Lies and Exaggerations of Feminism Part 2

MenAreGood

two parts due to so many lies!

November 23, 2024

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.

Join the MenAreGood Community

To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today

What else you may like…

Videos

Posts

Articles

tgolden@tgolden

March 15, 2026

Reacting to New Feminist Trends

This was a lively and fascinating conversation.

Hannah Spier invited Janice Fiamengo, Jim Nuzzo, and me to look at a series of newer feminist and social-media trends—terms like heterofatalism, weaponized incompetence, girl rotting, decentering men, and more. What emerged was a revealing picture of how often these ideas are built around victimhood, withdrawal, and a growing suspicion of men, love, and ordinary human interdependence.

What struck me most is that many of these trends are presented as empowerment, but they often look more like discouragement, narcissism, and a retreat from hope—especially hope in healthy relationships between men and women. We also explored the way feminism keeps repackaging old resentments in new language, and how social media now accelerates that process in ways that are both fascinating and disturbing.

I think you’ll find this discussion thoughtful, provocative, and at times very funny. Hannah is a terrific host, and Janice and Jim bring their ...

00:54:34

tgolden@tgolden

March 05, 2026

How Women Gaslight and Manipulate Men

Most boys are taught how to treat a girl. Almost nobody teaches them how they should be treated.

In this conversation, I’m joined by Tammy Sullivan (the “Manicured Mom”), author of How Women Gaslight and Manipulate Men. Tammy stumbled onto a massive TikTok trend openly teaching manipulation—and decided to “flip the script” and expose the tactics so men could recognize them, name them, and set boundaries.

We dig into the subtle, day-by-day moves that can erode a man’s confidence and isolate him from his friends, his hobbies, and even his family—things like the “real man” trap, backhanded compliments, “I’m sorry you feel that way,” using sex as leverage, and the weaponized “we need to talk.”

This isn’t about condemning women. It’s about giving men language, clarity, and self-respect—and helping healthy couples stop these patterns before they become a way of life. Men are good… and you deserve to be treated well, too.

Tammy’s book How Women Gaslight ...

SUBSTACK.COM

The Manicured Mom | Substack

01:01:55

tgolden@tgolden

February 26, 2026

Gynocentrism is Like Gravity

I’ve started experimenting with short music videos on men’s issues—this one focuses on gynocentrism.

I’m exploring whether concise, straightforward videos like this might reach and engage more people. I’d welcome your feedback and any suggestions.

00:02:41

JuanGoodman@JuanGoodman

March 14, 2026

This is on point and even this will be seen as anti woman

tgolden@tgolden

March 02, 2026

Men Don't Grieve the Way You Think

I had the good fortune to be interviewed by Jason MacKenzie, who runs the Man Down Substack—a publication dedicated to men and their unique paths to healing.

Many of you may not know that I spent many years working directly with men who were grappling with trauma and loss. Through that experience, it became strikingly clear to me that men and women are often treated very differently after a loss. Those early observations opened my eyes to the broader ways men face discrimination, misunderstanding, and hardship in our society. I hope you find the conversation interesting and worthwhile.

https://www.mandown.tools/p/men-dont-grieve-the-way-you-think?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

tgolden@tgolden

February 27, 2026

Are Some Women Waking Up?

This was sent to me by an alert viewer and shows a woman calling out the feminist lies about men being privileged. What do you think:

tgolden@tgolden

6 hours ago

Father Exclusion: The Invisible Injustice

A note before the article:
Nick O’Hara has written something deeply painful, deeply human, and deeply important.

His essay is not simply the story of one father’s heartbreak. It is also a window into a much larger injustice that far too few people are willing to see, much less name. We hear constant discussion about “absent fathers,” but almost no discussion of fathers who are absent against their will—fathers who love their children, fight for them, and are still pushed out by systems that seem unable, or unwilling, to protect the father-child bond.

That is what makes this piece so powerful. Nick is writing from the raw center of his own experience, but he is also giving language to a reality that many men live in silence. His story is heartbreaking, but it is not merely personal. It raises urgent questions about parental equality, about the invisibility of fathers in family law and public discourse, and about the cost children pay when a loving parent is treated as expendable.

I am sharing this excerpt because I believe his voice deserves to be heard. The full piece is considerably longer, and I hope you will follow the link at the end to read the rest on Nick’s site and help bring more attention to his work.

If we are serious about justice, compassion, and the well-being of children, we must be willing to look at realities that make people uncomfortable. This is one of them.

Father Exclusion: The Invisible Injustice

The search for my abducted child reveals a wider silence on parental inequality

Nick O’Hara

Mar 02, 2026

*My son in December 2021, the last time I saw him. He was abducted in June 2023, disappearing somewhere in the USA*

Your children are not your children

They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself

They come through you but not from you,

And though they are with you yet they belong not to you

– Kahlil Gibran, The Prophet

My son and I are strangers. He turns seven soon and I’ve never celebrated his birthday with him. I have never read him a bedtime story. I don’t know if he is safe. I don’t even know if he is alive. I am a father needlessly separated from my child, and society makes me invisible. After years of holding my tongue and getting nowhere, I feel compelled to convey what it is like to be completely excluded from your child’s life in a culture that leaves virtually no space for fathers in my position.

We often hear about absent fathers, but rarely about those who are absent against their will: men erased from their children’s lives without justification. I call this “father exclusion”. It’s a term I have coined because I can’t find any official language or descriptor for fathers in my position. Despite impacting many families, it barely registers in our public discourse. No data seems to be collected on father exclusion. No politicians seem interested in addressing it. No one even names the problem.

Father exclusion is not a fringe issue. It is extremely harmful to families and society; a systemic failure so pervasive it becomes invisible. We talk a great deal about irresponsible fathers, but what about those of us fighting with everything we have to be in our children’s lives, only to be systematically shut out? This silence is institutional, cultural and statistical. It has consequences: for children, for fathers like me, for our understanding of parenthood itself.

One goal in sharing my story is to advance a rationale argument in favour of gender equality in parenting, guided by the humanist case for balanced parental rights.

Western culture’s current obsession with “toxic masculinity” prefers to cast men as villains, leaving no room to acknowledge that fathers can be victims of discrimination, or that many are unjustifiably pushed out of their children’s lives. Many people take offence at the suggestion that father absence is detrimental to our children, despite the evidence that it is. So, any attempt to raise fathers’ rights is met with discomfort, defensiveness or even aggression: if it is acknowledged at all. For the main part, it is met with silence.

I know this silence intimately. It helps prevent my son from knowing my love.

When he drew his first breath in Brooklyn seven years ago, I was thousands of miles away in the United Kingdom, unaware of his arrival because his mother had cut off contact with me. What began as a conventional path to fatherhood – ultrasounds, excited plans of being present at the birth – unravelled into a nightmare. Every attempt since then to be part of my son’s life has been blocked, defied or ignored by his mother, enabled by systems that treat paternal bonds as optional, granted or withheld at the mother’s discretion.

I later discovered that my estranged wife had given our son different names to those we’d agreed upon. She omitted my name from his birth certificate and provided a false address to give the impression that she lived in New York; presumably in order to align with her falsified Medicaid forms. In fact, she is a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago and lives there with her two older children, whose father she also denies access.

Or at least, they did live in Trinidad. Almost three years ago, my son was abducted by his mother. To evade the increasing scrutiny of Trinidad and Tobago’s Family Court and Children’s Authority, she disappeared with all three children and is hiding somewhere in America. I do not know if they are safe, in good health or whether they attend school.

When I met my ex, in our initial interactions, she told me her first husband had abused her and their children, claiming serious offences. I felt sympathy and wanted to help. She said she reported each incident to the police, to create a record. Though to what end, I couldn’t figure out: she never wanted to take legal action, only to have a record of complaints.

Her story became increasingly inconsistent and I started noticing contradictions that grew more absurd. When I questioned her, she sometimes responded by suggesting that I was paranoid, other times she insisted I was losing my memory. It was only later that I recognised this as gaslighting.

While married and briefly living in Trinidad, it began to feel that she had only wanted me there so that I could support her and the kids while she continued not to work at all. However, tightening immigration restrictions meant that I couldn’t get a work permit and the strain on our relationship grew. Pregnant with our son, she cut off communication when I returned to the UK to work.

Since then, I’ve been trapped in a nightmare. Parenthood has been an illusory half-reality: I am legally a father but have never been allowed to be one. Despite my indefatigable efforts, I have met my son just twice; his mother has blocked all other access in defiance of multiple court orders. I could detail here a long list of her heartbreaking breaches, but nobody would want to read it.

Life as an excluded father is utterly lonely. I feel cast adrift, like an inconvenience nobody cares about.

With court proceedings stalled by my ex’s disappearance, I have spent two years pursuing an application under the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction. I receive email updates mentioning INTERPOL and U.S. authorities’ efforts to locate my son. The situation is surreal. There are days when it feels less like my life and more like a documentary film that I never agreed to star in. I have needed to write about it to help me survive it, to produce a memoir I might someday share to help others enduring similar ordeals.

My story is highly personal; the international dimension somewhat unusual. However, my general experience is not unique. It reflects a deeper truth: we simply do not value fatherhood highly enough. We are far more comfortable accusing men of abandonment than confronting how and why institutions push them out.

It needn’t be this way. We can acknowledge this systemic exclusion while rejecting the false binary that caring about fathers must come at the expense of mothers. Justice does not require us to diminish one parent in order to elevate the other. Instead, recognising and supporting the vital roles of both mothers and fathers, on equal terms, is how we can best serve the interests of our children. Persistently favouring one parent over the other – as we currently do – undermines not only parental equality, but the well-being of children and the moral coherence of society.

My son was abducted and taken to the U.S. in breach of a court order prohibiting his removal from Trinidad and Tobago. Like the others, the order proved meaningless. Indeed, every directive issued by the court has been breached or ignored by my ex without consequence.

My ex is legally aided, so there is no financial deterrent to obstruction. Three different legal aid-appointed attorneys withdrew their representation of her after realising she was misleading the court. None of this resulted in sanctions; just stronger orders that my ex ignores. She has, effectively, been able to act with impunity.

She has also prevented my son’s siblings – my stepchildren – from seeing their own father since they were infants. Unwittingly, the children’s experience contributes to the often-racist stereotype of Caribbean father absenteeism. But their respective fathers are not absent: we are excluded.

*My son’s older siblings (and my stepchildren) in Trinidad, 2018. I haven’t seen them in many years, they will look so different now*

Despite being represented by one of Trinidad and Tobago’s leading family lawyers (who sadly passed away suddenly last summer), I have felt utterly powerless. Court interventions have been too slow, enforcement mechanisms too weak or non-existent. In the initial years of my matter, the institutional indifference was astonishing. Even evidence of my ex preventing her older children from seeing their father – a relevant pattern of behaviour, one would think – could not be considered, due to family court evidentiary rules. Eventually the authorities did seem to realise what they were dealing with. But by then it was too late, my ex had disappeared with my son.

In fairness, the judge’s hands are tied by inadequate enforcement powers. The court knows that my son is being deliberately repelled from access to his father, without justification. It just isn’t able to actually do much about it. The system appears designed to make fathers give up.

With the disappearance, my attorney advised me to pursue the Hague Convention process. At first, it seemed promising: we received confirmation that my son had been taken to America. He was even, seemingly, located by U.S. authorities, only to vanish again. With the Hague application drawing blanks and family court proceedings stalled, I find myself back where I began. I am sharing my story in the hope that someone, somehow, might help locate my child.

*Meeting my son for the first time in Trinidad, March 2020*

Please share this essay with anyone who might be able to help me locate my child

The wider narrative of absentee fathers is well-known, but how accurate is it? In the United States, more than one in four children live without a father in the home. This is also the generally accepted proportion for the UK, though my own crude maths suggests that it could be higher, with nearly 40 percent of households with dependent children being single-parent families (3.2 million out of the 8.2 million total). Data from the Office for National Statistics show 85 percent of those are headed by mothers (child custody data reporting has it higher, at 89 percent). Statistics for Trinidad and Tobago are harder to obtain, but anyone will tell you the situation is likely similar to the U.S. and UK.

How many of these fathers are missing by choice versus how many, like me, are deliberately excluded? We don’t know the answer, because – and this is a point worth emphasising – nobody publishes that data. There is no government task force. No politicians introducing parental equality legislation. No newspaper headlines.

It’s easier to frame us as absent, easier to perpetuate the ‘irresponsible father’ trope than confront the reality of father exclusion. Doing so would entail acknowledging that men face systemic discrimination in family courts and are relegated to second-class parental status. It’s easier for society not to care.

*My son in Trinidad, December 2021, on the second of just two 90-minute visits with me that his mother actually brought him to*

For the sake of our children, we should care. Active father engagement results in improved child outcomes. In 2016 the UK Department for Work and Pensions hosted a Father Engagement Seminar, which concluded that children with highly involved fathers have greater self-esteem, perform better at school and have fewer behavioural problems.

Conversely, growing up fatherless is highly detrimental to children and society. Children from fatherless homes are exponentially more likely to run away, die from suicide, suffer with substance abuse, become teenage mothers, have behavioural disorders, be sent to prison ... the list goes on. The fact that we have to go back a decade to find such a level of attention (in the UK) to the issue tells its own story.

When I share this information, people often react defensively. One American acquaintance, raised by a single parent, accused me of “blaming single mothers” before I could explain that I, too, grew up in single-parent households (with both my mother and father at different points), and that I was not making a political argument. But I had offended his sensibilities; he wasn’t prepared to even momentarily consider an alternative perspective.

What puzzles me is why acknowledging evidence of poorer average outcomes for children in father-absent homes is so often treated as a moral judgment rather than an empirical observation. Recognising such patterns need not imply blame, nor does it diminish the efforts or sacrifices of single parents. If child welfare is a genuine priority, we should be able to discuss uncomfortable data openly and with nuance, even when it complicates prevailing narratives.

*Colouring with crayons, Trinidad, December 2021*

Being an excluded father feels like living in exile. Some people are sympathetic, but not overly concerned. There is no language for your grief, no place for your story. Father exclusion does not fit into any fashionable social movement. Indeed, it’s allowed to slip through the cracks because it contradicts prevailing assumptions about gender, victimhood and power. Refusal to acknowledge this issue reflects a cultural and legal bias that renders fathers morally disposable.

Link to the full article Scroll down and look for the above image to continue reading.

Read full Article

tgolden@tgolden

March 13, 2026

Seeing Theroux the Manosphere

The Reviews Missed the Most Important Question

Seeing Theroux the Manosphere
The Reviews Missed the Most Important Question

Louis Theroux’s Inside the Manosphere is drawing the kind of reviews one might expect. Some say he did not focus enough on the harm done to women and girls. Others say he was out of his depth and ended up giving attention-seeking influencers exactly the publicity they crave. Still others praise the film as a revealing look at “toxic masculinity” online. But as I read the reviews, I was struck by something more important than their differences. They all seemed blind to the same possibility.

Take The Guardian. Its complaint was not that the category “manosphere” might be vague, ideological, or rhetorically manipulative. No, its complaint was that Theroux did not spend enough time showing the impact of these men’s ideas on women. In other words, the basic frame was accepted from the beginning: the manosphere is a danger to women, and the only real question is whether the documentary pressed that point hard enough.

The Independent came at it from another angle. It called the documentary “an infuriating failure” and argued that Theroux’s old-style documentary method is no match for internet-age performers driven by money, clout, and shameless self-promotion. Fair enough. But notice what is still missing. The review does not step back and ask whether the word manosphere itself has become a smear category—an elastic term that can be stretched to include not only grifters and woman-haters, but also men who simply question feminism, challenge anti-male orthodoxies, or speak openly about the struggles of boys and men.

Then there is the more favorable coverage. Decider recommended the film and described it as a revealing look at how toxic masculinity spreads online. That is now the standard language. The issue is assumed, the verdict is built in, and the label does most of the work before the discussion even begins. Once the term manosphere is accepted uncritically, everything inside it is already morally suspect.

What I found most striking is that Theroux himself seemed more aware of the problem than many of his reviewers. In an interview with The Guardian, he acknowledged that the term manosphere is “inexact” and somewhat in the eye of the beholder. That is an important admission. It suggests some awareness that the label can become a catch-all—one that may sweep together genuine extremists, foolish provocateurs, traditionalists, and ordinary male dissenters under a single cloud of suspicion. But that thread was barely followed by the reviewers. They seemed far more interested in whether Theroux had been sufficiently condemnatory.

And that, to me, is the real story.

The reviews were not really debating whether the category itself is being used ideologically. They were debating whether Theroux handled the category effectively. That is a very different question. Almost none of them seemed willing to consider that “the manosphere” may now function as a protective shield for feminism itself—a way to discredit, marginalize, or pathologize male voices that raise inconvenient questions. Once a man can be placed somewhere inside that dark and blurry category, his arguments no longer have to be answered. He can simply be associated with misogyny, extremism, resentment, or grievance.

That is why this matters.

Of course there are ugly voices online. Of course there are men saying foolish, cruel, and sometimes dangerous things. But there is a world of difference between identifying genuine bad actors and using a sprawling moral category to batter males who are questioning feminism or refusing to repeat approved cultural slogans. The reviews I saw did not seem especially interested in that difference. And when smart reviewers all miss the same thing, it is often because that blind spot is doing important cultural work.

In the end, the critics mostly asked two questions: Did Theroux go hard enough? Or did he give these men too much airtime? Very few seemed to ask the deeper one: Has “the manosphere” become one more ideological weapon used to protect feminism from scrutiny? That omission tells us quite a lot—not only about the documentary, but about the cultural climate in which it is being received.

Men Are Good

Read full Article

tgolden@tgolden

March 09, 2026

The Manosphere Study That Reveals Academic Panic

I recently read a new study titled “Mapping the Neo-Manosphere(s): New Directions for Research.” It presents itself as a serious academic effort to understand the changing world of the manosphere—male influencers, anti-feminist spaces, incels, online male grievance communities, and the growing variety of voices speaking to young men outside mainstream institutions.

But as I read it, I found myself thinking that the study reveals something else too.

It reveals, I think, a kind of academic panic.

That may sound harsh, but I do not mean panic in some cartoonish sense. I do not mean scholars sitting around trembling because young men are listening to Andrew Tate. I mean something deeper than that. I mean a worldview that is starting to sense it is losing its monopoly on meaning.

That phrase gets at the heart of the problem.

For a long time, a fairly narrow academic and media establishment had enormous power to define what men’s experience meant. If men spoke of pain, that pain could be reinterpreted. If they spoke of unfairness, that could be called backlash. If they objected to feminism, that could be framed as resentment, fragility, or misogyny. The gatekeepers held the language, the categories, and the moral authority. They got to decide what counted as truth and what counted as danger.

What I think we are seeing now is that this old arrangement is weakening.

More and more young men are stepping outside those approved frameworks. They are listening to voices that tell them something they do not often hear from the mainstream: that they are not crazy, that the culture has often been deeply unfair to men and boys, that feminism is not the neutral benevolent force it pretends to be, and that many of the judgments placed on masculinity are not only harsh but profoundly distorted.

That is a hard development for the academic world to control.

And I think this study shows signs of that loss of control.

The paper begins with suspicion, not curiosity

One of the first things that struck me is that the study does not really begin with open inquiry. It begins with a verdict.

The manosphere is described as an ecosystem of anti-feminist and male-supremacist groups, bound together by the belief that society is a misandrist conspiracy against men.

That is a remarkable way to begin.

Notice what has already happened before the real analysis even gets going. Men’s grievances are not treated as possibly true, partly true, exaggerated, mixed, confused, or grounded in lived experience. No, they are placed at once inside a framework of suspicion. They are treated as either supremacist, conspiratorial, or both.

That is not a small thing. It tells you a lot about the paper.

A genuinely curious scholar might ask: Are there legitimate grievances in these communities mixed in with anger and distortion? Are some young men responding to real experiences of humiliation, pathologizing, or neglect? Are there distinctions that need to be made between lonely men, bitter men, wounded men, manipulative men, hateful men, fathers’ rights advocates, incels, male self-help figures, and young men simply trying to make sense of a culture that often seems to dislike them?

This paper does not show much interest in those distinctions.

Instead, it starts by putting the whole subject inside a moral quarantine.

This is less mapping than boundary enforcement

The study claims to be “mapping” the neo-manosphere. But much of what it actually does is spread suspicion outward from the worst elements until almost every male-centered space starts to feel contaminated.

Incels, MRAs, MGTOW, gamers, male influencers, anti-feminists, NoFap communities, stoics, wellness figures, conservative women, “tradwives,” anti-trans spaces, conspiracy material, right-wing populism, and monetized self-help all get pulled into a broad ecosystem of harm, grievance, reaction, or radicalization.

Now of course some of these spaces overlap. Of course there are bad actors in some of them. Of course the internet creates strange and unstable alliances.

But overlap is not identity. Proximity is not sameness. Shared audiences do not prove shared motives.

And yet the paper repeatedly leans on this method. It widens the frame, darkens the tone, and allows moral suspicion to move outward by association.

That is one reason I say this is less scholarship than boundary enforcement.

It is not merely describing a phenomenon. It is warning the reader which kinds of male-centered thought should be treated as suspect.

Male pain is not understood. It is managed.

This is one of the deeper patterns I notice in studies like this.

When men speak of pain, they are rarely just listened to. More often their pain is analyzed, explained away, or treated as if it carries some hidden threat.

And that is very much the case here.

The paper does briefly acknowledge loneliness, insecurity, mental-health struggles, and alienation among men. But those things are not really allowed to stand on their own as human realities deserving genuine moral attention. They are quickly folded back into the preferred academic framework: misogyny, radicalization, grievance markets, pipelines, monetization, and male supremacy.

In other words, male pain is not really explored. It is managed.

That sounds harsh, but I think it is true.

It is part of a larger double standard that has become so common many people hardly notice it anymore. When women gather around grievance, they are often listened to with sympathy. When men gather around grievance, they are often investigated with suspicion. When women are angry, we ask what happened to them. When men are angry, we ask who influenced them. When women seek solidarity, it is called healing. When men do, it is called a pipeline.

That difference matters. It tells us something important about the moral atmosphere in which these studies are written.

Even male self-help is treated as suspicious

Another thing that stood out to me is how the paper treats self-improvement in men.

Stoicism, discipline, fitness, confidence, anti-porn movements, semen retention, purpose, self-mastery, masculine restoration—again and again these are framed as entangled with grift, insecurity, reaction, or male supremacism.

Now certainly there are grifters in that world. Some male influencers are ridiculous. Some are exploitative. Some mix useful advice with ego, ideology, or posturing. That is true.

But there is another question that this paper has very little interest in asking: why are so many men drawn to those things in the first place?

Could it be because many men do not feel helped by the official culture? Could it be because schools often do not understand boys, therapy often speaks in a language many men experience as alien, and the broader culture often approaches masculinity with criticism rather than respect? Could it be because action, discipline, competence, structure, challenge, and purpose are not pathological male fantasies but part of how many men actually regain stability?

That possibility receives very little room here.

Instead, male forms of self-repair are treated with suspicion, as though any attempt by men to rebuild themselves outside approved therapeutic and ideological channels is likely to be contaminated.

This is one of the places where the paper feels especially revealing. It seems unable to imagine that men might turn toward masculine discipline not because they long to dominate, but because they are trying to survive.

The study also polices explanation

I was also struck by how clearly the paper wants to police the boundaries of acceptable thought.

It looks suspiciously on evolutionary psychology, on sex-difference approaches, and on those who question whether boys should always be encouraged to process emotion according to models more naturally suited to girls. It warns against views that emphasize biology or that reject the reigning social-constructionist framework.

That is very telling.

This is not simply disagreement about evidence. It is an attempt to decide in advance which kinds of explanation are morally acceptable and which are to be treated as suspect intrusions.

Again, that is why the phrase defensive ideological maintenance fits so well.

When a worldview is confident, it can tolerate competing explanations. It can test itself. It can afford curiosity.

When it is losing ground, it becomes more protective, more censorious, and more likely to turn scholarship into a kind of intellectual border patrol.

That is what I feel in this paper.

Why this is happening now

I do not think this kind of scholarship is appearing in a vacuum.

For a long time, the dominant academic and media culture enjoyed something close to a monopoly on how gender questions were interpreted. It could define the terms, assign the moral categories, and dismiss dissenters as backward, defensive, or dangerous. It could make its own assumptions look like simple decency.

That is harder to do now.

Young men can now hear very different interpretations of the world. They can hear criticisms of feminism that once would have been filtered out or ridiculed into silence. They can hear discussions about schools, dating, fatherlessness, therapy, family courts, media bias, double standards, false accusations, and the casual contempt often shown toward masculinity.

Some of these voices are wise. Some are foolish. Some are helpful. Some are toxic. But mixed into all of that is a message many young men recognize immediately: the culture has not been honest with you.

That message lands because it speaks to experience.

And once that begins happening on a large scale, the old gatekeepers no longer get to decide so easily what things mean.

That is what I mean by losing a monopoly on meaning.

I think that loss is one of the real drivers behind the strained tone of studies like this one. They are not just trying to describe a phenomenon. They are trying to recover authority over its interpretation.

A worldview under pressure will label more aggressively

One of the things that often happens when an ideology starts losing ground is that it leans more heavily on labels.

It becomes less curious and more managerial. Less open to complexity and more eager to classify. Instead of asking why people are leaving, it spends more time warning others not to follow them. Instead of listening, it maps. Instead of persuading, it pathologizes.

That pattern is all over this study.

The language is heavy with terms like supremacy, radicalization, contagion, pipelines, harm, and grievance. Some of those words may fit some corners of the manosphere. But in this paper they often do more than describe. They stigmatize. They mark certain kinds of male speech as inherently suspect.

That is why the piece feels so tense to me.

It has the tone of a worldview under pressure.

Not a worldview calmly examining reality, but one sensing that the ground beneath it is shifting.

What honest scholarship would do

A more honest study would begin from a more human place.

It would ask why so many boys and men are looking elsewhere for understanding.

It would ask why schools so often seem better fitted to girls than to boys.

It would ask why so many men experience therapy as alien or feminizing.

It would ask why criticism of feminism so often triggers moral panic rather than real debate.

It would ask whether some forms of masculine self-help arise not from domination, but from the failure of mainstream institutions to offer men forms of help that actually fit them.

And it would ask perhaps the most difficult question of all: whether some of what young men are hearing in these disapproved spaces contains not just resentment, but truth.

That would take courage.

It would also require scholars to question their own assumptions.

That may be exactly what they are least prepared to do.

Final thoughts

In the end, I do not think this paper tells us nearly as much about the manosphere as it tells us about the academic establishment.

It shows us a style of scholarship that has grown accustomed to interpreting men from above, with suspicion already built in. It shows us an intellectual class that has trouble distinguishing between male grievance and male supremacy, between masculine restoration and political danger, between unsupervised thought and extremism. And most of all, it shows us what happens when a worldview senses it is losing its monopoly on meaning.

That is why the paper feels the way it does.

It does not feel open. It does not feel genuinely curious. It does not feel like careful inquiry.

It feels like academic panic.

And I think more and more people are starting to notice.

Men Are Good.

Read full Article

Available on mobile and TV devices