong.

Imagine if they were boys.

That’s where we’re headed. But before we get there, we need one more piece of the puzzle.

Because psychologists later discovered that what Elliott demonstrated dramatically in a classroom is also happening quietly inside children every day. They even gave it a name.

It’s called stereotype threat.

And it explains far more about our boys’ struggles — and our cultural blind spots — than most people realize.


What We Learned From Girls and Math

Stereotype threat is a simple idea with enormous consequences.

It refers to what happens when a person fears confirming a negative stereotype about their group. That fear — often subtle, often unspoken — increases anxiety, reduces working memory, undermines confidence, and lowers performance.

It is not about ability.
It is about expectation.

And most people first learn about stereotype threat in one particular context: girls and math.

For decades, girls were surrounded by the quiet cultural rumor that “girls aren’t good at math.” Teachers didn’t always say it directly. They didn’t have to. It floated around in a thousand small ways: textbook examples, facial expression, who was called on in class, who was encouraged and who was consoled. Girls absorbed it the way plants absorb light.

Researchers found that when girls were subtly reminded of this stereotype—even by something as small as checking a gender box at the top of a math test—their scores dropped. Anxiety went up. They second-guessed themselves. They disengaged.

The story was not about intelligence.
It was about identity under pressure.

The response from the educational system was swift and well-funded. Millions of dollars flowed into programs designed to counteract the stereotype threat girls faced in math:

  • teacher trainings

  • new curricula

  • role model programs

  • classroom redesign

  • mindset interventions

  • special grants

  • girls-only STEM groups

  • national awareness campaigns

All created to make sure young girls never again felt that mathematics was “not for them.”

And let me say this clearly: I support that work completely. No child should carry the weight of a negative stereotype when they’re simply trying to learn.

But something interesting happened.

As we were rallying national resources to eliminate a relatively narrow, subject-specific stereotype affecting girls in one academic domain….we failed to notice a far larger, far more toxic stereotype spreading over boys.

A stereotype not about arithmetic or algebra, but about their very nature.

A stereotype not whispered quietly, but broadcast loudly.

And unlike the stereotype about girls and math, this one has no funding, no programs, no protections, and no advocates in the institutions that shape boys’ lives.

That brings us to the part of the story almost no one wants to discuss.

The Stereotype Threat No One Will Name: What Boys Hear Every Day

If stereotype threat can undermine a girl’s confidence in math, imagine what happens when the stereotype isn’t about a subject…but about who you are.

Unlike girls, boys today aren’t navigating a single academic stereotype. They are navigating a cultural identity stereotype — one that targets their character, their intentions, their value, and their future.

And it’s everywhere.

Walk into almost any school, turn on almost any youth-oriented media channel, look at the messaging in teacher trainings, HR seminars, political slogans, and popular entertainment. The language aimed at boys is unmistakable:

  • “Boys are toxic.”

  • “Masculinity is inherently dangerous.”

  • “Men are oppressors.”

  • “Patriarchy is your fault.”

  • “You are privileged, even when you’re struggling.”

  • “The future is female.”

  • “Believe all women”

  • “We need fewer men like you and more women in charge.”

  • “Boys don’t mature, they get socialized into violence.”

Imagine hearing messages like this from every angle: teachers, counselors, the news, college brochures, viral videos, and political speeches. Even prime-time awards shows repeat the same theme: something is wrong with boys and men.

This is not a stereotype about ability. This is a stereotype about identity, morality, and worth.

And boys absorb it​, like plants absorb the light.

Even the well-behaved ones.
The gentle ones.
The kind-hearted ones.
Perhaps especially the kind-hearted ones.

Because they are the ones who listen most closely to adult expectations. They care what adults think. And when every signal suggests there is something wrong with being male, boys begin to feel it in the same way Jane Elliott’s “less favored” children did:

  • some withdraw

  • some grow angry

  • some become depressed

  • some try desperately to prove they’re “safe”

  • some silence themselves around girls

  • some tune out and give up

Many learn to walk on eggshells.
Many learn to mask who they are.
Some feel ashamed before they even understand why.

This is stereotype threat on a scale our culture has never been willing to examine.
It undermines boys’ confidence not only in school, but in relationships, leadership, belonging, and moral value. It doesn’t hit one subject — it hits the entire self-concept.

And here’s the tragic irony:

When girls faced a stereotype affecting a single academic domain (math), our entire educational system mobilized. But when boys face a stereotype that frames their entire identity as suspect, dangerous, or defective…we look away.

Worse — we call it “progress.”

No grants.
No programs.
No protective messaging.
No teacher training on “encouraging healthy masculinity.”
No funding streams labeled “male resilience,” “male identity support,” or “boys’ psychological development.”

Nothing.

And yet we know from the psychology: stereotype threat doesn’t care which direction it flows. It hurts anyone subjected to it. Girls. Boys. Adults. Elders. Anyone.

The difference is that girls’ stereotype threat is treated as a national emergency, while boys’ stereotype threat is treated as an inconvenient truth best left unmentioned.

But the boys feel it.
They feel it deeply.
And it is reshaping an entire generation.

When you place a child in the “disfavored” group in Jane Elliott’s classroom, the effects show up almost immediately: withdrawn posture, lowered confidence, anger, sadness, and declining performance. Now imagine that same dynamic stretched across a childhood—not for a day or two, but for years.

That is what today’s boys are living through.

We’re watching the results play out right in front of us, but we rarely connect the dots. The signs are everywhere, yet hidden in plain sight:

Boys are falling behind academically.

Not by a little.
By a lot.

They earn:

  • lower grades,

  • fewer honors,

  • and far fewer college degrees.

Reading and writing gaps—never small—have now grown ​in size.

But we don’t ask whether constant negative messaging about male identity might be a factor. Instead, we say boys should “step up,” “apply themselves,” or “be less lazy,” as though shame has ever been a motivator.

Boys are disengaging from school.

Teachers say boys participate less. They’re more likely to tune out, act out, or withdraw. When a child believes he is viewed with suspicion, he stops coming forward.

This isn’t a mystery.
It’s textbook stereotype threat.

Boys are struggling socially.

A boy who believes his masculinity is problematic becomes hesitant. He won’t take risks socially. He won’t lead. He won’t assert himself. He won’t approach others. He is more likely to isolate or escape into online worlds where he is not judged simply for being male.

Boys are avoiding leadership roles.

They know one wrong move can be labeled “toxic,” “aggressive,” or “harmful.” So they hold back—especially in mixed-gender settings.
They self-limit long before anyone else has to.

Boys are losing their sense of belonging.

When you’re told repeatedly that your group is the source of society’s problems, you don’t imagine yourself as part of the community’s solution.
You imagine yourself on the outside.

Boys are suffering emotionally.

Rising rates of depression.
Rising rates of anxiety.
Rising suicide rates among adolescent boys.

And yet we never ask whether telling boys they’re dangerous or defective might be harming them psychologically. Just imagine telling any other group that the world would be better with less of them in it.

And then… boys stop asking for help.

Because why would you ask for help from a system that tells you that you’re the problem?

Boys, who already face the biological challenges of testosterone, the additional social push from precarious manhood, and the resulting male hierarchy, now carry an added layer of identity threat that undermines their confidence across every domain of life.

This isn’t subtle.
It isn’t accidental.
And it isn’t without consequences.

But here’s the part that should trouble us most:
We would never tolerate this treatment for girls. Ever.

If any institution—even unintentionally—sent girls negative messages about their identity, we would demand reform, new funding, and a national conversation.

But with boys?
We call it “accountability.”
We call it “progress.”
We call it “teaching them to be better.”

No.
It’s teaching them to disappear.

Part two will examine what creates and maintains this double standard.

Men Are Good.

Read full Article
November 22, 2025
post photo preview
How Feminist Researchers Lied
Murray Straus exposes the deception

This is a post I wrote in 2015 about a courageous 2009 journal article by Murray Straus, PhD, that exposed seven ways that feminists researchers twisted/distorted their data in order to maintain their narrative. It’s an important article for us all to see and understand.

_____________________________

There are millions of compassionate and loving people in the United States who have been given erroneous information about domestic violence. Over the years the media and academia have offered a steady stream of information that indicates that women are the only victims of domestic violence and men the only perpetrators. We have all been deceived. What most don’t know is that a part of that deception has been intentional and has come from the scientific community. As hard as it is to believe it is indisputable. Most of us had no idea of this deception until recently. More and more is now coming out about the symmetry of victimization in domestic violence between men and women.

One of the breakthroughs that have helped us identify this deception was the journal response of Murray Straus Ph.D. Straus has been an acclaimed researcher of family and interpersonal violence for many years. In his article he unveils the ways that this misinformation has been intentionally spread via “research.” He shows the seven ways that the truth has been distorted. It is a fascinating yet sobering article that shows how, without actually lying, the researchers were able to distort things and make it appear that it was something that is was not. We all know that once a research study is published the media will latch on and print the results as gospel truth, so the media became the megaphone to spread the misinformation once it was inked in the scientific journal. I would highly recommend your reading the full report by Straus which can be found here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228350210_Gender_symmetry_in_partner_violence_The_evidence_the_denial_and_the_implications_for_primary_prevention_and_treatment

Let’s go through the seven ways one by one.

1. Suppress evidence.

The first type of deceit that Straus describes is suppressing evidence. The researchers would ask questions about both men and women but only report on the answers from women. The half-story would leave readers with the impression that it was only women who were victims even though the researcher had the surveys of male victims on hand they simply didn’t report it. The data on male victims was simply buried while the data on female victims was reported. Straus discusses the Status on Women report from Kentucky in the late 1970’s that was the first to use this strategy. They collected data on both male and female victims but only the female victims were discussed in the publications. Scientific method is dependent upon creating a hypothesis and testing it. If you get data from your test that is contrary to your original hypothesis this is just as important as getting data that affirms the hypothesis and can be used to adjust your original hypothesis. To ignore ones own data that contradicts the hypothesis is the epitome of disregard to the foundations of scientific inquiry. It leaves the realms of research and enters the realms of propaganda and shaping the outcome to mislead.

2. Avoid Obtaining Data Inconsistent With the Patriarchal Dominance Theory.

The second method described by Straus was that of simply not asking the questions when you didn’t want to hear the answers. The surveys would ask the women about their victimhood and ask men about their perpetration but failed to inquire about women’s violence or men’s victimhood. If you ask questions that address only half the problem you are certain to conclude with only half the answers. Straus highlights a talk he gave in Canada where he evaluated 12 studies on domestic violence. Ten out of the twelve only asked questions about female victims and male perpetrators. If you don’t ask the questions you will never get the answers. Publishing half the truth is intentionally misleading.

3. Cite Only Studies That Show Male Perpetration

Straus reveals a number of situations where studies or official documents would cite only other studies that showed female victims and male perpetrators. He uses the Department of Justice press release as just one example where they only cite the “lifetime prevalence” data because it showed primarily male perpetration. They omitted referencing the “past-year” data even though it was more accurate since it showed females perpetrated 40% of the partner assaults. Straus shows journal articles and names organizations such as the United Nations, World Health Organization, the US Department of Justice and others who used this tactic to make it appear that women were the primary victims of domestic violence and men the primary perpetrators.

4. Conclude That Results Support Feminist Beliefs When They Do Not

Straus showed an example of a study by Kernsmith (2005) where the author claimed that women’s violence was more likely to be in self defense but data to support the claim didn’t exist. Apparently he had made the claim even without any supporting evidence. Straus shows that the self defense category was primarily about anger and coercion and not about self-defense at all but this didn’t stop the researcher from claiming the erroneous results which of course could be quoted by later studies as proof that such data does indeed exist.

5. Create “Evidence” By Citation

The “woozle” effect is described by Straus as when “frequent citation of previous publications that lack evidence mislead us into thinking there is evidence.” He lists the Kernsmaith study and a report from the World Health Organization as examples. Both made claims (without evidence to back it up) that women’s violence was largely in self-defense. The claims were quoted repeatedly and people eventually started to believe that the claims were correct.

6. Obstruct Publication of Articles and Obstruct Funding Research that Might Contradict the Idea that Male Dominance is the Cause of Personal Violence

Straus mentions two incidents that illustrate this claim. One was a call for papers on the topic of partner violence in December of 2005 from the National Institute of Justice where it was stated that “proposals to investigate male victimization would not be eligible.” Another was an objection raised by a reviewer of one of his proposals due to its having said that “violence in relationships was a human problem.” He also stated that the “more frequent pattern is self-censorship by authors fearing that it will happen or that publication of such a study will undermine their reputation, and, in the case of graduate students, the ability to obtain a job.”

7. Harrass, Threaten, and Penalize Researchers who Produce Evidence That Contradicts Feminist Beliefs Straus provides details of a number of incidents where researchers who found evidence of gender symmetry in domestic violence were harassed or threatened. He described a number of instances such as bomb scares at personal events, being denied tenure and promotions, or “shouts and stomping” meant to drown out an oral presentation. He relates being called a “wife-beater” as a means to denigrate both himself and his previous research findings.

Straus concludes that a “climate of fear has inhibited research and publication on gender symmetry in personal violence.” His words help us to understand the reasons that our public is so convinced that women are the sole victims of domestic violence and men the only perpetrators. It has been years and years of researchers telling only half the story and when we get only half the story and consider it the whole truth we are likely to defend our limited version of the truth and ostracize those who may offer differing explanations. The matter is further complicated due to the media having acted as a megaphone for the half story that has emerged so the “common knowledge” that has emerged from the media for many years has been half the story and due to its not telling both sides of the story, it is basically misinformation. What this tells us is that we need to stay on our toes when it comes to social science research. Straus’s paper has helped us immensely in seeing how research can be set up to appear to tell the truth but fail miserably in doing so. While the researchers are not technically lying, the end product is similar since it produces only a partial image of the reality of domestic violence and leaves people without the details to fill in the reality of the situation. It is likely a good idea to have a look at the way each study gets its data, the exact nature of the people being used as subjects, and the conclusion drawn and if they are congruous with the data that was gathered. Next we will look at a study that uses Straus’s first example, ignoring ones own data.

Men Are Good

Read full Article
November 13, 2025
post photo preview
The Psychology of Collective Victimhood
Part 2 of 3 in the series “The Victim Trap: How a Culture of Helplessness Took Hold”


The Psychology of Collective Victimhood

Part 2 of 3 in the series “The Victim Trap: How a Culture of Helplessness Took Hold”

When the mindset of victimhood spreads from individuals to entire groups, something powerful — and dangerous — begins to happen.

The sense of personal injury becomes a shared moral identity.
Suffering, once private, becomes political.

At first, this can bring solidarity and even healing. A wounded community finds its voice. People who once suffered in silence finally feel seen. But over time, the same force that unites can also divide. The story that once offered meaning starts to reshape how people see themselves, their nation, and even morality itself.



1. The Birth of a Moral Identity

When groups define themselves by what was done to them, they gain not only empathy but a sense of moral righteousness. The logic is simple — and intoxicating:

“We have suffered, therefore we are good. They have power, therefore they are bad.”

This moral binary simplifies a messy world. It provides clarity and belonging, offering the comfort of a single story where virtue and vice are clearly assigned. But it also freezes both sides into unchanging roles: one forever the victim, the other forever the oppressor.

These roles are psychologically powerful because they remove complexity — and with it, responsibility. Once a group becomes identified with innocence, it no longer needs to question its own motives. Its cause is automatically just.

Modern politics thrives on these fixed roles. They provide ready-made moral drama: heroes and villains, innocence and guilt. But like all drama, they require constant rehearsal to stay alive. Without conflict, the script falls apart.



2. The Emotional Rewards of Group Victimhood

Collective victimhood feels empowering at first. It transforms personal pain into a larger moral purpose. What was once chaos becomes coherence.

Being part of a group that has “suffered together” gives life meaning and creates unity. It offers protection from isolation. There’s comfort in saying, “We’re not crazy; we’ve been wronged.”

In social movements, this dynamic can quickly become a badge of belonging — a way to prove loyalty to the cause. Those who display the most outrage, or carry the most visible wounds, often gain the highest moral status.

Psychologists call this competitive victimhood: when groups begin to compete for recognition as the most wronged. The greater the suffering, the greater the virtue. But moral status can become addictive. Once a group learns that pain equals virtue, it begins to search for more pain — and when real injustices run out, it may start to manufacture offense to sustain its moral authority.

It’s a strange paradox: the more a group celebrates its wounds, the less it can afford to heal them.



3. Biases that Keep the Wound Open

Victim thinking doesn’t just change beliefs — it changes perception itself.
It amplifies cognitive biases that keep the wound raw and prevent ​healing.

  • Confirmation bias: Interpreting every disagreement or policy change as proof of oppression. The mind filters the world for evidence of persecution.

  • Attribution bias: Assuming malice rather than misunderstanding — reading intent where there may be none.

  • Availability bias: Because the media highlights what shocks and wounds, stories of cruelty stay vivid in our minds while quiet acts of goodwill fade from view. We remember every injustice, not because it’s most common, but because it’s most visible.

  • Moral typecasting: Once a group is labeled “the victim,” society struggles to see it as capable of harm — while the supposed “oppressor” becomes incapable of innocence.

This last bias deserves a closer look.

Social psychologists Kurt Gray and Daniel Wegner discovered that people intuitively divide the world into moral types: those who act (moral agents) and those who suffer (moral patients). Once someone is cast in one role, our minds tend to freeze them there.

That means when a group is seen as a victim, their actions are interpreted through a moral filter that excuses wrongdoing. Their pain becomes proof of virtue — and even when they cause harm, observers tend to explain it away as justified or defensive.
Conversely, those seen as oppressors carry a kind of permanent moral stain. Even their good deeds are reinterpreted as self-serving or manipulative.

The tragedy is that this bias prevents genuine empathy in both directions.
It denies accountability to those labeled as victims and compassion to those labeled as villains. In the end, everyone’s humanity gets flattened into a single moral role — and the cycle of grievance stays alive.



4. When Empathy Becomes a Weapon

Empathy is one of humanity’s most precious traits. But when victimhood becomes sacred, even empathy can be weaponized.

Claims of harm begin to override discussions of truth. Feelings become the final arbiter of morality. The question shifts from “Is this accurate?” to “Does this offend?”

The result is what might be called moral coercion: when guilt replaces persuasion and compassion becomes a tool of control. People censor themselves not because they’re wrong, but because they fear being seen as cruel.

You can see this dynamic almost anywhere today — in classrooms, offices, or online. A teacher hesitates to discuss a controversial historical event because one student might feel “unsafe.” A coworker swallows an honest disagreement during a diversity training, not because they’ve changed their mind, but because they dread being labeled insensitive. On social media, someone offers a mild counterpoint and is flooded with moral outrage until they apologize for the sin of questioning the narrative.

In each case, guilt ​ or shame ​becomes a weapon. The emotional threat of being branded heartless silences discussion more effectively than any argument could. And so compassion, meant to connect us, begins to control us.

Ironically, the groups that appear most powerless often become the most influential, because they wield the moral authority of suffering. When pain becomes proof of virtue, disagreement starts to look like aggression.

It’s a subtle but devastating inversion: empathy, meant to heal division, becomes a tool that enforces it.



5. The Emotional Toll on the Group

Living inside a collective grievance feels purposeful, but it’s emotionally draining.
Righteous anger brings a surge of meaning — a sense of clarity and mission — but like any stimulant, it requires constant renewal.

A group addicted to outrage cannot rest. It needs a steady supply of offenses, real or imagined, to keep its story alive. When none appear, it begins to see insult in the ordinary and oppression in mere difference.

Without new conflict, the group’s identity weakens. This is why peace, paradoxically, can feel threatening to movements built on pain. Reconciliation robs them of their reason to exist.

The emotional cost is high: anxiety, exhaustion, paranoia, and isolation. The group’s members live in a permanent state of alert, bonded by fear rather than love.



6. How Collective Victimhood Divides Society

The tragedy of group grievance is that it unites within but divides between.
Shared suffering bonds members of the in-group, but it hardens their hearts toward outsiders. Empathy becomes conditional — reserved only for those who share the same scar.

Once compassion is limited to “our people,” understanding dies. Dialogue collapses. Each side becomes trapped in its own moral narrative, convinced that it alone is righteous.

The cultural result is polarization — a society where everyone talks about justice while practicing vengeance, and where reconciliation feels like betrayal.

In such a climate, even kindness can be misinterpreted as manipulation. Every gesture is filtered through suspicion. Healing becomes nearly impossible because the wound has become the identity.



7. Toward a Healthier Collective Story

The way out is not to deny injustice but to transcend it.
Nations, communities, and movements can honor their suffering without making it their defining story.

That transformation begins with language.
Saying “We have suffered” keeps us anchored in the past.
Saying “We have endured” honors the same pain but adds strength.

The first sentence describes injury; the second describes resilience.
The difference seems small, but psychologically it’s immense — one keeps the wound open, the other begins to heal it.

Healthy cultures, like healthy people, move from grievance to growth. They tell stories not just of what was lost but of how they rose. They stop competing for sympathy and start competing for excellence.



Final Word

Victimhood once served a sacred purpose — to awaken empathy for the mistreated. It was meant to open our hearts, to remind us of our shared humanity and the moral duty to protect the vulnerable. When a culture witnesses suffering and responds with compassion, something profoundly good happens: justice grows, cruelty is restrained, and dignity is restored.

But somewhere along the way, that sacred purpose was replaced by something transactional. When victimhood becomes a currency, empathy turns into a market, and suffering becomes a brand.

You can see it in the way public life now rewards outrage and emotional display. A single personal story of harm, once told for healing, can now become a platform — drawing attention, sympathy, and sometimes even profit.
Organizations compete to showcase their pain as proof of virtue; individuals learn that expressing offense earns social status; corporations adopt slogans of solidarity not from conscience, but because compassion has become good marketing.

Imagine a town square where people once gathered to comfort the wounded. Over time, the square becomes a stage. The wounded are still there, but now they must keep their wounds visible, even open, because the crowd has learned to applaud pain more than recovery. The very empathy that was meant to heal now demands performance.

When compassion becomes currency, its value declines. What once flowed freely from the heart is now rationed, manipulated, and traded for attention or power.

The true mark of strength is not how loudly we proclaim our pain, but how gracefully we move beyond it. Real empathy — the kind that changes lives — begins when we stop spending suffering and start transforming it.

Our challenge now, as individuals and as a culture, is to remember that compassion and accountability must grow together — or both will die apart.

In the next and final part of this series, we’ll explore how modern institutions — academia, media, and politics — have learned to reward and monetize victimhood, and what that means for the future of honest conversation and human resilience.

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