When “Helping Men” Comes With a Hidden Asterisk

A new article in the American Psychological Association’s Monitor magazine, titled “Rethinking Masculinity to Build Healthier Outcomes,” looks, at first glance, like progress. The author, Efua Andoh, highlights many of the crises men’s advocates have been warning about for decades: higher male suicide rates, educational decline, loneliness, and the massive toll of economic insecurity. It’s a relief to see mainstream psychology finally acknowledge that men and boys are struggling.

But as you read on, a familiar pattern emerges. The compassion is there — but it’s conditional. The sympathy comes wrapped in ideology.

And beneath the glossy language of “healthier masculinities” runs an unmistakable undercurrent of misandry.

The Frame: Men’s Problems as Men’s Faults

The piece centers on the claim that men’s suffering largely stems from their “rigid gender norms.” This “man box,” we’re told, traps men in emotional stoicism, dominance, and self-reliance — all of which supposedly lead to loneliness and self-destruction. The solution, according to the experts quoted, is to “deconstruct masculinity” or “redefine” it in more emotionally expressive, prosocial terms.

But this framing quietly does something damaging: it pathologizes masculinity itself. It treats male distress not as the product of a culture that devalues men but as a symptom of how men behave.

Nowhere does the article mention the broader social neglect of men — the fatherlessness epidemic, male-biased education systems, family-court disparities, or the stigmatization of male vulnerability. These aren’t small oversights. They’re central to understanding why men feel adrift. Yet in this “rethink masculinity” framework, male pain is repackaged as a self-inflicted wound.

That’s not empathy. That’s therapy-speak misandry.

The Experts: One View Allowed

Most of the voices quoted — Smiler, Wong, Addis, Hoffmann, and others — belong to the same ideological circle that helped craft the APA’s Div 51 2018 Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men. Those guidelines were widely criticized for implying that “traditional masculinity” is inherently harmful.

There are other scholars — Mark Kiselica, John Barry, Warren Farrell, and countless clinicians who’ve spent careers understanding men’s psychology from a balanced, non-ideological perspective — who see things differently. They view masculine strengths such as stoicism, protection, and risk-taking as potentially healthy traits that can be used for good when understood in context.

And she briefly mentions Kiselica and Englar-Carlson’s Positive Psychology/Positive Masculinity Model but then swiftly pivots back to “deconstruction” — the view that masculinity itself should be dismantled as an identity.

Imagine telling any other group that the path to healing begins with dissolving their sense of self.​

 

​​The Language: Gentle Words, Sharp Edges

The article’s tone is polished, inclusive, and sprinkled with compassion. Yet phrases like “manosphere,” “hostility toward women,” and “hypermasculinity” reframe large numbers of men as potential threats rather than people in need of understanding.

This rhetorical move — concern on the surface, suspicion underneath — has become the default stance of establishment psychology toward men. The message to boys is: “We care about your pain — as long as you agree it’s your fault.”

It’s hard to imagine a less effective therapeutic approach.

The Core Problem

The crisis in male well-being is real and urgent. Men are dying younger, lonelier, and more disconnected than ever. Yet when institutions like the APA approach that crisis through a feminist lens, they end up moralizing it rather than understanding it.

The truth is simpler: most men’s struggles are not caused by being “too masculine.” They’re caused by a culture that no longer values what men naturally offer. When men’s roles as protectors, builders, and providers are dismissed as relics, when their achievements are mocked as privilege, and when their emotional pain is politicized, men withdraw — not because of “toxic norms,” but because they no longer feel welcome.

That’s not pathology. That’s heartbreak.

What a Genuinely Male-Friendly Psychology Would Do

A psychology that truly helps men would start with respect, not suspicion. It would recognize the adaptive strengths of masculine behavior — courage, duty, persistence, loyalty — and build from there. It would invite men to heal without demanding that they surrender their identity in the process.

It would also take seriously the biological realities that shape male psychology. Research has long shown that testosterone — so often caricatured as the hormone of aggression — is in fact primarily linked to status-seeking and social hierarchy navigation. Men’s drive to compete, to achieve, and to earn respect among other men arises from this deep biological impulse. Far from being pathological, this striving for status underlies much of men’s cooperation, innovation, and willingness to shoulder responsibility within male hierarchies.

When understood through this lens, many so-called “problem behaviors” make sense as expressions of an ancient human drive to contribute, excel, and be valued by one’s peers. A healthy psychology of men would not shame this drive but would help men channel it toward purpose, service, and integrity — recognizing that status, when earned honorably, is not vanity but meaning.

And it would acknowledge that masculinity, like femininity, is not a pathology to fix but a deep and necessary part of human wholeness.

“Rethinking Masculinity” claims to offer compassion. But what it really offers is conditional acceptance — a quiet insinuation that men will be worthy of empathy only after they stop being who they are.

That isn’t progress. It’s the same old prejudice, just with better PR.

Men Are Good

November Is Men’s Equality Month

#GenderEqualityForMen

November is Men’s Equality Month, and November 19 marks International Men’s Day — two celebrations that recognize the contributions of men and boys while raising awareness about the areas where they continue to face disadvantage.

These observances are growing fast. International Men’s Day began in 1999 in Trinidad and Tobago. Building on that success, the International Council for Men and Boys (ICMB) inaugurated Men’s Equality Month (MEM) in 2024 to expand the recognition of men’s issues across the entire month of November.

This year’s theme is simple but powerful:

“Celebrate Men and Boys.”

Breaking Through in 2025

On November 5, ICMB will hold a Press Conference and Summit in Washington, D.C.
Theme: “Breaking Through: Advancing Equality for Men and Boys.”

The movement is gaining traction. In 2024, over 300 events were held in 20 countries, reaching millions of people on social media. Two countries — Australia and the United Kingdom — have already launched national organizations to support International Men’s Day, and more are joining each year.

Why It Matters

For decades, we’ve been told that gender equality is a one-way street — that it means focusing solely on women’s issues. But true equality includes everyone.

Men and boys face serious and often overlooked challenges in areas like education, health, fatherhood, mental health, suicide, homelessness, workplace safety, and family law. These observances are a chance to open honest conversations about those realities — and to celebrate the men and boys who quietly give so much to families, communities, and society.

 

Ways to Take Part

Here are some ways you can help raise awareness during Men’s Equality Month and International Men’s Day:

• Host a talk, roundtable, or podcast about men’s health or fatherhood.

• Encourage local officials to issue proclamations or statements of support.

• Share posts with #GenderEqualityForMen on social media.

• Write an op-ed, blog post, or video celebrating the positive role of men and boys.

• Organize or attend a local event through a community, church, or school.

• Simply thank the men in your life — fathers, sons, brothers, mentors, friends.

Even small gestures can help normalize appreciation and understanding for men and boys.

Want to Get Involved?

The ICMB is inviting groups to serve as Country or State Coordinators for Men’s Equality Month. Coordinators help organize and publicize local events, connect with allied organizations, and report activities for global recognition.

If your group is interested, contact:
📧 Bob Thompson — [email protected]
🌐 Learn more: menandboys.net

A Final Thought

Men’s Equality Month and International Men’s Day aren’t about competition — they’re about balance. About saying that compassion, understanding, and fairness belong to everyone.

Let’s make November a month to celebrate men and boys — and to remind the world that gender equality isn’t complete until it includes both halves of humanity.

This is a brief note on Women’s Studies that came to me while recording the recent discussion with Janice Fiamengo, Hannah Spier, Jim Nuzzo, and me. It was a great conversation, and I’m hoping it will be published on Friday—though we’ll see.

The Animus of “Should Studies”

Something struck me recently about Women’s Studies — or at least the version of it that dominates modern academia. It doesn’t just study women. It tells the rest of us how the world should be arranged around women. It’s less a discipline and more a moral instruction manual.

Carl Jung had a name for the part of the psyche that does this in women: the animus — the inner masculine in women. At its best, the animus offers clarity, strength, and the courage to speak truth. But when it becomes unconscious or inflated, it shifts into something harsher: judgmental, rigid, and convinced of its own righteousness.

Most men are familiar with this but have likely never had a label for the experience. It is when the woman you love goes into a state of mind where the word “should“ is featured and a marked incapacity to hear any feedback is present. in fact, if feedback is offered it is seen as proof that you are a moron. Most men learn to extricate themselves, but the experience is not forgotten. I think it was Jung who said that no man could stand in this for over a couple of minutes.

In Jung’s language, what we are describing is called animus possession — the moment when ideology replaces relationship, and the voice inside says:

“I’m right. You’re wrong.
Here’s what you must fix.”

Sound familiar? It struck me that this is exactly the posture taken by many feminists and by Women’s Studies as a field. They are right—no discussion needed. You should do this, you should do that, and I shouldn’t be treated so badly. Should, should, should.

I’m currently writing the final part of the gynocentrism series, which explores—among other things—best practices for addressing the kind of out-of-control relational aggression that often emerges from this mindset.

Modern Women’s Studies frequently embodies this shadow animus: it begins not with curiosity, but with commandments; not with questions, but with shoulds.

• Men should act differently

• Institutions should reorganize

• Culture should obey

It’s freedom for one group, followed by compliance from another. Or, as I keep coming back to:

Rules for thee,
but empowerment for me.

Liberation for me,
obedience for you.

This is not dialogue. It’s dominance disguised as justice.

And here’s the psychological tragedy:
a worldview built on hostility leads to hostile ways of living.

When you’re taught the world is against you…

• you become hypervigilant

• disagreement feels like danger

• control feels like self-protection

• anger feels like moral duty

It stops being scholarship and becomes self-defense theater.

But that defense comes at a cost:

Fighting for empowerment every minute
leaves no time to feel empowered.

If the world is always out to get you, you don’t get to relax into love, trust, partnership — or peace. Contentment becomes unreachable, because vigilance never sleeps.

And so I find myself asking a question I didn’t expect:

Are we witnessing empowerment —
or animus possession?

Is this actually helping women flourish?
Or has fear replaced freedom?

If progress means constantly scanning the world for threats, enemies, and micro-offenses… then the victory is hollow. Because the person you must defend yourself from most aggressively… becomes everyone.

A worldview rooted in fear can demand power —
but it cannot deliver peace.