Context Matters: Why This Article's Tone Is Especially Misplaced

It’s important to note that this article (Men in feminism: A self-determination perspective and goals for the future.) was published in a special issue of Psychology of Men & Masculinities, themed “Uncharted Territory” and intended to explore the possible future of research on men and boys. That context makes the tone and framing of this particular piece all the more jarring. The article isn’t a research study but an opinion-based essay focused on promoting strategies to increase male support for feminism. What? While such a topic might make sense in a feminist journal, its placement in a journal dedicated to understanding men and boys—and especially one tasked with envisioning their future—seems oddly out of place.

Rather than offering new insights into how men might thrive, heal, or participate meaningfully in future gender discussions, the article reverts to a familiar script: men are framed as the problem, their psychological needs treated as secondary, and their involvement tolerated only when it's filtered through feminist ideology.

The piece positions feminism not as a framework for mutual transformation, but as a moral litmus test — one that men must pass by internalizing guilt, accepting blame, and proving themselves worthy through re-education. Instead of exploring what it means to be a man in today’s world or considering the genuine challenges boys and men face, the article doubles down on one-sided concern. Feminism, it declares, is a “nuanced and multifaceted movement that aims to improve the lives of women.” Really?

If this is what the future of men’s studies is supposed to look like — a repackaging of guilt and exclusion — then it offers little to the men it claims to engage.

Coercion in Disguise: The SDT Contradictions

What’s especially troubling is how the article invokes Self-Determination Theory (SDT) as a framework — while blatantly disregarding its foundational principles. SDT emphasizes intrinsic motivation, rooted in three key psychological needs: autonomy (freedom of choice), competence (a sense of effectiveness), and relatedness (a feeling of connection and belonging).

Yet the article undercuts autonomy from the start by quoting ​Bell ​Hooks approvingly:

“Sexism and sexist oppression... can only be successfully eradicated if men are compelled to assume responsibility.”

Compelled? That directly contradicts the heart of SDT. Autonomy means choosing to engage out of personal conviction — not guilt, coercion, or external pressure. Framing men’s involvement in feminism as something they must do or be blamed for failing to do strips the motivation of all autonomy.

Worse still, the article insists repeatedly that even when men do participate, they should not expect empathy or appreciation. Instead, they are reminded:

“Satisfying men’s psychological needs does not mean absolving them from responsibility for ways they contribute to gender inequality and sexist oppression.”

Even when men try to help, they are portrayed as morally compromised — always in debt, never fully trustworthy. That guilt-laden framing suffocates genuine engagement.

The article also centers on women's needs exclusively, showing no reciprocal curiosity or concern about men’s experiences, values, or pain. It also relieves feminist women from any responsibility to be patient, non-judgmental or even make the men feel welcome. The goal is not dialogue — it’s correction. This is captured clearly in lines such as:

“It is not feminist women’s responsibility to make men feel welcome or to agree with men, adding emotional labor on top of gendered oppression.”

And:

“We do not mean to imply, however, that it is women’s responsibility to provide patient and non-judgmental spaces for men as this places an additional burden on women.”

So if feminist women are not responsible who is? The article recommends that rather than feminist women helping men understand feminism they should farm out that task to male feminists. This outsourcing of the task to feminist men — rather than encouraging feminist women to engage directly — creates a dynamic where emotional safety is offered only if men are already ideologically compliant:

“Women have good reasons for not trusting men immediately.”

There is no vision of mutual growth or shared humanity. Men are to be “retrained” by others — not included as equals. This fails to model dialogue or mutuality and instead sets up a hierarchy: feminist women as gatekeepers of virtue, men as potential liabilities who must prove themselves.

The result is a message that frames men as morally obligated to support women because of their supposed complicity in oppression, offers no space for their own stories or struggles, and then bars them from expecting even the basic empathy that would allow for meaningful exchange.

This isn’t just intellectually inconsistent — it’s emotionally cold and strategically self-defeating. It asks men to invest in a movement that clearly does not care whether they feel welcomed, understood, or respected. In doing so, the article violates not only the principles of SDT, but any realistic pathway toward lasting engagement or authentic partnership.**

A Better Way Forward: Respect, Not Re-education

For more than 50 years, our public institutions, media, and educational systems have focused intensely on the needs and struggles of women and girls. Perhaps it’s time we reverse the lens — to spend the next 50 years focusing just as deeply on boys and men.

Imagine this: billions of dollars dedicated to researching male development, crafting education and healthcare systems tailored to boys’ needs, launching public campaigns about male well-being, creating commissions and councils that advocate solely for men’s voices. And while all this unfolds, women and girls are politely asked to wait on the sidelines — to watch without participating, without complaint, as the cultural spotlight shifts away from them.

Would that feel fair?

For many women, such a proposal would feel outrageous — as if their lives, their needs, their experiences were being brushed aside. And that reaction is exactly the point.

Because for the past half-century, that is precisely how many men have felt: ignored, blamed, and left out of the conversation. While women were told “you matter,” men were told to man up. While girls’ self-esteem, safety, and education were prioritized, boys quietly fell behind — in school, in mental health, in family life. And yet, few women stopped to ask: What about the boys?

If the idea of sidelining women now feels wrong, then perhaps it’s time to acknowledge how wrong it was to sideline men for so long. The belief that men were powerful oppressors who deserved no empathy was a cultural myth — one that too many accepted without question. And the damage of that myth is now all around us.

We don’t need to swap one form of exclusion for another. What we need is balance. We need to understand that men have struggles, too — and they deserve just as much care, compassion, and attention. Real progress doesn’t come from focusing on just one sex. It comes from listening to both.

Let’s stop pretending that empathy is a limited resource. There’s enough to go around. But first, we have to be willing to offer some to the half of the population who has gone without it for far too long.

Journal
https://www.apa.org/pubs/highlights/spotlight/future-boys-men-masculinities

Article
https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fmen0000480

I’ve created several custom GPTs focused on men’s issues. A custom GPT is essentially a private AI tool built on uploaded material. For example, one of the links below connects to Stephen Baskerville’s book Taken Into Custody. When you click the link, you'll be taken to a page where you can ask the AI questions about the book. It will search the content and provide a summarized answer.

In my testing so far, the responses have been clear and insightful. Occasionally, the AI rephrases ideas in its own words—but in most cases, these interpretations are accurate. Still, keep in mind that AI isn’t perfect. While it’s a powerful tool, its answers shouldn't be treated as final authority.

Currently, there are four custom GPTs available:

• Stephen Baskerville’s book Taken Into Custody

• My three books on men, boys, and healing

• Research papers by James Nuzzo on male physical performance and exercise

• A collection of PDFs from Ed Bartlett’s group CEDV/DAVIA, focused on men and domestic violence

I plan to expand this library and would love to hear your suggestions—what other material would you like to see added?

Note: You’ll need a free account with chatgpt account to access any of these resources.

 

Sex Bias in Domestic Violence Policies and Laws

By Tom Golden

This GPT is designed to offer clear, professional, and well-sourced insights into the often overlooked experiences of male victims of domestic violence. It explores societal blind spots, institutional biases, and the unique challenges men face in being seen, believed, and supported.
https://chatgpt.com/g/g-68178dd19bfc8191a3475bcd8051917e-sex-bias-in-domestic-violence-policies-and-laws

____________________________________

 

Understanding Men and Boys: Healing Insights

By Tom Golden

Built on the insights of three books, this GPT offers thoughtful understanding of the lives and healing processes of men and boys.
https://chatgpt.com/g/g-680ed336677c8191a3527bdf1d4bf17f-understanding-men-and-boys-healing-insights

________________________________________

 

Taken Into Custody - Stephen Baskerville

By Tom Golden

Built on the insights of Stephen Baskerville's classic book Taken Into Custody. this GPT offers thoughtful understanding of the difficulties surrounding divorce.

https://chatgpt.com/g/g-68239e442d0c81918469f94d38850af5-taken-into-custody-stephen-baskerville
_________________________________________

 

Boys' Muscle Strength and Performance

By Tom Golden

Research studies by James Nuzzo, PhD, and others provide insights into boys' muscle strength and physical performance.

https://chatgpt.com/g/g-6824833d14d48191be9491084dd4cc8b-boys-muscle-strength-and-performance

As we honor the men and women who have given their lives in military service this Memorial Day, we often focus on the visible sacrifices: the battles fought, the bravery displayed in combat, and the ultimate price paid with death. However, there are sacrifices that often go unnoticed, those that are felt long after the uniforms are put away, those that exist in the quiet aftermath of war: the mental and emotional toll on soldiers.

For many soldiers, the impact of their service does not end when they return home. While some are physically wounded, others carry psychological scars that may never fully heal. These wounds are not visible to the eye, but they are felt deeply—affecting every aspect of life, from relationships to career choices, to the personal sense of self.

The emotional and mental struggles faced by veterans often go unspoken. Issues like Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), anxiety, depression, and survivor's guilt can haunt them for years after the war has ended. While physical injuries can often be treated or managed, the invisible wounds are far harder to address. The pain of loss, trauma, and the moral injuries sustained in combat don’t always show up on medical charts but are carried within.

Many soldiers come home, not only grieving the comrades they lost on the battlefield but also burdened with the weight of the actions they were forced to take in the name of war. The emotional turmoil of witnessing violence, the confusion of being asked to do things that conflict with their moral compass, and the isolation that can come from feeling misunderstood by those who have not shared their experiences, can lead to an overwhelming sense of alienation.

For families of fallen soldiers, the grief is layered. While they mourn the loss of a loved one, they also often wrestle with the emotional aftermath of their service. The long-term impacts on mental health are felt across generations, as the families of soldiers who return physically and mentally scarred deal with the ripple effects of trauma. The strain on marriages, parent-child relationships, and community ties can be immense, yet the support and understanding for these issues are frequently lacking.

Memorial Day is not just a time to remember the men who died in combat—it is also an opportunity to acknowledge the immense emotional and mental cost of war that continues to impact those who survive. It is a reminder that the invisible wounds of battle—those that affect the mind and spirit—deserve as much attention and compassion as the visible ones.

This Memorial Day, as we honor those who have fallen, let us also remember those who carry the unseen scars of war. Let us stand with those who have borne the emotional and psychological burdens of military service, offering our support, empathy, and a commitment to their long-term healing. After all, the sacrifice of our soldiers is not only paid on the battlefield—it is carried on long after the guns fall silent.