MenAreGood
Domestic Violence Services in Wisconsin - Do They Serve Men? Part 3
Guest Post Daniel Carver
February 28, 2025
post photo preview

This is part three of a three part series written by an anonymous gentleman who is going under the name of Daniel Carver. Daniel uses his own experience and exposes the misandry of the Wisconsin Domestic Violence system.

 


Part 3 – Systemic Corruption, What Can We Do About It?

I asked ChatGPT about which countries have overcome corruption in their governments. It offered this good piece of advice for common strategies to avoid government corruption:

“Common Strategies in These Countries [that have less corruption]:

Independent Institutions: Strong, impartial enforcement agencies that tackle corruption without political interference. 
Transparency and Accountability: Open access to government data and information, coupled with systems that hold officials accountable. 

Rule of Law: Strict adherence to the law, with well-functioning judicial systems to ensure justice. 
Civic Engagement: Encouragement of public participation and a free press to monitor and report misconduct. 
Ethical Leadership: Political leaders committed to maintaining integrity and leading by example.

While these countries excel in minimizing corruption, they remain vigilant and continuously adapt their strategies to maintain high standards of governance. “

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hopefully, our Wisconsin legislators (both state and federal) will read this series and lay awake at night wondering which one of their sons, brothers, uncles, grandsons, or men in their family could be the next one to end up spending several days in jail, tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, assumed a wife beater regardless of any evidence or common sense; all because his wife or girlfriend attacked him in their home without any accountability or her even being questioned.

Maybe then, our state statutes will finally get fixed and public assistance money allocated fairly and justly to all citizens and taxpayers. Maybe then, the Governor’s Council on Domestic Abuse will be 50% men and announce their meetings a month in advance. Maybe then a concerned citizen, or male DV victim, could get onto their meeting agenda. Maybe the child services office would be required by law to answer a man’s plea for help for his children being beaten by their mother? Maybe our DV shelters will be required by law to provide 50% of their services to men by having DV advocates that can and do relate to the average guy?

In conclusion I want to offer some practical solutions as starting points to begin to fix these systemic problems.

First idea is the easiest one that could be implemented tomorrow at a cost of zero dollars! We would simply require every law enforcement officer, social worker, public school teacher, DV advocate employed by the state, and our state legislators to watch this free video by the leading international domestic violence expert, Dr. John Hamel. Did I mention that this would be completely free, at no cost to anyone!

John Hamel, Ph.D., LCSW - Domestic Violence Expert in the CA Court System

Second idea is for several different people around the country (men or women) to make recordings of a phone call to ask a basic question. I suggest a coordinated effort among men’s rights advocates, hopefully one in each of 50 states and each province in Canada if it is legal to record audio there. At least spread out around the US to show it is a wide spread problem. NOTE: there are possible legal ramifications of recording someone’s voice without their permission. Some states allow this and in some states it is against the law ! So first make sure that it is legal to do in your state and document the law that allows it. Each caller must live in that state to make sure they are in that legal jurisdiction. Do we have any volunteers that will commit to being the coordinator of these undercover audio recordings?

 

Note that is it very important to let them know at the beginning of the call that you are “NOT in an emergency situation”, that you are just calling to ask about services offered. This is a very important step, for them especially because remember you are calling a domestic violence center. We never want to give the perception that we are pretending to be in an emergency situation; that would be terribly unethical and is probably illegal in some places.

Then just ask them “I just called to ask for a friend, does your organization have a way to help men that are victims of domestic violence”? I put this in quotes because we need to have every caller that does this ask the exact same question; that’s what makes it a study and gives it more validity. Then we save all those recordings and hopefully we can compile transcripts of their answers. Then we’d have the documentation needed to get the ACLU to file a class action lawsuit against every state that participated. Do we have any lawyers that volunteer to help us build this case?

Third idea to fix systemic corruption: The minor children in a Wisconsin divorce case are assigned a Guardian Ad Litem (GAL). Those available to serve in this role are…….…mostly women. There is no requirement that these legal authorities must write out their assessment or recommendation that they give to the court who determines child custody.

Nor are the GALs legally liable to be fair and equitable to both parents! They simply go into the courtroom and make a verbal recommendation, often without even any justification of any kind, and the court almost always accepts that and acts upon that recommendation. The GAL is effectively determining child custody in lieu of the court, and does not even write any record of their recommendation or justification ! Incredible.

 

This is flat out systemic corruption as you would see in a communist country. We should change this, at the very least, require a written recommendation with justification. Furthermore, a summary of that GAL’s history of recommendations must be made available to the public & downloadable from a website. Names or locations of the people in the cases need not be public, but a statistical summary, per GAL, of these recommendations must be easily and readily available to those community members. The idea is to help prevent the gender bias in child custody that we all know is ubiquitous across the USA and most of the rest of the world too. I’m certain that eliminating that gender bias in courtrooms would reduce the divorce rate because every women would think twice about it if she knew that it would likely result in a true 50/50 custody arrangement.

Fourth idea is that we need a state law that requires the 35 DV shelters in Wisconsin to hire just as many straight male DV advocates as they have female DV advocates. The number of male advocates must be 95+% overall throughout the state, heterosexual. This is because 98% of the male demographic served by most DV shelters are straight men. The two most important things a DV victim needs when they ask for government assistance is a place to live for a while and an advocate that can relate to them, validates them, listens with empathy, understands them, and shares the perspective of a straight man who tried to get his wife or girlfriend to calm down and be reasonable instead of the extreme violence behind closed doors.

To understand my point better; imagine for a minute a straight woman DV victim who is beaten by her husband, runs out of her house with no other place to sleep for the night, it is -10 degrees outside, she goes to the local shelter, and a lesbian greets her at the door to invite her in to sleep there for the night!

Many Wisconsin DV shelters advertise on their website LGBQ resources available. Why don’t they also advertise STRAIGHT resources available and then provide those services too? Straight is the most common category by far (way over 90%) the bulk of the taxpayer base. If we are going to categorize everyone by their sexual orientation, then government services should be offered to all citizens and advertised in said categories, with funding proportional to their demographic category.

Fifth idea to stop the systemic corruption is the best one, yet also the most difficult to accomplish. It literally requires an act of congress. Every DV shelter in Wisconsin has a taxpayer funded Director’s position that is basically the CEO of that DV shelter. That position is always held by a woman who was appointed or just hired by the HR office. A few miles away is the local Sheriff’s office and that Sheriff had to win a public election in order to be Sheriff.

The reason for the election is because the Sheriff has immense authority and power over the general public (lethal force, and to arrest). An election is required so that if bias or corruption begins to happen in the law enforcement, the public can elect someone else that will be fair and equitable to all citizens.

What is needed is a change in Wisconsin law (statutes) that requires the Director of Domestic Violence Shelter position to be an elected official exactly like the Sheriff’s position; and for the same reasons.

The Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) positions for our children should be elected positions as well, for the same reason we elect judges.

Sixth idea to fix the systemic corruption is an organization that is set up for this very purpose regarding child custody. Mark Ludwig founded the Americans for Equal Shared Parenting, you can learn more at their website here. This organization has had some lobbying successes legislatively regarding Title-IV- D. They welcome anyone that wants to help there efforts change the systemic corruption in family courts corrected through changes in state laws.

Seventh and final idea to fix systemic corruption is more ideological. It is to get our representatives, legislators, and government official to open their eyes to the clear gender bias against men that is being considered to become legislation. We need to make phone calls and emails and speak up at town hall meetings (unfortunately these are rare). We must learn from the huge mistake make some 30 years ago when the Violence Against Women Act went into law. It was amended by the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013. However the title is still a law that was written for women and the DV shelters continue to discriminate against men without any consequences or enforcement of the 2013 Act.

 

Why don’t we as a nation learn from past mistakes? In the last couple of years there has developed a political movement to request laws be written that prevent biological men from competing in women’s sports. And our legislators are drafting laws like this without any mention of preventing biological women from competing in men’s sports ! This is especially important in the K-12 and college sports because a male sports team (boys & men) is a critical part of development of male identity. Millions of men have talked about how a male sports team helped them develop into a man. Similarly with youth programs that are male only, they should be not only allowed, but encouraged and well funded because that is where we as a society grow boys into men.

A personal note on that. I was so fortunate to have our Dad continually drill into our minds that you never hit a girl. Never! And when my “Christian” wife was constantly yelling and screaming several times per day and lunging at me to try to get me to hit her so she could have me arrested; I never made contact with her or even threatened her, thanks to the values instilled in me as a boy. I was once in a karate class (as an adult) where we practiced sparring and I was paired with an adult lady. It was so strange to me to imitate or pretend I was going to punch or kick her.

So with boys contact sports teams, football, soccer, basketball, baseball, wrestling, lacrosse…… the list goes on……… when we put girls on the field to compete with boys; we are teaching the boys to be rough with the girls! This is a bad idea to say the least.

So when we write laws about male and female sports teams being gender segregated; we should write them for both genders, not bias toward only protecting women and girls teams. Men and boys need the dignity of competing with their own gender too.

Most recently, we saw the same mistake happen yet again in a bill that passed our House of Congress; the Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act. What? Illegal aliens committing violence against men is somehow acceptable or automatically not a concern?

Already many men in the US have been victims of illegal alien’s violence; one happened just yesterday as I’m writing this, a man was shot twice in the face. When a truck blasts into a crowd, there are men there. When an explosion happens, it impacts both men and women. So why in the world would congress pass yet another law that protects only women? Did they not learn from the first Violence Against Women Act 30 years ago that had to later be amended? Incredible!

Calling for reforms to achieve true justice for all, especially our vulnerable children who need their dad,

Sincerely, Daniel Carver (pen name)


Copy to some of our reps who voted concerning the federal law: Violence Against Women Act (VAWA):

Wisconsin Senator Tammy Baldwin (202) 224-5653 141 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510
------------------------------------------------

Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson (202) 224-5323 328 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510
-------------------------------------------------

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
August 20, 2025
Meet TheTinMen

In this conversation, I sit down with George from The Tin Men—a powerful voice bringing clarity, humor, and hard-hitting truth to men’s issues. George has a unique talent for condensing complex topics like male loneliness, the dismantling of men’s spaces, suicide, and the gender pay gap into short, sharp, and digestible messages. Together, we react to some of his videos and dive into everything from fatherlessness and gangs, to the “man vs. bear” debate, to the failures of therapy for men, and even the overlooked crisis of suicide in construction. It’s a wide-ranging discussion that highlights both the challenges men face and the hope we’re starting to see for real change.

Georges Links!

Instagram — https://www.instagram.com/thetinmen/

Youtube — https://www.youtube.com/@TheTinMenBlog

LinkedIn — https://www.linkedin.com/in/gohorne/

X— https://x.com/TheTinMenBlog

Tom's post about 15 things Maryland can do for boys and men.
...

01:04:30
August 07, 2025
Are Men Great of Good? Yes!

Time for a male-positive message. I created this video a while back, but its message remains as important and timeless as ever. I’d love for it to reach boys who’ve been told—explicitly or implicitly—that there’s something wrong with being male. After so much negativity about men and masculinity, they need to hear something different. They need to hear something true, strong, and affirming.

00:04:59
August 02, 2025
Engineered Fatherlessness Creates Chaos

This 2021 video explores the growing issue of fatherlessness, questioning whether it’s been deliberately engineered or simply allowed to happen. It exposes the fact that we knew even in the 1960’s the devastating impact of not having fathers in the home. It shows some little known, and basically ignored research about this issue. Yes, Dan Quayle was correct!

Social Structure and Criminal Victimizationhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022427888025001003

Moynihan Reporthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Family:_The_Case_For_National_Action

McClanahan researchhttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3904543/Murphy Brownhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_Brown

00:09:35
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

Another great video from Gabby on how Radical Feminism dehumanizes Men. And she showed a pic of Paul Elam and Tom Golden with others. As people trying to humanize and help men.

Worth a watch

August 04, 2025
False Accuser Exposed in World Junior Hockey Trial Verdict - Janice Fiamengo

Janices essay brings to life the idea that when falsely accused men are found not guilty they still lose. Worse yet, the false accuser reaps benefits. Thank you Janice for pulling this informative and infuriating piece together. Men Are Good.

https://fiamengofile.substack.com/cp/170141035

July 28, 2025
DAVIA Press Release: Around the World, Feminists Have Become the New Extremists

This is the latest press release from DAVIA, a coalition of 192 organizations across 35 countries dedicated to bringing balance to a domestic violence system that too often ignores male victims. DAVIA regularly issues press releases shared globally and has become a strong voice advocating for male victims of domestic abuse. You can find all of their press releases here: https://endtodv.org/press-room/

https://endtodv.org/pr/around-the-world-feminists-have-become-the-new-extremists/

post photo preview
August 22, 2025
post photo preview
When Parents Magazine Becomes the Thought Police for Your Son
A recent article about “redpilled” boys reveals more about our culture’s discomfort with male voices than it does about the boys themselves.
Read full Article
August 14, 2025
post photo preview
The Price of Needing Help: How Men Lose the Right to It

The Price of Needing Help: How Men Lose the Right to It

In a powerful essay on men and homelessness, Peter Marin put into words something most people never stop to see:

“To put it simply: men are neither supposed nor allowed to be dependent. They are expected to take care of others and themselves. And when they cannot or will not do it, then the assumption at the heart of the culture is that they are somehow less than men and therefore unworthy of help. An irony asserts itself: by being in need of help, men forfeit the right to it.”

Marin’s words capture an unspoken cultural law: a man’s value is measured by his independence and ability to provide—not by his humanity. This isn’t just a philosophical problem; it’s a practical one that plays out every day in men’s lives.


The Double Standard of Dependency

When women are in need, the language society uses is sympathetic—“vulnerable,” “at risk,” “deserving.” For men, the same situation draws terms like “lazy,” “weak,” or “failure.” That double standard is so ingrained that when a man reaches a point of real need—whether after a job loss, a divorce, a health crisis, or a mental breakdown—he is often met with judgment before compassion.

And this bias doesn’t stop at individual attitudes. It’s baked into how our systems are built:

  • Domestic Violence Services – Shelters, funding, and awareness campaigns overwhelmingly target female victims. Male victims are treated as rare anomalies, even though research consistently shows that a significant portion of domestic violence victims are men.

  • Suicide Prevention – Men make up the majority of suicide deaths, yet crisis messaging, outreach, and resources often use language and imagery that doesn’t resonate with how men process distress.

  • Mental Health Services – Therapy culture often centers emotional expression in ways that align more naturally with women’s coping styles, leaving men feeling out of place or misunderstood.

  • Divorce Court – Fathers asking for equal custody can find themselves treated as if they are asking for a special privilege rather than a natural right.

  • Homelessness Support – Shelters for men are fewer in number, and services can be harder to access because their need is perceived as a personal failing rather than an unfortunate circumstance.


The Cost of Appearing Dependent

Dependency is seen as a violation of the masculine role. That’s why so many men mask their pain behind stoicism, anger, humor, or action—they know that if they show vulnerability, they risk losing respect, opportunities, and even relationships.

The tragedy is that emotional pain is almost impossible to express without appearing dependent. That means men are often forced into a no-win choice: suffer silently, or risk the stigma of asking for help.


One Man’s Story

Consider Mark, a 48-year-old father of two. After a factory closure, he lost his job of 20 years. The bills piled up, and the stress began eating away at his health. He started waking up at 3 a.m. with his chest tight, wondering if this was the heart attack that would leave his kids without a father.

When he finally called a suicide prevention line, the volunteer on the other end told him, “Maybe you should take some time off work.” She didn’t realize he’d been out of work for eight months. When he explained his situation, she gently suggested a men’s support group—only to discover there wasn’t one in his county. The nearest was 90 miles away.

Mark’s wife suggested therapy, but when he went, the counselor asked about his feelings toward his father and childhood rather than the urgent crisis of how to keep the lights on. Mark stopped going after two sessions.

Soon, he stopped asking for help altogether. “I felt like the more I said I needed help, the more I was proving everyone right—that I was a failure.”


Breaking the Iron Rule

Marin’s observation should make us uncomfortable, because it forces us to see the quiet cruelty built into our expectations of men. The irony he points out—that the moment a man needs help is the moment we believe he doesn’t deserve it—isn’t just about homelessness. It’s about domestic violence, suicide services, mental health care, the courts, and every system that assumes men should take care of themselves, no matter the cost.

If we want a healthier culture, we need to dismantle that rule—not by demanding men change who they are, but by changing the way all of us respond to men in need. The problem isn’t men’s nature; it’s the reflex to see their struggles as weakness. We need to make it acceptable for men to ask for help without forfeiting their dignity, and we need to build systems that meet men where they are—not where tradition says they’re supposed to be.
 

Because the truth is simple: men don’t stop being worthy of help the moment they need it.

Read full Article
August 11, 2025
post photo preview
Why do Women Cling to Feminism?


Why do Women Cling to Feminism?

There's a powerful force at play that binds both men and women to the belief that feminism stands for equality. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, public perception remains steadfast. This strong adhesive, I believe, is gynocentrism—an often unnoticed bias that influences both genders to avoid confronting the truth.

But what exactly is gynocentrism? It's the pervasive belief that women's needs, desires, and perspectives should take precedence. This societal tendency elevates women's experiences to a central position in discussions of justice, equality, and societal norms. Remarkably, many are unaware of this bias within themselves; it operates subtly yet significantly in everyday life.

Feminists, whether knowingly or not, have harnessed gynocentrism as a tool to shield their ideology from scrutiny. By framing their movement around the principle that women's well-being and viewpoints must be prioritized—a core tenet of gynocentrism—they've built an ideology that resonates not just with women, but also with men who unwittingly accept this framework.

1. Emotional Investment and Identity

Feminism offers an emotionally charged, identity-affirming cause that, for many women, becomes central to how they define themselves and their place in the world. Gynocentrism amplifies this by creating a cultural framework in which women’s experiences are not just important, but inherently more valid and deserving of attention than men’s. Within this framework, feminist ideology is elevated from a political stance to a moral imperative — a movement that feels inseparable from one’s personal worth and identity.

Because gynocentrism positions women’s struggles as uniquely significant, feminism is perceived not simply as one of many social causes, but as the cause — the rightful focal point of empathy, policy, and moral concern. This emotional elevation makes feminist beliefs harder to question, because doing so feels like a denial of women’s legitimacy or suffering. For women, this gynocentric framing allows personal grievances to be folded into a broader, sanctified struggle, making feminism both empowering and emotionally protective.

Men, too, are drawn into this framework. Socialized to prioritize women’s needs and seek moral approval through deference, many adopt feminist ideals not out of conviction, but out of a sense of duty or fear of moral condemnation. Biology also plays a role, as evolutionary pressures have shaped men to be caretakers and protectors, further reinforcing this inclination. In this way, gynocentrism doesn’t just support feminism—it shields it, fuels it, and emotionally compels loyalty to it, even in the face of contradictory evidence or unfair outcomes.

2. The Power of Groupthink and Social Reinforcement

Feminism thrives on social reinforcement, and groupthink plays a significant role in maintaining this ideological strength. In a gynocentric society, the idea that women’s perspectives should dominate is not only normalized but encouraged, creating an environment where challenging feminist ideals feels uncomfortable or even socially unacceptable. This dynamic is further amplified by women’s strong in-group bias—a well-documented psychological tendency to show loyalty, empathy, and moral deference to other women, often at the expense of fairness to those outside the group. In feminist circles, this in-group loyalty reinforces a collective identity centered on shared grievances and moral superiority, making dissent feel like betrayal. The power of groupthink is sustained by constant affirmation that women’s needs are paramount, and anyone questioning this premise risks social ostracism—or worse, being labeled a misogynist. This creates an atmosphere where individuals—especially men—find it difficult to voice opposition, as doing so is perceived not as a critique of ideas, but as an attack on women themselves and the gynocentric norms that have been so deeply entrenched in society.

3. Fear of Losing Hard-Won Progress

For many women, feminism is not just a political or social movement — they have been led to believe that it’s the framework that secured their rights, safety, and dignity in a historically male-dominated world. This association makes feminism deeply personal and emotionally charged. Gynocentrism reinforces this by framing women’s societal gains not merely as important milestones, but as personal validations of their identity and worth — making feminist progress feel inseparable from female value itself. It casts any challenge to feminist orthodoxy — even a measured critique — as a threat to women’s safety, freedom, or status.

As a result, the push to prioritize women’s rights over men’s is not just about fairness or equality; it becomes a reflexive act of self-preservation. For women who have internalized feminism as synonymous with progress and protection, any perceived rollback is existential. The fear is not just that rights might be lost, but that their societal value might be diminished.

Gynocentrism amplifies this anxiety by maintaining a singular focus on women’s needs, portraying them as the perpetual underdogs, regardless of social context or material advantage. This selective lens obscures male suffering, sidelines men’s rights, and downplays the unintended consequences of a one-sided narrative. In doing so, it creates an emotional and moral environment where any call for balance or shared empathy is viewed with suspicion — or even hostility — because it feels like a threat to hard-won ground.

4. Media and Cultural Narratives

The media and cultural narratives overwhelmingly reflect and reinforce gynocentrism, often framing women as the default victims and men as the default perpetrators. Feminism, which aligns itself with this framework, benefits from the widespread acceptance of these skewed narratives. Media portrayals of gender dynamics rarely include nuanced views on how both men and women can suffer from societal issues. Instead, they lean heavily on the gynocentric view that women’s needs—whether related to equality, protection, or support—should always take precedence. By embedding this perspective into the cultural psyche, feminism gains more followers and becomes harder to challenge.

5. Victimhood and Empowerment


Feminism often draws strength from a narrative of victimhood, positioning women as the oppressed group within a patriarchal system. Gynocentrism powerfully reinforces this narrative by casting women not only as victims, but as noble underdogs—vulnerable, morally righteous, and inherently deserving of society’s protection and focus. In Western culture, the underdog holds a revered place; their struggle evokes sympathy, support, and a moral imperative to act. Feminism thrives within this framing, as it leverages the societal instinct to champion the underdog and victim, to advance its ideological goals.By elevating women's struggles above all others, gynocentrism ensures that women's issues dominate the discourse, while simultaneously portraying any challenge to that focus as callous or regressive. This dynamic plays directly into feminism’s hands, enabling it to cloak itself in moral legitimacy while resisting scrutiny or balance. The victim-centric framing doesn’t just protect feminism—it empowers it, converting women’s suffering into a cultural rallying point that demands continuous attention and policy response.Meanwhile, men’s struggles are minimized or ignored, as their pain does not fit the underdog narrative gynocentrism upholds. As a result, feminism benefits from a cultural lens that shields it from criticism and maintains women’s narratives as central, unquestionable, and morally superior, while men are relegated to the margins of empathy and policy.

Gynocentrism not only elevates women's suffering—it also provides cover for open hostility toward men. In a cultural context where women are presumed morally superior and perpetually victimized, attacks on men are rarely seen for what they are: expressions of contempt, generalization, and at times outright hate. Feminist rhetoric that blames men collectively for societal problems is tolerated—even celebrated—because gynocentrism flips the moral lens. Where fairness would demand reciprocity and empathy for all, gynocentrism excuses misandry as justified outrage. Without this protective framing, the vilification of men that often occurs in feminist discourse would be seen clearly as morally bankrupt and socially destructive.

6. Unconscious Bias and Cognitive Dissonance

Feminism, when viewed through the lens of gynocentrism, creates a powerful cognitive dissonance for those who challenge it. Cognitive dissonance refers to the mental discomfort that arises when a person is confronted with information that conflicts with their deeply held beliefs or values. In this case, gynocentrism shifts the framework to one where women’s needs and experiences are always considered more important than men’s. When people are faced with information that contradicts this bias—such as evidence of men’s suffering—cognitive dissonance kicks in. It becomes difficult to argue otherwise without being labeled as misogynistic or unsympathetic to women’s issues. This bias makes it easy for people to ignore or rationalize evidence that challenges feminist ideas, because doing so would force them to confront the deeply held belief that women’s perspectives should always come first. As a result, cognitive dissonance leads many to dismiss the realities of male suffering—such as the high rates of male suicide or domestic violence against men—without any corresponding societal change, reinforcing the gynocentric framework.

7. The Sense of Solidarity and Collective Purpose

Feminism offers solidarity, a sense of purpose, and a collective identity for many women. The gynocentric framework supports this by positioning women as a collective group with a shared cause that is viewed as morally righteous. Feminism becomes more than just a political movement—it is a personal and communal experience where women rally around the belief that their needs are paramount and have been neglected by men. Gynocentrism ensures that this solidarity remains intact by consistently placing women’s rights and experiences at the center, leaving little room for other perspectives that might dilute or challenge this collective purpose.

8. Social Media and Confirmation Bias

Social media platforms, with their emphasis on viral content and quick engagement, amplify gynocentric narratives by perpetuating the idea that women’s voices and concerns should dominate. These platforms often create echo chambers where feminist ideas are not just accepted but celebrated, reinforcing the idea that women’s needs should always take precedence. Gynocentrism drives this reinforcement, making it difficult for people—especially men—to challenge feminist narratives without facing backlash. The confirmation bias that exists on these platforms further cements the dominance of the feminist narrative, as users are more likely to encounter content that supports the gynocentric view of gender dynamics.


Conclusion

Gynocentrism is not a side effect of feminist ideology — it is its lifeblood. It provides the cultural scaffolding that shields feminism from scrutiny, fortifies its moral authority, and ensures its dominance in public discourse. By placing women’s needs, perspectives, and grievances at the emotional and ethical center of society, gynocentrism makes feminism feel not like an ideology, but like common sense — even when its claims defy evidence or fairness.

This framing is so deeply embedded in our institutions, our media, and our social instincts that most people — including many well-meaning women and men — defend feminism reflexively, without realizing they’re defending a worldview that demands moral deference to one sex while marginalizing the other. The emotional, social, and psychological incentives to protect feminism are all reinforced by the gynocentric lens through which we view gender.

It also enables something more corrosive: the normalization of male-blame. Gynocentrism allows feminists to attack men collectively—assigning them guilt, privilege, or violence by default—without triggering the moral backlash such generalizations would provoke if directed at women. In this way, gynocentrism not only shields feminism from criticism; it also empowers it to wound others without accountability.

Until we recognize this hidden framework, genuine conversations about equality will remain impossible. So long as gynocentrism goes unexamined, feminism will continue to operate with cultural impunity, upheld by a society that mistakes favoritism for fairness and silence for justice.

The first step to restoring balance is to see the bias — and name it. Gynocentrism must be brought out of the shadows if we are ever to build a society where the needs of both men and women are heard, honored, and held to the same moral standard.

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