I recently read a New York Times article by Rachel Drucker titled “Men, Where Have You Gone? Please Come Back.” The subtitle reads: “So many men have retreated from intimacy, hiding behind firewalls, filters and curated personas, dabbling and scrolling. We miss you.”

In the article, Drucker shares a personal story about meeting a man named James online. Things started off well—but then James disappeared. From there, she explores her ideas of why so many men seem to be withdrawing from relationships and intimacy.

Here’s a link to the article if you’d like to take a look:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/20/style/modern-love-men-where-have-you-gone-please-come-back.html

I wanted to share two responses to the article—both from men, and both striking in their own way. One is by Jim Nuzzo, my favorite researcher, and the other is by Paul Nathanson, co-author of the most comprehensive and fascinating series ever written on misandry.

Enjoy the creativity—and insight—of men!

First a tweet from Jim Nuzzo.

 

https://x.com/JamesLNuzzo/status/1940296998072226262

Next, a written response from Paul Nathanson that I saw on a mutual mailing list. I think it captures this woman’s ignorance of men and our present situation very well:

This article makes me angry. For many years, I have tried to foster inter-sexual dialogue, a project that seems like utopian science-fiction for the time being. With that in mind, I read the author’s discussion of one woman’s deceptive plea for men to “come back.”

Rachel Drucker claims to understand what drives men away from women. “I get it,” she says. But she clearly doesn’t. Otherwise, she’d be “interrogating” women instead of complaining about men. Listen, I’m a gay man. I’ve never played mating games with women and have no personal stake at all in the rules—old or new. But even as an outsider—or maybe for that very reason—I can see the depressing reality that’s becoming more and more obvious to straight men. It’s true that many men, at least in the most articulate and influential circles, are withdrawing from women. But that’s mainly because women have already withdrawn from men. And no one who reads the Times does so without being aware of its historical and cultural context. For half a century, these women have made it clear that they, as a class, consider men the inferiors of women at best and the evil oppressors of women at worst. In other words, they have indulged publicly in subtle condescension at best—this article being one example—and open contempt or revenge at worst. Consider an article, both famous and infamous, for the Washington Post. In it, Suzanna Danuta Walters openly abandons the most basic moral principle of all by asking, “Why Can’t We Hate Men?” (8 June 2018).

Okay, maybe many men are unaware of what’s going on. They’ve never actually read feminist denunciations of marriage as legalized prostitution, for instance, or as legalized rape. (According to feminist theorists such as Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin, women are incapable of consenting to the sexual advances of men due to the “eroticization of power,” which supposedly makes women capable of sexual arousal only in the patriarchal context of submission to rape.) But most men are indeed aware by now that women have organized themselves politically as enemies of men, at least of those men who don’t convert to feminism (and not even those men deserve redemption according to the woke version of feminism). This hostility is as obvious in the relatively safe context of casual entertainment, moreover, as it is in the riskier contexts of friendships or “relationships” with women. Why would any reasonably healthy man be willing to put up with the lurking possibility of incessant complaining, relentless insinuating or implacable ranting? Enough already.

Explaining the current state of affairs is one thing, and recommending an alternative is something else. I’m not advocating the position of either Men Going Their Own Way (who have reasonable grounds for fearing entanglement with women despite the high cost to themselves) or the “incels” (who cannot attract women and therefore have unreasonable grounds for hostility toward women). I mention all this for two reasons. First, men and women are biologically programmed to unite not only for purely reproductive reasons but also for childrearing purposes. Because no society can endure the estrangement of men and women, reciprocity lies at the heart of any social contract. Second, human existence would be meaningless and unendurable without at least the hope of moving beyond cynicism toward altruism. Striving for reconciliation between any groups in conflict is also, therefore, a moral imperative.

Some women really do “get it” by now. Janice Fiamengo sure does, for example, and she’s not alone. Being explicitly anti-feminist, though, they have a long road ahead. I doubt that I’ll live long enough to see the dawn of genuine inter-sexual dialogue, but I’ll do anything that I can to join them in that effort.

_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________

Thank you Paul and James! Men Are Good!

I’ve grown accustomed to hearing politicians talk about men’s health, usually focusing on the idea that men need to stop taking risks and start going to the doctor. The implication is that it’s somehow men’s fault that they’re at risk of dying early, and so on. Of course, this is what feminists often refer to as "blaming the victim."

That’s why I was so pleased to read Donald Trump’s message for National Men’s Health Week. He spoke candidly about the disadvantages men face and the ways in which men and masculinity have been targeted by a vicious campaign. It was a breath of fresh air.

No matter how you feel about Donald Trump, you have to give him credit for calling out the reality of men’s issues in today’s world. Below, I’ll paste the entire message for you to read. It’s a step in the right direction.

Link to the White House page https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/06/presidential-message-on-national-mens-health-week-2025/

For far too long, the health, happiness, and well-being of our Nation’s men have been neglected, contributing to a troubling reality: men in the United States have a life expectancy five years shorter than women. They visit healthcare providers less frequently and often delay critical care. Men tend to have their first heart attack an average of 10 years earlier than women.

This neglect has been compounded by a vicious campaign against masculinity. This war on manhood has left many American men in a state of loneliness, confusion, and emptiness, with devastating consequences: men in the United States are four times more likely to commit suicide and more than twice as likely to overdose than women.

This National Men’s Health Week, I make a solemn pledge to honor the men in America: we will always have your back—and we will never waver in our promise to embolden you to lead long, healthy, and safe lives.

Just last month, I proudly signed an Executive Order to deliver most-favored-nation pricing to American patients, improve access to quality medical care, and lower the price of medications. Together, with my Make America Healthy Again Commission, we are empowering men to prioritize their health and prolong their lives.

Under my leadership, we will relentlessly pursue a healthier future for the men of our nation. We will always lift you up rather than tear you down, and we will champion the voices, values, and wellness of hardworking American men across our country.

Is This Brainwashing? How Feminist Narratives Mirror Thought Reform Tactics — and Target Men

By now, most of us have heard the term “brainwashing.” It usually brings to mind Cold War images of broken POWs or disturbing cult documentaries. But what if the most pervasive forms of psychological manipulation aren’t hidden in bunkers or religious compounds — but embedded in mainstream institutions that claim to promote justice?

Psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton, who studied Communist reeducation camps in Maoist China, laid out the classic framework for understanding brainwashing. In his landmark work, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, Lifton identified eight core mechanisms that coercive systems use to break down and reshape the self.

At the heart of it? A psychological attack on your identity — followed by shame, blame, and the expectation that you publicly confess and “rebuild” yourself according to the group’s ideology.

Sound familiar?

Over the past few decades, feminist ideology and their media and governmental allies— have used these exact tools to reshape how society sees men. Not just some men. All men. And nowhere is this more evident than in our schools, media, family courts, and even the criminal justice system.

First, Attack the Identity

Lifton observed that the first move in coercive thought reform is to undermine a person’s core identity — to instill doubt, guilt, and eventually shame. Today, men are told from boyhood that their nature is suspect. That masculinity is toxic. That their instincts, strengths, and even their emotions — especially anger — are part of the problem.

Being male is treated not as a biological or psychological trait, but as a moral flaw. Attack the identity.

Second, Shame, Blame, and Confession

Once identity is destabilized, the system demands confession. And modern institutions have become very good at this.

In HR meetings, classrooms, and even therapy, men are asked to “acknowledge their privilege,” to “own their part in the patriarchy,” and to pledge allegiance to ideologies that blame them collectively — not for what they’ve done, but for what they are.

Even worse, some of the most destructive institutions have absorbed this logic completely.

Family Courts and the Deadbeat Dad Myth

The family court system has long operated on a set of unspoken assumptions: that women are naturally more nurturing, that children belong with mothers, and that fathers — if they protest — are bitter, controlling, or dangerous.

When a man loses custody (which happens the vast majority of the time), he is then forced to pay for children he may barely be allowed to see. If he struggles financially — or dares to resist — he’s branded a “deadbeat dad” and possibly jailed. There is no presumption of innocence, no room for his story, and no empathy.

This is not justice. It’s reeducation by punishment.

Men are told that to be “good fathers,” they must obey, pay, and stay silent. They must prove they’re not what the system already assumes they are. That’s not family law. That’s psychological control dressed up in legal robes.

What we’re witnessing in the family court system is not just legal bias — it’s a full-spectrum psychological assault that mirrors Lifton’s model of thought reform. Fathers are stripped of identity (as protectors and caregivers), subjected to guilt and shame (for systemic outcomes they didn’t cause), and pressured into submission through confession and compliance. The state doesn't just want their money — it wants their silence, their obedience, and their internalized blame. In this way, the family courts don’t just separate fathers from their children — they separate men from their dignity and their purpose. It’s not just unjust. It’s indoctrination.

Domestic Violence and the Scripted Confession

Nowhere is the narrative more rigid than in the world of domestic violence policy.

For decades, feminist advocacy groups have dominated the public discourse and funding around domestic violence. The result? A cultural myth: that men are almost always the perpetrators, and women the victims.

This flies in the face of decades of peer-reviewed research — including dozens of studies showing that domestic violence is often mutual, that women initiate it just as often as men, and that male victims are frequently ignored, ridiculed, or arrested themselves when they call for help.

But the ideology doesn’t allow for nuance. The narrative is fixed: if you’re a man, you must be the problem.

Men entering anger management or court-mandated programs are often required to:

• Confess their wrongdoing — regardless of the facts.

• Accept their role as aggressor.

• Admit they’ve internalized toxic masculinity.

• Pledge to “do better” by adopting feminist-defined attitudes.

That’s not help. That’s indoctrination. The entire framework is built not on healing, but on ideological conformity.

Lifton’s Eight Mechanisms of Thought Reform Applied to Men

Lifton breaks down brainwashing into eight distinct categories, based on his observations and interviews with survivors of Communist Chinese reeducation programs in the 1950s. Disturbingly, many of these same tactics are now being used — intentionally or not — against men in today’s culture. Here’s a breakdown of how each of Lifton’s eight categories applies to the modern male experience.

 

1. Milieu Control

Control over communication — both internal (thoughts) and external (speech). Limits what the subject hears, says, or believes.

➤ Applied to Men:

Men today are surrounded by institutions — schools, workplaces, media, and even therapy — that present only one permitted narrative about gender: that men are privileged, women are oppressed, and masculinity is a problem to be corrected. Alternative voices are excluded, mocked, or deplatformed.

• In schools, boys are taught about “male privilege” but not about male suicide, fatherlessness, or educational disadvantages.

• In universities, “gender studies” often function as ideological echo chambers where dissenting views are considered harmful or even violent.

• In HR departments, “equity training” frequently frames masculinity as a liability rather than a contribution.

The result? Men learn to silence their inner objections, to distrust their instincts, and to keep their mouths shut for fear of social punishment.

2. Mystical Manipulation

The ideology is presented as the ultimate moral truth. Group goals are divine, transcendent, or historically inevitable.

➤ Applied to Men:

The feminist worldview — especially its radical and institutionalized form — is not just presented as a viewpoint; it’s presented as a moral imperative. Dissent isn’t treated as reasoned disagreement; it’s treated as a moral failure.

• “The future is female.”

• “Patriarchy hurts everyone.”

• “Believe all women.”

These slogans are not open to challenge. They carry the force of moral absolutes — as if opposing them is akin to opposing civil rights or basic human decency.

Men are told that redemption can only come through alignment with the ideology: renouncing their instincts, confessing their privilege, and proving their worth through ideological obedience.

3. Demand for Purity

Subjects must strive for an unattainable moral purity. Any sign of “impurity” is cause for guilt and self-condemnation.

➤ Applied to Men:

Being a “good man” today often means apologizing for being a man. Men are told that their masculinity is inherently toxic, their socialization inherently violent, and their very presence potentially threatening.

Even if a man is kind, respectful, and responsible, the system still implies that he benefits from a power structure that hurts women. He is never clean enough.

• “Unlearn toxic masculinity.”

• “Check your privilege.”

• “Listen and do better.”

The purity demanded is impossible. The goalposts always move, ensuring men remain in a permanent state of moral inadequacy.

4. Confession

Subjects are encouraged or forced to confess past sins (real or invented) to reinforce guilt and dependence on the group.

➤ Applied to Men:

Men are pressured to publicly confess their complicity in systemic oppression. These confessions are often ritualized and performative, serving not to repair relationships, but to demonstrate submission to the ideology.

• In court-ordered domestic violence programs, men are required to admit guilt even if the evidence is weak or contradictory.

• In schools and corporations, “privilege walk” exercises and diversity sessions often push men to publicly acknowledge guilt for their race, gender, or upbringing.

This isn’t introspection — it’s coerced self-abasement. The more a man confesses, the more he is seen as redeemable — but only through compliance.

5. Sacred Science

The group’s beliefs are beyond question. The ideology is presented as absolute truth, not open to debate.

➤ Applied to Men:

Feminist theory — particularly as institutionalized in law, education, and media — is often treated as sacred and unchallengeable. Counter-evidence is not refuted — it’s ignored, ridiculed, or suppressed.

• Men who cite peer-reviewed studies showing mutual or female-initiated domestic violence are dismissed.

• Mentioning male educational decline, family court bias, or suicide rates is framed as “whataboutism” or a distraction.

• Criticizing feminist narratives — even politely — is labeled as misogyny or “fragile masculinity.”

This ideological rigidity shuts down critical thinking, ensures conformity, and delegitimizes male perspectives.

6. Loading the Language

The group uses jargon and slogans to control thinking and shut down analysis.

➤ Applied to Men:

Language around gender has become ideologically weaponized. A handful of emotionally charged buzzwords are used to frame all male behavior as suspect — and all pushback as aggression.

• “Toxic masculinity”

• “Mansplaining”

• “Deadbeat Dads“

• “Male fragility”

• “Microaggressions”

These terms are not neutral. They are thought-stoppers — designed to make discussion impossible and guilt automatic. Once a man is labeled, he is silenced.

This language also redefines common behavior (like confidence, assertiveness, or disagreement) as morally or emotionally defective — if it comes from a man.

 

7. Doctrine Over Person

The ideology takes precedence over individual experience. If personal reality contradicts doctrine, the doctrine wins.

➤ Applied to Men:

Men who speak up about false accusations, loss of child custody, abuse by female partners, or institutional discrimination are often ignored — not because their stories are implausible, but because they don’t fit the ideological script.

• A man who’s been assaulted by a woman? He must be mistaken.

• A father who wants shared custody? He must be controlling.

• A male student struggling in a female-dominated classroom? He must just need to “try harder.”

His lived reality is invalid because the narrative says otherwise. The ideology is never wrong — only the man is.

8. Dispensing of Existence

Those who reject the group’s ideology are treated as morally inferior or even non-human.

➤ Applied to Men:

Men who resist ideological conformity are dehumanized — in subtle and not-so-subtle ways.

• They’re called “incels,” “misogynists,” or “angry white males.”

• Their pain is mocked. Their dissent is pathologized.

• They are erased from public sympathy — excluded from empathy in media, policy, and law.

If a man questions the narrative, he is not just wrong — he is bad. And once labeled, he can be canceled, fired, or dismissed without remorse.

​ The Bigger Picture

Each of these mechanisms is powerful on its own. But together, they create a comprehensive system of psychological control — one that targets men not for what they’ve done, but for who they are.

This is not liberation. This is not equity. This is coercive persuasion, systematized and scaled through courts, classrooms, corporate policy, and cultural narratives.

It doesn’t need a prison. It doesn’t need a cult leader. All it needs is a story about men that no one is allowed to question — and institutions willing to enforce it.

What’s the Result?

We now have millions of men — fathers, husbands, sons — who’ve been subjected to a psychological system that demands shame, confession, and reprogramming. Their emotional pain is minimized. Their voices are silenced. Their identity is on trial — every day.

This isn’t just about political correctness. It’s not even about feminism anymore. It’s about control. The same kind Lifton described in totalist regimes. The same kind used in cults.

And it’s happening — quietly, efficiently — in courtrooms, classrooms, corporate boardrooms, and therapy sessions across the country.

Time to Name It

We need to start calling this what it is: coercive psychological control. Thought reform with better branding. Men aren’t broken. Masculinity isn’t toxic. But the system that wants to remake them — through shame, guilt, and forced confession — might be.

It’s time we stood up and said no. Not because we’re defensive. But because we know the truth:

No healthy culture builds itself by humiliating its men.

Men Are Good.

Please do share this post far and wide. We need to get the word out. Thanks for your help with this. Tom