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
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
July 24, 2025
How Ideology Defeats Truth: The Hand That Rocks The World

Tom Golden and David Shackleton explore the key themes of David’s book The Hand That Rocks the World. The conversation begins with a look at how both sexes use power, with a particular focus on women's power—how it operates, and why it so often goes unseen or unacknowledged. David outlines three distinct forms of female power, each with both positive and negative expressions. The discussion then shifts to human maturity, examining how personal growth can be stalled by ideological identification. And there's much more—insights that challenge conventional narratives and invite deeper reflection.

David’s book The Hand that Rocks the World
https://amzn.to/3TSR80H

00:56:37
July 21, 2025
AI Books

We now have a new section that is accessible in the top navbar of the substack page titled AI Books. It contains links to numerous books on men's issues that each have an AI app that is able to answer detailed questions about the book. The above video gives some ideas of how to use these.

https://menaregood.substack.com/s/ai-books

The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell
Fiamengo File 2.0 Janice Fiamengo
Taken Into Custody - Stephen Baskerville
The Empathy Gap - William Collins
The Empathy Gap 2 - Williams Collins
The Destructivists - William Collins
Who Lost America - Stephen Baskerville
The New Politics of Sex -- Stephen Baskerville
Understanding Men and Boys: Healing Insights - Tom Golden
Boys' Muscle Strength and Performance - Jim Zuzzo PhD
Sex Bias in Domestic Violence Policies and Laws - Ed Bartlett (DAVIA)
The Hand That Rocks The World - David Shackleton

Links below

Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell

The Myth of Male Power - documents how virtually every society that survived did so by persuading its sons to be disposable. This is one of the most powerful books...

00:11:44
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
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

Has Feminism ruined the Philippines? It seems that the vilance against women and children law in the Philippines can land a man in Jail or prison for 6 years just for arguing (verbal violence) with you girl friend or wife. It can often be used to extort money from the man to drop the charges.

I was tooling around on Youtube and found this: just a moment of positive male role model.

July 30, 2025
post photo preview
Why Is Masculine Maturity So Hard to Talk About Today?


Why Is Masculine Maturity So Hard to Talk About Today?

In the early 1990s, you could walk into a bookstore and find entire tables devoted to the male journey. Robert Bly’s Iron John was a bestseller. Sam Keen, James Hillman, Michael Meade,​ Robert Moore, Richard Rohr — all were offering soulful, intelligent takes on what it meant to be a man. It wasn’t about domination. It wasn’t about “reclaiming power.” It was about emotional honesty, growth, and purpose. In other words: maturity.

Fast forward to today, and you’ll find… almost nothing. Talk about masculinity now and the conversation quickly turns to toxicity, privilege, or fragile male egos. Where once there was myth, poetry, and psychology, we now get slogans and shame.

Why did this happen? Why is masculine maturity such a neglected subject?

Here are a few answers — and a couple of stories that may help explain why the silence around men runs so deep.


1. The Cultural Suspicion Toward Masculinity

Over the last fifty years, masculinity has been treated less as a stage of growth and more as a problem to be managed. Many institutions — academic, psychological, media-driven — have become allergic to the idea that men might have unique struggles, let alone a need for support. Masculinity is often reduced to a stereotype: aggressive, emotionally stunted, dangerous. So it’s not surprising that serious explorations of mature masculinity are viewed with skepticism — or simply ignored.

I experienced this firsthand when I joined the American Psychological Association’s Division 51, the group supposedly devoted to studying men and masculinities. Initially, I was welcomed. A few of the men there had read Swallowed by a Snake, my first book, and treated me with respect.

But over time, it became clear this wasn’t a group focused on men. It was a feminist-aligned group focused on monitoring men. That would have been fine if it had also been balanced — but it wasn’t.

One moment still sticks with me. I asked the group — these were top psychologists, many regularly quoted in national media — if they had ever heard of Robert Moore, the Jungian analyst who literally co-wrote King, Warrior, Magician, Lover, one of the most influential models of the mature masculine ever created.

Not one of them had heard of him.

These were the gatekeepers of psychological discourse around men, and they had never encountered one of the most insightful thinkers on the subject. That’s when I realized: this wasn’t a field seeking to understand men — it was a field managing a narrative about men.

They later kicked me out of the group.


2. The Disappearance of Mentorship and Male Space

The maturation of men has always required something very simple but essential: older men guiding younger men. That doesn’t mean domination or militaristic hierarchy — it means real mentorship. Time together. Shared wisdom. A hand on the shoulder.

But today, male-only spaces are either disappearing or treated with suspicion. Most institutions that once created these bonds — churches, trades, father-son traditions — are either crumbling or feminized. Men don’t know where to go, and the culture doesn’t really care that they’re drifting.


3. The Mythopoetic Movement Was Shamed Out of Existence

In the 1990s, the Mythopoetic Men’s Movement made a serious attempt to give men a space to grow, reflect, and feel. Men gathered, sometimes in the woods. They drummed. They told stories. They cried. They got honest.

They did exactly what the culture — and women — had been begging men to do for decades: engage emotionally, get their priorities straight, and connect with other men in a non-competitive, supportive environment.

So what happened?

The media mocked them. Relentlessly. Headlines rolled out: “Men Go Into Woods to Beat Drums and Take Off Their Clothes.” Late-night shows made jokes. These men weren’t harming anyone. They were healing. But that seemed to frighten people — especially the idea that men were coming together in a community that wasn’t controlled or mediated by women.

Instead of being praised, they were ridiculed and dismissed. The movement, shamed out of existence, faded.


4. No Urgency for Male Development

When girls or women face emotional hardship, society responds — with programs, policies, and public empathy. But when boys or men face disconnection, despair, or aimlessness, the response is often: “Toughen up.” Or worse: silence.

There’s a deep-rooted empathy gap when it comes to men. The assumption seems to be that men don’t need emotional depth, spiritual development, or mentorship. They just need to behave. This assumption is not only wrong — it’s dangerous. Because without maturity, all you get is drift, anger, or collapse.


5. Fear of Being Labeled

Today, if you talk too much about men’s needs, you risk being labeled “anti-feminist” or “reactionary.” Even well-meaning men tiptoe around the topic for fear of being misunderstood. As a result, the public conversation is cautious, shallow, or entirely missing.

And yet, quietly, the hunger remains.

Men are looking for guidance — not from social media influencers or political ideologues, but from grounded voices who actually understand what male development looks like from the inside.


So Where Does This Leave Us?

We’re in a strange place. The world criticizes men constantly, but offers no real path to growth. It tells men to “do better,” but doesn’t explain how — or even what “better” means, other than being more like women.

Masculine maturity isn't about dominance, nor is it about submission. It's about becoming whole — integrating strength with compassion, solitude with connection, responsibility with joy.

That journey still matters. In fact, it may matter now more than ever.

And those of us who have walked part of that road — and seen its value — need to keep the conversation alive.

Even when it's inconvenient.

Even when it's mocked.

Even when it's lonely.

Because the silence around men has never been a sign of health. It’s a sign that something sacred has been neglected.

And it’s time we returned to it.

Read full Article
July 25, 2025
post photo preview
Heterofatalism: or How to Blame Men For Everything


This is a response to a recent New York Times article by Jean Garnett titled The Trouble With Wanting Men. The subtitle says it all: “Women are so fed up with dating men that the phenomenon even has a name — heterofatalism. So what do we do with our desire?”

Sometimes, the best response is a little humor while flipping the script. See what you think.




"Heterofatalism: Or How to Blame Men for Everything, Even Our Socks"

Ah, “heterofatalism” — the brand-new term coined for the collective exasperation of women who, after navigating the complex world of dating, come to the conclusion that men are the root of all relationship woes. You see, the issue isn't just that men are occasionally anxious, emotionally distant, or a little too obsessed with their sports teams; no, the real problem is that these poor souls — with all their confusing desires, communication issues, and tendency to occasionally ghost you after a couple of drinks — are making it impossible for women to live happily ever after.

Who needs "old-fashioned man-woman stuff," right? We should really just get rid of men altogether, except... well, hold on. It seems like the author might still enjoy the idea of men, as long as they’re perfectly self-deprecating, emotionally available, not so needy, and able to decode all of her mood swings without missing a beat. Apparently, we’re supposed to be sweet, gentle, and constantly checking in with how she feels — but also not too available, because that would make us “needy.” Are you keeping up, men? No? It’s okay, because we aren’t expected to.

What If We Flipped the Script?

Now, imagine if the shoe was on the other foot. What if a man had these same expectations of you Jean Garnett? What if you had to live up to these impossible standards every time a relationship or date rolled around?

For example, let’s say you’re trying to date someone, and he expects you to be emotionally available all the time, always knowing exactly what he’s feeling, always ready to discuss his feelings — at his convenience. Now imagine if you were the one constantly apologizing for not responding to text messages in 90 seconds flat because you were busy with life, work, or, you know, anything else. Or imagine being told you were "too anxious" to handle a simple conversation because you were stressed over your busy schedule. Does it seem fair that men are expected to always be the ones to “man up” emotionally, while women are allowed to retreat into their own anxiety and demand validation from men?

Also, here’s a fun thought experiment: What if, as a man, you had to hear all the time about how you were the problem in every dating situation? Imagine your date explaining how she loves the “good guy” archetype but constantly finds him lacking because he doesn’t meet every single emotional need immediately. The “good guy” who’s gentle, sweet, and not too self-deprecating — just enough to make you feel like a glorified emotional ATM. It’d be pretty exhausting, wouldn’t it?

Emotional Labor: A Two-Way Street

Let’s get real for a moment. The whole concept of emotional labor often gets pinned solely on men — the idea that women are somehow left to pick up the emotional slack in relationships. But if we take a closer look, we see a different picture. If the standard is that men should always be emotionally available, always interpret every word and gesture in the right way, shouldn’t women also take on the responsibility of understanding the emotional needs of their partners? Isn’t it unfair to expect men to constantly decode the mystery of “how you’re feeling” without giving them the same space to feel confused, anxious, or uncertain about what’s going on in the relationship?

What if men were to complain about the “hermeneutic labor” they had to perform just to keep a relationship afloat? Imagine if men spent every conversation analyzing why you were saying one thing and meaning something else. If men constantly had to decode your emotional signals — every pause, every silence, every hint — would we be quick to dismiss it as just part of being a man? Or would we call it what it is: exhausting?

Isn’t It Time for a Little Empathy?

Now, let’s circle back to that romantic ideal — the “good guy” who wants to be loved, but can’t seem to get it right because he's “too anxious,” “too confused,” or “too emotionally unavailable” when it matters. But what if, just maybe, the problem isn’t his inability to meet her needs, but the sheer weight of the unrealistic expectations placed upon him? Imagine being a man, constantly told that you are too much or not enough at the same time — one minute, you need to be emotionally open, the next you’re told you’re too emotional.

Let’s flip the script.
Imagine you’re the one who needs a little breathing room — just some space to think.
But your partner won’t let it go:
“Why can’t you just communicate like a grown-up? What are you, emotionally stunted?”
And when you finally admit you’re anxious or overwhelmed, you’re slapped with labels like “needy,” “hysterical,” or “too sensitive.”
Then he runs off to his buddies, and they all have a good laugh at your expense:
“Aww, poor little fraidy-cat princess. Guess she ​just can't woman up.”
Sound familiar?
Because that’s exactly what you and your friends did to him.
Doesn’t feel so good when the joke’s on you, does it?

Rewriting the Narrative

Maybe it's time to see men as humans rather than stereotypes. Men don’t exist just to fulfill emotional needs, and relationships should be about mutual respect, not endless demands. If we really want to evolve into better relationships, we need to recognize the emotional labor on both sides and give each other the space to be imperfect — without judgment.

Here’s a radical idea: instead of blaming men for the failures of the modern dating scene, let’s take a step back and realize that maybe we’re all a little messed up. And that’s okay. You don’t need us to “man up” — you just need us to be real, and we need the same from you.

And if we’re not perfect? Well, at least we’re not trying to make every relationship a philosophical debate about what does it mean to love and how can we both be completely vulnerable and emotionally invulnerable at the same time.

Pro tip: next time your man shows up with a little emotional confusion, give him a break. Men are not puzzles to be solved; we’re just humans trying to navigate a world that often doesn’t make sense to any of us.

And for the record: ​Men Are Good.

Read full Article
July 14, 2025
post photo preview
Why Men Struggle to Stand Together
How competition, culture, and gynocentrism keep men from standing together

It’s no secret that men and women are different—but one of the lesser-known differences, and one of the most socially consequential, is found in how each sex relates to their own group.

Women consistently show strong in-group bias. They support each other socially, emotionally, and politically. They instinctively identify with the struggles of other women. This solidarity forms the backbone of movements, activism, academic departments, and public policy. When a woman sees another woman being mistreated, her response is often immediate: “That could’ve been me.”

Men, by contrast, tend to show weaker and more conditional in-group bias. Their loyalty to other men is context-dependent, usually tied to shared purpose or external threat. A man will stand with another man on the battlefield, on the job site, or on the basketball court—but outside of those types of goal-oriented bonds, that sense of male unity often fades.

Why is that?

Part of it is biological and evolutionary. For men, life has always been a mix of coalition and competition. Throughout history, men had to work together in tribes or hunting parties—but within those groups, they also competed for rank, dominance, and access to mates. That means male bonding has always existed alongside male rivalry. The result? Male loyalty is real, but fragile.

Even today, many men see other men as rivals first, allies second. If another man struggles—loses his job, breaks down emotionally, or gets mistreated in a custody battle—he may not get support. He may get silence. Or worse, blame. Because in the male psyche, weakness often reads as threat. It disrupts the unspoken expectation that men must be strong, self-reliant, and in control. In male hierarchies, weakness can be seen as a liability—something that drags down the group or exposes it to risk. And for many men, seeing another man suffer can stir up buried shame or fear about their own vulnerabilities, leading them to distance themselves rather than lean in. It’s not cruelty—it’s biology and conditioning.

This fragile in-group bias creates a massive hurdle for any effort to advocate for men. Men’s rights movements, fatherhood initiatives, male mental health campaigns—they all struggle not just because society ignores them, but because men themselves often fail to show up for one another. And this problem isn’t just internal. It’s magnified by something even larger: gynocentrism.


Gynocentrism: The Cultural Blind Spot

Gynocentrism is the cultural tendency to prioritize women’s needs, feelings, and safety—often at the expense of men. It’s not just a personal bias; it’s institutional, ideological, and deeply embedded in our narratives about right and wrong. From early childhood, boys are taught to protect girls, to defer to their emotions, and to take responsibility for female wellbeing. “Never hit a girl.” “Be a gentleman.” “Sacrifice for your wife.” These messages, ​no matter how well-meaning, train boys to associate virtue with serving women. They are rarely taught to protect or serve each other. This conditioning only deepens with age. In politics, education, and media, men gain status by defending women—not by defending men. A man who speaks up for women is seen as noble and progressive. A man who speaks up for men is seen as angry, bitter, or fragile—even by other men.

In a gynocentric culture—where women’s needs are prioritized and viewed through a moral lens—advocating for women is seen as virtuous, while advocating for men is viewed with suspicion or hostility.

🟣
 

“Women’s advocacy is empathy”

When women advocate for women (or when men advocate for women), the culture responds with compassion, validation, and support. It’s framed as morally good, emotionally sincere, and socially necessary. Example: “We need to hear women’s voices.” “Support women’s mental health.” “Believe women.”

“Men’s advocacy is grievance”

When men advocate for men, it’s often framed as whining, resentment, or a push to reclaim lost power. Instead of evoking empathy, it triggers defensiveness, mockery, or accusations of misogyny. Example: “Why are you complaining?” “This sounds like toxic masculinity in disguise.” “You just want to take us back to the 1950s.”

Say the phrases out loud “We need to hear men’s voices“ or maybe “Believe men.“ Can you feel the difference?

⚖️
 

So the double bind is:

  • Women can talk about their pain and gain moral authority.

  • Men talk about their pain and risk losing moral credibility.


    In other words:

    If you advocate for women, you’re seen as compassionate.
    If you advocate for men, you’re seen as angry.

    That’s the trap—the double bind—created by gynocentrism. So male in-group bias—already fragile—is further fractured by gynocentric incentives.


The Costs of Division

This has enormous consequences.

When a man is falsely accused, other men don’t rally to his defense—they distance themselves.

When a father loses access to his children, he’s often blamed rather than supported.

When men talk about depression or suicide, they’re often met with discomfort, not compassion.

Meanwhile, female solidarity flourishes. Women have entire university departments, legal protections, and billion-dollar initiatives devoted to their advancement. And they have what men lack: a deep, culturally accepted instinct to care for each other.

The result is a lopsided world: female pain is collectivized and acted upon; male pain is individualized and ignored. It should now be obvious that working as a men’s advocate, a fatherhood proponent, or in any male-focused cause is an uphill battle—while those promoting women’s causes are coasting downhill with cultural tailwinds, institutional funding, and moral permission at their backs.

 

Rebuilding Male Solidarity

If men are to thrive—not just as individuals, but as a group—they must begin to reclaim something long buried: a sense of mutual loyalty. A belief that other men are not your enemy. That another man’s pain is not a sign of his failure, but of a culture that has failed us all.

This doesn’t mean abandoning competition or suppressing masculine traits. It means building solidarity around them. Men’s greatest strength has always been in what they can do together—on the battlefield, in a brotherhood, on a team. The challenge now is to transfer that loyalty into emotional and cultural arenas, where men are bleeding quietly in the shadows.

Men don’t need to become women to support each other. They just need to recognize that being on the same team means protecting the players who are getting crushed—by courts, by culture, by silence.

Male pain is real. Male sacrifice is real. Male disposability is real.

But male brotherhood can be real too—if we decide to make it so.

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