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
23 hours ago
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 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
September 04, 2025
post photo preview
Who Pulls the Strings of Feminism?
Who Really Funded Feminism -- and Why


Who Really Funded Feminism — And Why

I’ve long wondered how the feminist wall was built. On the surface it looked like a grassroots uprising, but something about it felt orchestrated. What explained that difference? I first found clues in Frank Zepezauer’s The Feminist Crusades, a book that details the massive amounts of money funneled into the movement. That revelation opened my eyes. Later, when I dug deeper into who funded feminism and why, the picture sharpened even more. This post follows that money trail.


When people think of second-wave feminism, they picture grassroots energy: women in living rooms sharing stories, marching in the streets, pushing for change. And that ​may have been true — at first. But by the mid-1970s, something shifted. Feminism stopped being mainly a movement of street-level activists and began morphing into a network of credentialed scholars, policy advocates, and well-funded NGOs.

That transformation didn’t just happen on its own. It was fueled by very large amounts of money — from the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, Carnegie, later MacArthur, Open Society (George Soros), and even the federal government.



The Money Trail

Ford Foundation

In the 1970s alone, the Ford Foundation poured tens of millions into feminist causes. Mariam Chamberlain, a program officer at Ford, was the architect of much of this push. Between 1971 and 1981, she directed $5 million to seed women’s studies programs, feminist publishing, and policy research. At a time when universities were hesitant to invest in such programs, Ford’s grants provided the startup funds that allowed women’s studies departments to take root and flourish. Ford also funded feminist publishing houses and think tanks, creating both a scholarly and popular pipeline for feminist ideas.

By 1979, Ford’s total commitments to women’s initiatives had reached $20 million — a staggering figure for the era (over $85 million today). Most important, Ford chose which voices received institutional backing, embedding them in universities where they gained lasting authority.

The result: women’s studies did not simply emerge as a spontaneous movement. It was engineered into permanence by foundation money. Ford’s investments created credentialed authority that cemented feminist narratives in academia and policy circles for generations. No parallel funding ever launched men’s or boys’ studies.

Fast-forward to today: in 2021, Ford pledged another $420 million globally to advance gender equality in the wake of COVID — proof that its role in shaping gender discourse has remained consistent for half a century. And Ford was hardly alone. Other foundations followed the same path, pouring resources into feminist initiatives while ensuring elite philanthropy shaped the direction of the movement.



Rockefeller Foundation

Rockefeller’s contributions were smaller but highly symbolic. In 1970, NOW received a $15,000 grant (about $120,000 in today’s dollars) — modest in size but significant as a signal of elite endorsement. More broadly, Rockefeller had long funded population control and family planning programs, linking feminist calls for reproductive freedom to demographic priorities embraced by elites.



Carnegie Corporation

Carnegie’s support was less visible but reinforced the same pattern. It funded education and research initiatives that positioned women more strongly in professional life and academia, helping create the pipeline that legitimized feminist priorities.



U.S. Government

Washington soon joined the effort. The 1977 National Women’s Conference in Houston was funded with $5 million in federal money. Title IX (1972) and the Women’s Educational Equity Act (1974) came with federal dollars to advance feminist reforms in education and public life.

The government also invested heavily in domestic violence services. The Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA), first enacted in 1984, provided grants for shelters, hotlines, and prevention programs. Since 1994, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) has been a cornerstone, initially authorizing $1.6 billion for investigation, prosecution, and services. In FY 2024 alone, the DOJ’s Office on Violence Against Women awarded over $690 million in grants. A conservative estimate suggests that since 1994, the U.S. has spent more than $15 billion on violence-against-women programs.

This is striking given that men are far more likely to be victims of violence, yet the government has spent very little on addressing their needs.



Ms. Foundation for Women

Co-founded by Gloria Steinem in 1972, the Ms. Foundation quickly became one of the most influential clearinghouses for feminist philanthropy. Its role was not simply to raise money but to re-grant foundation dollars in ways that seeded and sustained feminist activism at the grassroots level.

By the 1990s, the foundation was channeling millions to women’s centers, domestic violence shelters, reproductive rights campaigns, and academic initiatives. Grants often ranged from $5,000 to $50,000 — small enough to be considered “community grants” but large enough to keep organizations alive and aligned with the broader feminist project.

The flow continues today. Ford, for example, awarded the Ms. Foundation a $4 million BUILD grant (2018–22) to strengthen its capacity. Over time, Ms. became the bridge between elite funders and grassroots activists, shaping the movement by deciding which groups thrived and which withered.



United Nations

The UN has played a central role in globalizing feminist priorities, not just through declarations but through money. The 1975 International Women’s Year Conference in Mexico City and the UN Decade for Women (1976–1985) set the stage by creating institutional frameworks for feminist advocacy. These initiatives legitimized women’s rights as a matter of international governance, with governments encouraged — and often pressured — to align their domestic policies with UN resolutions.

Funding soon followed. In 1976, the UN established UNIFEM (United Nations Development Fund for Women) as a dedicated channel for financing women’s programs. By the 1990s, UNIFEM was distributing tens of millions annually to NGOs, training programs, and policy projects across the developing world. In 2010, UNIFEM was folded into UN Women, which has since become the central UN agency for gender equality.

UN Women operates the Fund for Gender Equality, a global grantmaking mechanism that has disbursed more than $120 million to over 140 programs in 80 countries since 2009. Its annual budget has grown steadily, reaching around $500 million in recent years, sourced from UN member states, private donors, and corporate partnerships. Much of this money goes directly to feminist NGOs, advocacy campaigns, and government programs designed to advance gender-mainstreaming policies.

The UN has also embedded feminism into global development frameworks. Gender equality became one of the Millennium Development Goals (2000) and was carried forward into the Sustainable Development Goals (2015), ensuring that aid flows and donor governments aligned their budgets with feminist priorities.

By contrast, the UN has never created an equivalent agency, trust fund, or global development goal for men and boys. Issues such as male suicide, fatherlessness, and educational decline remain almost entirely absent from UN programming. The imbalance is clear: while feminism was woven into the fabric of global governance and heavily resourced, men’s issues were left invisible.



MacArthur & Open Society

By the 1990s and 2000s, feminism had gone global, with major foundations exporting their influence abroad.

The MacArthur Foundation invested heavily in reproductive health and rights across the developing world. In India, its grants helped expand networks of reproductive-health NGOs; in Nigeria, it underwrote campaigns to integrate feminist perspectives into national health policy. By 2000, MacArthur had committed hundreds of millions globally, positioning itself as a leading private funder of reproductive rights.

The Open Society Foundations, created by George Soros, became another major engine of international feminist philanthropy. In Africa, OSF financed the African Women’s Development Fund, which has since distributed tens of millions to local feminist groups. In Latin America, OSF underwrote “gender justice” and LGBTQ+ campaigns. In Asia, it supported intersectional programs that tied feminism to poverty, ethnicity, and political repression.

Together, MacArthur and OSF globalized the feminist project. What began in the 1960s and 70s as domestic funding for women’s studies and advocacy had, by the 1990s and 2000s, expanded into a worldwide infrastructure of NGOs and policy centers. No comparable global investment was ever made for men or boys.



Melinda Gates (Pivotal Ventures)

In 2019, Melinda Gates announced through Pivotal Ventures a breathtaking pledge: $1 billion over ten years for women’s empowerment — the largest single philanthropic commitment of its kind. The money was designed to accelerate gender equality in the United States by funding women in leadership, promoting workplace equity, and strengthening feminist advocacy.

Through Pivotal Ventures, Gates directed funds into a wide array of partners, from advocacy groups and research institutes to corporate initiatives and grassroots organizations. The aim was to shift entire systems: how companies hire and promote, how political candidates are supported, and how cultural narratives about gender are shaped.

The scale of this investment effectively guaranteed feminist organizations a decade of unprecedented security and visibility. Yet no comparable billion-dollar commitment has ever been made for men or boys.



Conclusion

Taken together, the record is unmistakable. From Ford’s seeding of women’s studies, to the Ms. Foundation’s grassroots re-granting, to MacArthur and Open Society globalizing activism, and finally to Melinda Gates’s billion-dollar pledge, elite philanthropy has engineered and sustained feminism’s rise for more than half a century. Billions of dollars built the departments, advocacy networks, and NGOs that now define public conversation about gender.

Meanwhile, men’s and boys’ issues received virtually nothing. No major foundation seeded “men’s studies.” No billion-dollar pledge launched a global network for boys. The result is not just an imbalance in funding, but an imbalance in culture and policy: feminism is treated as the unquestioned voice on gender, while men’s struggles — from suicide and fatherlessness to educational decline — remain largely ignored.



Why They Gave So Much

It’s tempting to think these were simply acts of generosity. But foundations don’t write checks this big without a reason. Their motives were strategic:

  • Population Control — Rockefeller and Ford had been pouring money into family planning since the 1950s. Funding feminism’s push for reproductive freedom advanced the goal of lower birth rates, especially among the poor and in the developing world.

  • Labor Force Expansion — Encouraging women into higher education and careers expanded the labor pool, fueling economic growth and tax revenues.

  • Cold War Soft Power — Supporting women’s rights projected America’s moral superiority over the USSR, where women’s workforce participation was touted as a socialist achievement.

  • Shaping the Message — By funding universities, NGOs, and professional associations, foundations steered feminism toward credentialed scholarship and identity politics, and away from grassroots demands like wages for housework or critiques of capitalism. Men, once imagined as partners in reshaping family and work, were recast as obstacles. That framing made the movement more marketable and easier to manage.

  • Global Development — By the 1990s, funding feminism had become part of development policy. Empowering women was reframed as “good governance” and a tool for stabilizing societies.



The Big Picture

So what happened? Feminism flourished — but only in the strands that aligned with elite agendas:

  • reproductive rights as population control

  • career advancement as labor force expansion

  • women’s studies as cultural influence

  • and men positioned as adversaries rather than allies

Meanwhile, more radical or working-class agendas — supporting families, addressing men’s challenges, critiquing capitalism — faded from view.

That’s what hundreds of millions of dollars do: amplify some voices while silencing others.

The takeaway: Feminism wasn’t simply a spontaneous cultural revolution. It was shaped, amplified, and institutionalized by massive foundation funding. The foundations didn’t just give money — they set the rules. Grants went only to those advancing elite priorities, with feminist leaders acting as distributors inside those boundaries. It was philanthropy as social engineering: slick, effective, and enduring.

Follow the money, and you’ll see: feminism was less a revolution from below than a project engineered from above.

Is the same thing happening today with men’s issues? Who gets grants? Large grants? From major foundations? It’s worth asking.

Men Are Good.



References

Read full Article
September 01, 2025
post photo preview
Male Suicide: Finland Acted, America Shrugs
Part One - How Finland Faced Its Suicide Crisis Head-On


Part One - How Finland Faced Its Suicide Crisis Head-On

Part 1 of 3 in a series on what the world can learn from Finland’s suicide prevention efforts


In the United States, the conversation about male suicide is as predictable as it is shallow. “Men just won’t seek help,” we’re told. And that’s the end of it. Nothing more is asked, and nothing more is done.

But in the 1980s, Finland was facing a suicide crisis of its own. Suicide rates were among the highest in Europe, and the deaths were concentrated in a very particular group: men — often rural, middle-aged, isolated, and drinking too much.

Finland could have shrugged, as America does, and accepted that “men just won’t seek help.” Instead, they made a very different choice. They decided to find out, in painstaking detail, who was dying, where, and why.


The Scale of the Crisis

By the mid-1980s, the numbers were grim. Suicide had become one of Finland’s leading causes of death for working-age men. Rates had been climbing steadily since the 1960s, and by the 1980s they were among the worst in the developed world.

For a country that prided itself on being orderly, sober, and efficient, this was more than a statistical embarrassment — it was a national emergency.

In 1985, the Finnish Ministry of Health convened experts, psychiatrists, and policymakers. Their goal was clear: develop a national suicide prevention plan that would reduce suicides by 20% within ten years.

This was, at the time, a radical idea. No other country had attempted a national, research-based suicide prevention program on this scale.

But the Finns knew that to act wisely, they would first have to understand deeply. And that meant one thing: research.


A Radical First Step — Research Every Suicide

Most countries are content to look at suicide from a distance, through statistics. Age brackets, gender breakdowns, perhaps a line on a graph. Finland chose a different path.

In 1987, the government launched what became known as the Suicides in Finland 1987 study — a nationwide effort to examine, in intimate detail, every single suicide that occurred over the course of one year.

Not a sample. Not an estimate. Every case.

For each of the roughly 1,400 suicides, researchers conducted what’s called a psychological autopsy. They interviewed families, spoke to friends and neighbors, and combed through medical and police records. They asked hard questions: What was happening in this person’s life? Had they ever sought care? Were there early warning signs?

The project engaged hundreds of professionals across the country: doctors, social workers, police officers, even clergy. It was one of the most ambitious suicide research efforts ever attempted, and it immediately began to change the way Finns thought about the problem.

The findings were stark. Suicide in Finland was not a random scattering of tragedies. It clustered in specific groups:

  • Middle-aged rural men, often farmers or hunters, living in isolation.

  • Young men rejected from compulsory military service, who carried the stigma of “failure” at the very moment they were trying to establish their adult identity.

  • Men with alcohol dependence, frequently untreated.

  • People who had never had contact with mental health services at all.

For the first time, Finland could say not just how many suicides were happening, but who was dying, where, and under what circumstances.

This wasn’t abstract theory. It was a roadmap. And it set the stage for something even more unusual: a national plan to intervene, directly and specifically, in the lives of those most at risk.


The Provincial Lens

The brilliance of the Finnish project wasn’t just in collecting data — it was in how they used it.

Instead of keeping the results locked away in government reports or academic journals, the findings were handed back to the provinces. Each region received its own suicide profile: a detailed account of who in their community was dying, what patterns were visible, and where the weak points in support systems lay.

In one province, the data might highlight young men failing conscription. In another, middle-aged farmers drinking heavily and living alone. In yet another, the lack of follow-up care for suicide attempts.

These weren’t abstract numbers anymore. They were portraits of neighbors, colleagues, and fellow parishioners. And the responsibility was clear: suicide prevention would have to be tailored locally.

Provincial health officials, police, clergy, teachers, and even farmer’s associations were drawn into the effort. Instead of a purely top-down campaign dictated from Helsinki, Finland was building a network of local responses, each shaped by the community’s own data.

This was a crucial shift. Suicide wasn’t just a “psychiatric problem” to be handled in hospitals. It was a social and cultural problem too — one that touched schools, military bases, rural hunting clubs, and village churches.

By the early 1990s, Finland had something no other country had ever built: a nationwide, locally adapted suicide prevention strategy, grounded in evidence about real people in real places.


Why This Matters

What Finland did in the late 1980s was extraordinary.

Instead of throwing up their hands and sighing that “men just won’t seek help,” they went out and found the men who were dying. They studied the contexts of their lives, the patterns in their struggles, the systems that failed them.

By the early 1990s, Finland could point to its suicide crisis and say with precision:

  • We know who is most at risk.

  • We know where the deaths are happening.

  • We know the social and cultural factors driving them.

This is the foundation of prevention. You cannot help people you refuse to see.

And here lies the striking contrast with the United States. To this day, our suicide surveillance is patchy, fragmented, and often superficial. We rarely break down the data in meaningful ways, and even when we do, we almost never follow it with targeted action. Middle-aged men in rural communities — by far the group most at risk — remain largely invisible in our prevention systems.

Finland chose another path. They chose to look directly at the problem, however uncomfortable. And that choice gave them a roadmap for action.


Coming Next: From Research to Action

Research alone does not save lives. But in Finland, research was only the beginning.

The findings from the 1987 study became the blueprint for one of the boldest public health experiments in the world: a nationwide suicide prevention strategy that would mobilize schools, churches, the military, the media, and even rural hunting clubs.

And it worked. Suicide rates, which had been climbing steadily, began to fall.

In the next post, we’ll look at how Finland took the data in hand and transformed it into practical, creative interventions — and how entire communities became part of the prevention effort. It should post a week from today.

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