MenAreGood
Domestic Violence Services in Wisconsin - Do they serve men? PART 2
Wisconsin Law Requires Arresting Men Regardless of Who Perpetrated the Violence
February 03, 2025

Part 2 – Wisconsin Law Requires Arresting Men Regardless of Who Perpetrated the Violence

Daniel Carver

Wisconsin State Statute 49.165(2)(f)9.
“Award a grant in each fiscal year to the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence toward the cost of a staff person to provide assistance in obtaining legal services to domestic abuse victims.” Since the domestic violence (DV) shelters serve only women, this means that the taxpayers are funding paralegals (often working in the Department of Justice) to assist women through the maze of family court; while the men receive zero legal assistance. This is an amplified ex parte legal system long before the case gets to a judge for adjudication. Guaranteed ex parte in every case, written into the state statutes!

During my divorce proceedings I filed an ex parte request to the judge in hopes of being heard and understood but that did not happen. Ex parte in Wisconsin is only for women. Equitable due process for all? The government is providing free legal assistance only to women while men have the legal deck stacked against them. In my case a government paid official, the (Director of the Child Support Office) literally wrote the legal contract herself and it was no secret that the government was writing it, to favor my ex-wife, and then my legal options were to pay half a year’s salary in legal fees to an attorney to fight for me; or sign this document. This is systemic corruption beyond draconian and is anything but fair or just.

Digging further into Wisconsin statutes, I finally found the law that gets men arrested whether or not they caused or started the domestic violence! I could hardly believe I was reading it, but it’s true.

Wisconsin statute 968.075 (1)(e)
““Predominant aggressor” means the most significant, but not necessarily the first, aggressor in a domestic abuse incident.” [Effectively, this means the larger person that is stronger gets arrested – ie. the man]

Wisconsin statute 968.075 (2)
“Circumstances requiring arrest; presumption against certain arrests.”

Wisconsin statute 968.075 (2)(a)2.c
“The person is the predominant aggressor.”

Wisconsin statute 968.075 (2)(a)2.(am)
“it is generally not appropriate for a law enforcement officer to arrest anyone under par. (a) other than the predominant aggressor.” [Effectively, this means the officer may not arrest the woman because that would be inappropriate since she is a woman!]

Wisconsin statute 968.075 (2m)
The predominate aggressor once arrested may not be released without posting bail or appearing before a judge.

Wisconsin statute 968.075 (3) Law Enforcement Policies (a)
“Each law enforcement agency shall develop, adopt, and implement written policies regarding procedures for domestic abuse incidents. The policies shall include, but not be limited to, the following:” I wrote many sheriff’s offices and police departments asking to see their written policy on domestic abuse incidents. Most refused to give me a copy. A few did and these policies varied widely between jurisdictions. No authority to arrest a citizen and require bail should be under the authority of a local “policy”; especially not when written by the agency that is also enforcing the law! That’s corruption. Checks and balances in the three legs of government? Arrests should be made according to a state or federal law, not some local policy. Moreover, a law should never pass it’s legal authority down to a local policy, and especially a policy written by officials that were never elected ! This is the type of thing you would see in a communist government of totalitarian authority.

But wait, it gets worse in Wisconsin:

Wisconsin statute 968.075 (4) Report Required Where No Arrest “If a law enforcement officer does not make an arrest under this section when the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is committing or has committed domestic abuse and that person’s acts constitute the commission of a crime, the officer shall prepare a written report stating why the person was not arrested. The report shall be sent to the district attorney’s office, in the county where the acts took place, immediately after investigation of the incident has been completed. The district attorney shall review the report to determine whether the person involved in the incident should be charged with the commission of a crime.”

 

Notice that it says “the person” (singular) involved in the incident. The law does not even allow the officer to say that the incident was caused by both partners and that they should both be investigated! The district attorney may only investigate “the person”, which, for all practical purposes….. is the man.

If the reader is questioning these things, I challenge you to ask some retired law enforcement officers to speak off the record about some of their stories when they were required to enforce these draconian laws against men. I have talked to them, and the injustice is well known on a practical level by officers, yet they must go by the law and enforce said law; whether they think it is fair or not. The officer doesn’t write the laws, only enforces them.

So I decided to try to get involved with and attend a meeting of the Governor's Council on Domestic Abuse (driving three hours to the meeting place). I had to ask many times to even get them to email me a meeting notice, then I had to ask often again to get an agenda to those meetings. I attempted to get on their agenda and of course was told no.

You’ll notice on their website, the next meeting date is not published yet. By law in Wisconsin a public meeting must be announced, so this council (90% women) even says on the website they will post a notice 24 hours before the meeting. This seems to be for the purpose of preventing accountability from citizens attending. Why else would they not plan public meetings in advance and publish their time/date/location? Why else would they give only 24 hours notice on a regular basis each month?

They even write out the excuse on their website that meetings can’t be announced in advance due to “unforeseen issues”. These “unforeseen issues”, never described, happen every month like clockwork. So they are not breaking the written law when they announce 24 hours in advance, but they are definitely breaking the intent of the Wisconsin open meetings law. To the Governor's Council on Domestic Abuse, 

 


I offered to volunteer in service as a council member since I was a domestic violence victim.......... you might imagine that their answer was no. I discovered this council had a subcommittee like a task force, on the topic of access to services ! I went to that meeting to point out that my local DV shelter had employed 100% women as victim’s advocates and should also offer services by male DV advocates.

The council’s subcommittee meeting I attended had a prominent speaker, the Director of End Abuse WI. She was there to convince them to issue another 2 million dollar grant so I looked up the grant invitation and it was written such that only large organizations could meet the grant requirements and of course this End Abuse WI organization was large enough to qualify for this grant. The grant proposal invitation itself (Written by who? I have a suspicion) prevents small community based organizations from receiving any of the available dollars.

The entire Governor’s council subverts an open and fair process so they can funnel big money to the feminist shelters that discriminate against men. Many of the shelters offer public classes, paid by tax payers, in how to be a feminist, some avoided that word, others used it boldly in the title of their tax payer funded class that is offered free to the public – women only of course.

To show the full circle of feminist corruption in tax payer money; consider this hallway conversation. This is when the systemic corruption became so clear to me. As I left the meeting of the subcommittee of the Governor’s Council on Domestic Abuse; I stopped the Director of End Abuse Wisconsin in the hallway to tell her I’d learned of the law that required arrest at every incident and how it was really a requirement to arrest the man. She said to me, "No, it doesn't say that.  I know because I wrote it."

 


So what’s really going on is the 35 DV shelters in Wisconsin, non-profits, violate labor laws by hiring only women; and these shelters openly tell you on the phone they don’t accept men. They are seemingly directed covertly under a state wide umbrella organization called End Abuse Wisconsin that is also essentially a taxpayer funded organization; only without financial reporting requirements. I can only imagine what are the annual salary and benefits of the Director of End Abuse Wisconsin.

In her own words, she literally wrote the state statutes. Those statutes require men be arrested at every incident! This systemic corruption network controls and limits access to the Governor’s council meetings (I never saw anyone from the governor’s office attend). It is in those meetings that this council of almost all women, make recommendations to the governor’s office to fund this DV corruption network and arrest the men that have said stop to their abusive wife or girlfriend.

They also, rightfully, arrest the men that are perpetrators of violence against their spouse. But the men that are victims of their wife’s violence get unjustly thrown in jail along with the wife beaters! This is the definition of gender apartheid.

All this is funded by federal money coming from Washington DC, allocated by federal law, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). That law, written in 1994, was enacted upon the false myth that domestic violence is always perpetrated by the man. For decades now, the DV experts in the field openly describe the 50/50 nature of DV perpetrated by both men and women (roughly half of the time). Rigorous academic research clearly shows the 50/50 nature. Yet the false myth continues due to gynocentric legislators writing gynocentric laws.

The Governor’s council in Wisconsin is within the executive branch of government. Note that the “domestic abuse incident policies” are written by the Department of Justice that is enforcing said policy – which has the authority of the state law and requires arresting the man. What is happening is that the legislative branch of Wisconsin government requires the man be arrested under whatever “policy” is written by someone whose qualification is that they can use a word processor and were hired by an HR department. There is no approval of said policy, and these documents are not even publicly available on any website ! Imagine a law written that was never given to the public to read ! That’s what’s going on with these policies.

I knew that police officers have a very difficult job and do not get paid near enough for the risk they take in keeping our communities safe. They must be prepared to respond to a myriad of various life threatening scenarios such as bomb threats, active shooters, car chase run aways, chemical spills, heart attacks, child abuse, armed robberies, drug overdoses, car accidents……… the list is endless. Specific training in each situation is very helpful to these officers and they naturally desire more training in every area.  I would want more training too if I had those huge responsibilities for the very lives of the people I served.  

Officers are usually employed by small municipalities that have very small training budgets. So I contacted my local Chief of Police an made him an offer that I expected he would not refuse. Dr. John Hamel is likely the highest qualified person in the country on domestic violence (Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal: Partner Abuse). Dr. Hamel offers online training classes in domestic abuse which are popular with law enforcement departments and social worker offices.

Uniquely, Dr. John Hamal teaches the truth from thousands of academic researchers around the globe. That truth is that domestic violence is just as likely to be initiated by a woman as it is by a man. Just listen to his personal research from the 1990’s on what the wives in divorce courts told him in person: John Hamel, Ph.D., LCSW - Domestic Violence Expert in the CA Court System

Knowing that he taught the truth that dispels the myth of men being the only cause of DV, I offered to pay the tuition for Dr. Hamel’s online class for a local officer who wanted to take that training and get the DV certification. I’d hoped to pay for one of these each year. I expected to have officers rolling dice to see who get’s to take the free online training class in domestic violence.

But the Chief of Police had to first get approval from his boss. Wisconsin’s Deputy Attorney General at the time, a woman, declared that she would not allow her officers to get online training, that she required the training to be in person only; training only by her! She is a lawyer. Officer trainings should be by someone that is or has been an officer, counselor, or social worker.

After this, I was finished trying to change the system. It’s beyond draconian and deeply engrained corruption. I tapped out of this labyrinth of DV services requiring men be arrested no matter what happened. You can’t change an organization, or state laws, from underneath those in charge, especially when they are extremist feminists.

I am copying Wisconsin Senators Ron Johnson and Tammy Baldwin on this letter (anonymously) so that hopefully they will take action. Senator Johnson voted against the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in March 2022 The federal VAWA is what funds most all domestic violence
shelters around the nation.

In Part 3, I give some practical ideas for how we can make improvements and get legal equity for all.

Calling for reforms to achieve true justice for all, kids too,

Sincerely, Daniel Carver

community logo
Join the MenAreGood Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
0
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
October 02, 2025
Father Custody: The Solution to Injustices Against Men?

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

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

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

Men are good, as are you.

Books...

01:18:10
September 25, 2025
Dr. James Nuzzo Cancelled for Challenging Feminism and DEI

Join me as I talk with Janice Fiamengo and researcher Dr. James Nuzzo about the shocking story of his academic cancellation. What begins as one man’s ordeal soon reveals how woke ideology and radical feminism are undermining science, silencing dissent, and eroding academic freedom. Thoughtful, eye-opening, and at times heartbreaking, this video exposes what really happens when universities put politics before truth.

Dr. Nuzzo's GoFundMe
https://www.gofundme.com/f/ChildStrengthResearch

Dr. Nuzzo's Donorbox
https://donorbox.org/the-nuzzo-letter

https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/

Previous Interviews with Dr. Nuzzo on MenAreGood
grip strength https://menaregood.substack.com/p/childhood-sex-differences-in-grip

sex differences in strength https://menaregood.substack.com/p/sex-differences-in-strength-and-exercise

bias against women in exercise research? https://menaregood.substack.com/p/bias-against-women-in-exercise-research

childhood sex differences in strength ...

01:01:31
September 10, 2025
Diary of a CEO's Debate on Feminism: Our Response

This video will be presented in two parts and is a joint venture between MenAreGood and Hannah Spier’s Psychobabble. Hannah’s standard approach is to make the first half free for everyone, with the second half reserved for paid subscribers. To align with her process, I’m setting aside my usual practice of making all new posts free and following the same format for this release.


Janice Fiamengo, Hannah Spier, and Tom Golden respond to a YouTube video on The Diary of a CEO channel, which features three feminists debating the question: “Has modern feminism betrayed the very women it promised to empower?”In their response, Hannah, Janice, and Tom have a lively discussion, highlighting inconsistencies, omissions, and a variety of other notable observations.

Men Are Good

00:36:02
February 07, 2023
The Way Boys Play and the Biological Underpinnings

My apologies for the last empty post. My mistake. Let's hope this one works.

Tom takes a stab at using the podcast function. Let's see how it goes.

The Way Boys Play and the Biological Underpinnings
May 13, 2022
Boys and Rough Play

This is a short excerpt from Helping Mothers be Closer to their Sons. The book was meant for single mothers who really don't know much about boy's nature. They also don't have a man in the house who can stand up for the boy and his unique nature. It tries to give them some ideas about how boys and girls are different. This excerpt is about play behaviors.

Boys and Rough Play

New voice that did her PHD theses on female psychopaths. She has some good stuff

September 18, 2025
Jim Nuzzo Cancelled

I’m sure many of you are familiar with Jim Nuzzo’s work on exercise and strength training. A frequent guest on this channel, Jim offers valuable insights into exercise science. I often call him my favorite researcher—and he truly is!

Jim studies boys’ uniqueness and the differences between boys and girls in exercise approaches and physical traits. He has also exposed distortions in claims that past research was biased against women. In doing so, he broke two “rules” of the woke: celebrating boys’ strengths and challenging feminist disinformation. For this, he was effectively cancelled.

Using the Freedom of Information Act, Jim obtained emails revealing the hate behind his cancellation. This post details that story, and Janice and I will do a video with him next week—so there’s more to come.


https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/my-academic-cancellation-story

October 23, 2025
post photo preview
W​omen’s Studies was Never About Study

W​omen’s Studies was Never About Study

For decades, Women’s Studies has held a privileged place in academia. From its earliest days, it was never a neutral or exploratory field—it was born out of activism, not inquiry. The goal was not to ask open questions about gender, but to advance a political framework that saw women as oppressed and men as privileged. It promised to give women a collective voice and to expose the “hidden structures” of patriarchy, but from the beginning, its conclusions were already written into its premises.

From Activism to Orthodoxy

Women’s Studies emerged in the late 1960s as an explicitly ideological project, shaped by the political currents of second-wave feminism. Its founders were activists first and academics second. The programs they built were not designed to test ideas but to institutionalize a belief system—that society was organized around male domination and that liberation required dismantling it. Rather than studying whether patriarchy existed, Women’s Studies set out to document how it did, embedding the theory of oppression into every syllabus. What began as political conviction soon became academic dogma.

A Closed Loop of Certainty

Once the framework of oppression was installed as unquestionable truth, the field began to police its own boundaries. Dissent was not debated—it was pathologized. To question the narrative of systemic male power was to “uphold patriarchy.” To suggest that men face distinct forms of hardship was to be told you were shifting attention away from women — that you were “making it about men.”​ Even sympathetic scholars who urged more balance found themselves marginalized. In time, Women’s Studies became a self-reinforcing system—its theories generating its evidence, its evidence confirming its theories. The goal was no longer discovery but preservation of the ideology itself.

Theory Without Tether

Much of the writing in Women’s Studies rests on sweeping abstractions: “patriarchy,” “privilege,” “internalized oppression,” “toxic masculinity.” These terms are often treated not as hypotheses to be tested but as truths to be applied. Shulamith Firestone declared that “the goal of the feminist revolution must be… the elimination of the sex distinction itself.” bell hooks wrote that “patriarchy is the single most life-threatening social disease assaulting the male body and spirit.” Such claims are not evidence-based conclusions; they are moral declarations — proclamations of belief.

When theory replaces evidence, conversation dies. Instead of exploring how men and women differ in complex, sometimes complementary ways, Women’s Studies tends to flatten the picture into one story: oppressors and oppressed.

The Disappearing Male

Ironically, as the field expanded into “Gender Studies,” men nearly vanished from the picture except as symbols of privilege or threat. Rarely do these programs explore male pain, fatherhood, or the male experience of relational loss, shame, or sacrifice. When male suffering is acknowledged, it’s often reframed as a symptom of “toxic masculinity” — as though men’s pain merely confirms the theory rather than complicates it.

If academia truly cared about gender, it would study men as carefully and compassionately as it studies women. But in the current climate, even suggesting that balance is considered suspect.

Power, Not Understanding

Modern Women’s and Gender Studies have largely shifted from studying what is to prescribing what should be. The core pursuit is no longer knowledge but power — the power to define social norms, influence policy, and shape language. As a result, universities now graduate students steeped in theory but poorly equipped to engage with those who don’t share their ideological framework. The field’s inward focus breeds division rather than understanding.

Why It Matters

This isn’t just an academic squabble. The ideas born in Women’s Studies now drive policies in media, law, education, and corporate culture. They shape how we talk about men and women, how we define fairness, and how we teach our children about themselves. When a discipline insists that one sex’s narrative of oppression defines the truth, it narrows empathy for the other half of humanity.

A truly balanced study of gender would ask harder questions — not how to dismantle men, but how men and women can understand each other more deeply. Until that shift happens, Women’s Studies will remain less a study of truth than a sermon about power.

Men Are Good


Note:
Next week, Janice Fiamengo, Jim Nuzzo, Hannah Spier, and I will be releasing a video discussion titled “The Evolution of Women’s Studies and Its Terms.” We’ll take a deeper look at how Women’s Studies developed, examine course materials and degree trends, and unpack the language it has generated—terms like microfeminism, antinatal feminism, compulsory heterosexuality, internalized misogyny, and kin-keeping. It should be a lively and revealing conversation.​

Read full Article
October 20, 2025
post photo preview
Reproductive Rights End at Ejaculation: How Men Lost Control Over Parenthood


Reproductive Rights End at Ejaculation: How Men Lost Control Over Parenthood

It’s one of the most unspoken truths in modern life: once conception occurs, men have no reproductive rights. A woman can choose to keep a pregnancy or end it. She can decide to raise the child or place it for adoption. A man, on the other hand, is bound—socially, legally, and financially—to whatever decision she makes.

That imbalance is so normalized that few even notice it. When the topic arises, most people reflexively defend the status quo. “Well, it’s her body.” Of course it is. But what’s rarely considered is that while women have control over their bodies, men have no control over their futures.

“The man’s genetic material, his emotional capacity, his finances, and his lifelong identity as a father or a stranger—all of it hangs on someone else’s choice. A woman’s responsibility is conditional; a man’s is absolute.

And this asymmetry is defended not as a moral dilemma to be resolved, but as a settled truth.


The Silent Consent Trap

We’ve been taught to think that when a man consents to sex, he consents to everything that might follow. But when a woman consents to sex, she still retains the right to decide afterward whether to become a mother.

This moral sleight of hand is stunning once you notice it. One person’s consent is treated as final and binding; the other’s is treated as provisional and revocable.

And yet this assumption—so old it feels invisible—forms the bedrock of modern reproductive law.

If a pregnancy occurs and the man doesn’t want to be a father, the system tells him, “Too bad. You should have thought of that earlier.” If the woman doesn’t want to be a mother, society says, “She has a right to choose.”

Both positions can’t be reconciled under any serious notion of equality.


The Price of Powerlessness

For many men, the consequence isn’t only financial—it’s existential.

Imagine discovering that someone chose to bring a child into the world with your DNA, against your will, and that you’ll now spend 18 years paying for the decision you didn’t make. Imagine learning that a partner deceived you about contraception, or tampered with protection, and you’re told by the court that none of that matters.

Your body, your consent, your word—irrelevant.

The state considers you responsible for what someone else decided to do with your biology.

The irony is brutal: men are lectured about “taking responsibility,” but responsibility without consent is not morality—it’s servitude.

And while precise numbers are impossible to know, the scale of this problem is enormous. Countless men quietly accept pregnancies they would have preferred to avoid—not because they chose fatherhood, but because the law left them no voice in the matter. For every man who speaks out, many more simply submit to a fate decided by someone else. And this imbalance cuts both ways. Just as some men are forced into fatherhood they didn’t choose, others are denied fatherhood they deeply want. Many have stood by helplessly as a pregnancy they hoped to cherish was ended—not because they were careless or uncommitted, but because the law gave them no voice. For them, “her choice” becomes their grief, and that grief is treated as if it doesn’t exist.

And beneath that larger injustice lies an even starker reality: a measurable percentage of pregnancies begin with deliberate deception. Studies conservatively estimate that 1–3% of fathers are unknowingly raising children who are not biologically theirs. Men who uncover the truth and challenge paternity are often ordered to keep paying anyway, because “it’s in the best interest of the child.”

In other words, the legal system tells men that even being lied to about fatherhood doesn’t matter—your wallet still belongs to the child, and by extension, to the mother who deceived you. It’s her body, her choice—and your wallet, her choice too.


Moral Courage and the Empathy Gap

Why is there so little outrage about this? Because when men suffer, empathy tends to vanish.

We can see this in how society responds to female pain—mobilizing instantly, funding shelters, rewriting laws—and how it responds to male pain—with indifference, mockery, or moral lectures.

A man who feels trapped by fatherhood he didn’t choose is told he’s irresponsible or immature. A woman who feels trapped by motherhood she didn’t choose is seen as courageous for seeking control. And when a man feels trapped by abortion—when he longs to protect the life of his own child but is powerless to stop its ending—his pain is dismissed as interference in someone else’s right.

This empathy gap runs so deep that even discussing male reproductive rights feels taboo. People worry it undermines women’s freedom, as if equality for one sex must come at the other’s expense.

But fairness isn’t a zero-sum game. Equality doesn’t mean less compassion for women—it means more honesty for everyone.


The “Financial Abortion” Idea

One idea, sometimes called “paper abortion” or “financial abortion,” proposes that men should be able to relinquish legal parenthood within a set time early in pregnancy—mirroring a woman’s right to choose abortion or adoption.

Critics say it lets men “walk away from their responsibilities.” But this criticism misses the point: responsibility must follow consent. You can’t demand moral or financial duty from someone who had no voice in the decision that created it.

If women can legally choose parenthood, men should at least be able to choose not to be one.

Otherwise, what we call equality is really a kind of gendered servitude—freedom for one sex, obligation for the other.


Consent and Control

At its heart, the issue of reproductive rights for men isn’t about sex. It’s about consent, autonomy, and the meaning of equality.

In every other area of life, consent without control is invalid.
If someone borrows your car without permission, you don’t owe them gas money because “the trip already happened.” If a doctor performs a surgery you didn’t consent to, it’s malpractice—even if they believed it would help.

Yet when it comes to reproduction, we abandon that principle completely.

Men’s consent ends at ejaculation. From that moment on, everything that follows—the pregnancy, the birth, the lifelong obligation—is out of their hands.

And society calls this justice.


The Deeper Consequence

When men feel they have no control over one of life’s most defining events—whether or not they become a father—it fuels a quiet kind of despair. It teaches them that their choices don’t matter, that their voices are disposable, that their role in reproduction is purely mechanical.

It also weakens trust between men and women. True partnership depends on mutual agency and mutual accountability. When one side holds all the power, resentment grows.

This isn’t just a legal problem; it’s a relational one. Many young men today fear relationships precisely because they sense this imbalance—because they know that in the eyes of the law and culture, they have no reproductive rights, only responsibilities.


A Culture That Values Both Sexes

Reproductive fairness shouldn’t be controversial. If we truly believe in equality, then both sexes deserve the same moral and legal respect for their choices.

That means we need to have the courage to ask hard questions:

  • Should men have the right to decline fatherhood when women can decline motherhood?

  • Should paternity testing be standard, to protect both fathers and children from deception?

  • Should reproductive coercion—like lying about birth control—be treated as seriously as forcing a woman into pregnancy?

Equality isn’t about punishing women or freeing men from moral duty. It’s about aligning rights with responsibilities, and recognizing that both sexes have an equal stake in the creation of life.

Until that happens, we’ll keep pretending that justice exists where it doesn’t—and men will keep paying the price for choices they didn’t make.

Because in our culture, reproductive rights still end at ejaculation.

Read full Article
October 16, 2025
post photo preview
The Engineered Isolation of Men
 


The Engineered Isolation of Men

For decades, society has been dismantling the three foundations that once anchored men: work, identity, and family. What we call a “men’s crisis” isn’t just about depression or suicide—it’s about systematic disconnection. When a man loses his place to contribute, his right to belong, and the respect that once gave him pride, he doesn’t merely suffer; he disappears.


1. The First Cut: Economic Displacement

For most men, work is more than a paycheck—it’s proof of worth. Through skill, labor, and persistence, men find identity and belonging. But modern economies have quietly stripped that away. Factories closed, trades devalued, and risk-taking jobs replaced by automation or overseas labor.

Men were told to “adapt,” but few noticed what they were adapting to: a world that no longer needs them in the ways that once gave them purpose. Unemployment doesn’t just steal income—it steals function. And when function vanishes, meaning follows close behind.

History bears this out. During the Great Depression, when millions of men were cut off from productive work, suicide rates climbed to record highs. A man’s worth had been tied to his usefulness, and when society no longer needed that usefulness, despair filled the vacuum. Yet during the world wars, when men were again called upon to serve, build, and defend, suicide rates fell sharply—even in the face of danger and loss. The difference wasn’t comfort, but purpose.

Research confirms what common sense already knows: long-term unemployment raises men’s suicide risk several-fold. Not because men are fragile, but because usefulness was the thread holding their lives together. When that thread breaks, they fall—not from weakness, but from the weight of purposelessness.

A culture that robs men of purpose is a culture engineering their isolation.


2. The Second Cut: Moral Displacement Through Shame

Even men who keep their jobs often lose something deeper—the right to feel proud of being men.

The term toxic masculinity didn’t just critique bad behavior; it redefined maleness itself as suspect. Strength, stoicism, leadership, and competitiveness—traits once considered virtues—became moral liabilities. Men were told that their instincts were dangerous, their achievements oppressive, their nature defective.

This isn’t self-improvement; it’s cultural shaming.
When a man is told his strength makes him unsafe, he hides it. When he’s told his logic makes him cold, he doubts it. Over time, he disconnects—not only from others but from his own nature.

And shame is the most isolating emotion of all. It tells a person, you don’t belong anymore.
A shamed man withdraws, not because he doesn’t care, but because every gesture of care risks being misinterpreted. His silence isn’t indifference—it’s self-protection in a culture that punishes his voice.


3. The Third Cut: The Forced Separation of Divorce

Then there is the wound that goes straight to the heart: divorce.

In countless cases, it’s not just a separation of spouses—it’s the erasure of fatherhood. Courts presume maternal virtue and paternal suspicion. Even loving, stable fathers are reduced to “visitors,” permitted only fragments of the lives they helped create.

For a man whose identity revolves around providing, protecting, and mentoring, losing daily contact with his children is devastating. It is grief without a funeral—a living bereavement he’s expected to endure without complaint.

The statistics are grim: divorced men have some of the highest suicide rates of any demographic. Not because they’ve failed as fathers, but because the system has forbidden them to succeed. When the law itself enforces separation, the message is unmistakable: you’re no longer needed.


4. The Result: A Culture of Quiet Exile

Take these three together—economic displacement, moral shaming, and family loss—and you get the blueprint for male disconnection.
Each cut severs a man from one of the three bonds that make life meaningful:

  • Work (purpose)

  • Identity (dignity)

  • Family (love)

A man without purpose feels restless.
A man without dignity feels ashamed.
A man without love feels invisible.
And when all three disappear at once, the result isn’t just sadness—it’s annihilation.


5. What the Culture Gets Wrong

Modern culture mistakes this for fragility: “Men just need to talk more.”
But talking doesn’t rebuild meaning.
What men need isn’t therapy in isolation—it’s reconnection to the structures that once made their lives coherent.

A man can’t talk his way out of being unnecessary.
He can only live his way back into usefulness, belonging, and respect.

That requires social systems that recognize men as contributors, not relics; as protectors, not problems.


6. The Way Back

The solution isn’t to “save” men—it’s to restore their place in the human story:

  • Rebuild economic paths that value masculine work.

  • Reclaim cultural respect for masculine virtues.

  • Reform family law so fatherhood is a right, not a privilege.

  • Speak openly about the moral injury of being labeled toxic for existing.

Men don’t need saving — they need a place to stand again.
Give them that, and they’ll rebuild everything else.

Men Are Good.

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals