MenAreGood
The Origins of Hatred - Part Two - Feminism
May 06, 2025
post photo preview



How Feminism Manufactured Fear and Distrust of Men

One of the clearest long-term examples of using fear, blame, victimhood, and resentment as a social tactic is the way feminism — backed by unwavering support from the media and lawmakers — has worked to embed fear, distrust, and blame into the minds of women and girls.

Nearly every major feminist campaign has been built on two themes: blaming men and claiming victimhood. Along the way, women have been encouraged to distrust men, to fear them, and to view their actions through a lens of suspicion.

The success of these campaigns has relied heavily on gynocentrism — a deeply embedded, often invisible bias. Most people don’t even realize they carry it, but it’s there, quietly shaping our instincts. Gynocentrism shows up as an automatic tendency to prioritize the needs, emotions, and concerns of women, while overlooking those of men. Feminists have strategically weaponized this bias, using it to pressure institutions and society into funneling more resources to women. 

In the previous post, The Origins of Hatred, we discussed how hatred often grows out of fear, distrust, resentment, and the belief that something rightfully yours could be stolen. When these emotions are stirred up, the chances of hatred taking root rise dramatically.

We’ve seen the slogans — the t-shirts and mugs that proudly say things like “I bathe in male tears.” That’s not just casual humor; it’s celebrating the pain of men. And when one group openly relishes the suffering of another, that’s a serious warning sign of hatred.

Sometimes, the hatred isn’t even hidden. It was spelled out plainly in a Washington Post article by Walters titled "Why Can't We Hate Men?" No subtle hints, no veiled language — just a blunt statement: we deserve to hate men.

Over the years, there have been plenty of openly misandrist books too, including the infamous S.C.U.M. Manifesto by Valerie Solanas. (S.C.U.M. stands for Society for Cutting Up Men.) Sound like the name of a hate group to you? It should.

It’s not hard to see: some women have been led — even encouraged — to hate men.

Let’s take a closer look at how this has been done, step by step.


Inventing the Patriarchy Monster

 

The first move was to create a villain: Patriarchy. Feminists claimed this invisible, omnipresent system had stolen women’s rights and opportunities for centuries — and that all men were participants. It was portrayed as a global conspiracy designed by men to oppress women.

This narrative cast women as perpetual victims and men as perpetual perpetrators. If women were victims of this monstrous system, it gave them a reason to fear, distrust, and blame men for their problems. Crucially, it wasn’t just a handful of powerful tycoons being blamed — it was every man.

This conditioned women to view men not as allies or protectors, but as thieves of opportunity and freedom. And once fear and blame is planted, distrust follows. Over time, this distrust breeds resentment, and this can inevitably curdle into hatred.


Manufacturing Fear of Men’s Violence

Next, feminism relentlessly exaggerated the threat of male violence. Even though fewer than a half of 1% of men are convicted of violent crimes, men were collectively painted as dangerous.

Campaigns like “Take Back the Night” suggested that men had made public spaces unsafe. Anti-rape crusades pushed slogans like All men are potential rapists. Domestic violence campaigns implied that any woman, at any time, could be in danger from any man — despite data showing domestic violence is most prevalent in lower socio-economic groups and that men are victims too.

The aim was simple: fuel fear and distrust by promoting the idea that all men were potential threats. And history tells us what happens next: fear transforms into resentment, and unchecked resentment leads to hate. The more women were told to see men as unpredictable dangers, the more those emotions hardened.


Demonizing Masculinity Itself

As the fear campaigns intensified, a new weapon emerged: toxic masculinity. Feminists began to redefine traditional masculine traits—such as strength, stoicism, and competitiveness—as inherently harmful. The very qualities that had long been vital for protecting and providing for women and children were suddenly recast as dangerous and pathological.

Imagine the backlash if someone claimed femininity itself was toxic. But the “toxic masculinity” label stuck — widely accepted, even celebrated, in popular culture and media.

What message does this send women? That men, by their very nature, are dangerous. It discourages trust, closeness, and cooperation, and promotes out-group hostility — seeing men as outsiders and threats. Fear escalates, trust deteriorates, and resentment simmers just beneath the surface. Over time, that resentment metastasizes into outright hatred of not just specific men, but masculinity itself.


Reframing Male Help as Oppression


Another tactic was to portray even positive male behavior as suspect. Feminists argued that when men protect or help women, it’s about control and paternalism. Acts of chivalry were repackaged as disguised domination. Gratitude was replaced with skepticism, doubt, and fear.

This seeded doubt in women’s minds: Is his kindness genuine, or does he have an agenda? Over time, this isolated women further and disoriented men who suddenly found their supportive gestures met with suspicion. He found himself living in a world where he simply can't win.

And what follows when goodwill is viewed as manipulation? Fear. Distrust. Resentment. The natural progression plays out yet again: suspicion leads to bitterness, and bitterness makes way for hate.

All the while, traditionally masculine strengths like logic, fairness, and objective reasoning were increasingly dismissed or devalued. In their place, emotional expression and subjective feelings were elevated as the highest forms of truth. Rather than balancing reason and emotion, the cultural shift sidelined men's natural strengths, portraying them as cold, outdated, or even oppressive. The result was a climate where emotional narratives often trumped evidence, and fairness took a backseat to feelings.

Casting Relationships as Power Struggles

Feminists promoted the idea that heterosexual relationships are inherently imbalanced and exploitative. Men, they claimed, were constantly scheming to take women’s resources, power, and autonomy.

This worldview cast suspicion on romantic relationships and encouraged women to view partnerships not as mutual alliances, but as battles for dominance. The feminist cry was all sex is rape!

Once again: fear breeds distrust, which breeds resentment. And when the very idea of love and partnership is painted as a contest of control, hatred isn’t far behind. What should foster connection instead fosters division.


Creating a Media Echo Chamber

The media eagerly amplified these narratives. Stories of men as protectors, supporters, or victims rarely made headlines. Instead, article after article, news segment after news segment, depicted women as victims and men as perpetrators.

This one-sided portrayal conditioned the public to see male violence and male wrongdoing as the norm, while male victimhood was erased. Constant exposure to this selective narrative created a skewed perception of male behavior and fueled generalized fear.

And as with every other step: sustained fear morphs into distrust, distrust into resentment, and resentment into hatred. This is not an accidental outcome — it’s a predictable consequence of systematically vilifying one half of the population.


Spreading the Fear Template Across Issues


Feminism applied its fear-and-blame template to virtually every major social issue, consistently casting men as oppressors and women as victims. This narrative became the default lens through which public policy, media coverage, and cultural norms were shaped.​ Let's have a closer look a some of the issues.

The Domestic Violence Example

Perhaps the clearest example is domestic violence. Feminists claimed men were battering women in alarming numbers, and demanded government action. What they deliberately left out was that men, too, were victims — at comparable rates.

Prominent feminist Ellen Pence, a leader in the domestic violence movement, later admitted:

“In many ways, we turned a blind eye to many women’s use of violence, their drug use and alcoholism, and their often harsh and violent treatment of their own children.”

Yet for years, feminists successfully pushed a one-sided narrative, securing billions in funding for women-only services while erasing male victims.​ Male legislators, eager to prove they weren't the “enemy,” funded a women-only domestic violence industry—one that now commands nearly $5 billion a year in federal and state funding, despite its foundation being built on selective data and misleading claims.​ The result? A culture trained to see men as inherently dangerous and women as always innocent victims.​

And where one group is painted as evil and the other as blameless, fear and distrust fester. Resentment builds. Hate is the inevitable consequence.

Education: Feminists claimed that the patriarchy had systematically cheated girls out of opportunity. Girls were portrayed as emotionally battered by a male-dominated system that ignored their needs. The solution? Re-engineer the educational environment to favor girls—by de-emphasizing competition, downplaying boys’ natural learning styles, and prioritizing emotional safety over academic rigor. The result has been a system where boys now lag behind in graduation rates, college enrollment, and literacy, but no one is rushing to fix it for them.

Reproductive Rights: The conversation was framed as a battle against male control of women’s bodies, summed up by the slogan: “Her body, her choice.” But while women were given full reproductive authority, men were given no rights, no say, and no support. The father's role was reduced to that of a bystander—unless child support was needed. There was no public outcry about this imbalance, only cheers for women's autonomy, and silence about male disenfranchisement.

Healthcare: Feminists claimed women were neglected by a healthcare system designed by and for men. They argued that women were left out of medical research and ​left out of research studies. These claims have since been debunked​. There are eight federal offices for women's health and none for men. Just one of those offices for women got a budget for 2025 for nearly 1.5 billion dollars while men's offices got zero. They have also found that women actually use more healthcare services and live longer than men—but the narrative stuck​, women need and deserve more. Men, meanwhile, still die younger, have fewer resources for gender-specific health issues, and are underrepresented in healthcare outreach. Yet somehow, the blame was again placed on men.

Divorce: Men were portrayed as abusive and emotionally stifling, while women were framed as desperate to escape. No-fault divorce arrived as the silver bullet, allowing women to end marriages unilaterally, often with financial gain and favorable custody arrangements. What kind of contract allows one party to walk away, take the kids, and still profit? It was a seismic power shift that disempowered men—especially fathers—and handed the upper hand to women under the guise of liberation.

Sexual Assault: The narrative became: All men are potential predators. Due process was seen as a barrier to "believing women." The fear-based messaging painted entire groups of men as suspect, regardless of evidence, while encouraging women to view every interaction through the lens of danger.

Pay Gap: Feminists accused men of deliberately underpaying women. Yet Warren Farrell ha​s thoroughly debunked this myth, showing that the so-called “gap” is almost entirely due to life choices—career fields, hours worked, risk tolerance—not discrimination. Still, the blame stuck to men, and the myth continues to be used to justify gender-based policy and hiring practices.

Sexual Harassment: Men were framed as aggressors who silenced and intimidated women in the workplace​. The blanket vilification of men created an atmosphere of suspicion, where normal workplace interactions could be reinterpreted as threats.​ Men’s natural ways of interacting — being competitive, giving blunt feedback, and adopting a “tough it out” mentality — were seen as harmful to women. But instead of encouraging women to adapt to this more demanding environment, the solution was to change the men.

Mansplaining: A new cultural buzzword emerged to shame men for speaking, especially when sharing knowledge. It wasn’t enough to disagree—men were now accused of "stealing women's voices" anytime they offered a perspective.

Manspreading: Even how men sit became political. Men were now “stealing women’s space” by taking up too much room on public transport. Masculine posture was reframed as a public offense.

The Result: A Culture of Fear, Distrust, and Hatred

By repeatedly following the same formula — false accusations, inflated victimhood, vilifying men, and demanding urgent action — feminism has succeeded in making women suspicious, fearful, and distrustful of men.

Women were placed in a difficult bind:

  • If you believe the narrative, you must fear men.

  • If you believe the narrative, you must distrust men.

  • If you believe the narrative, you must resent men.

  • If you don’t believe the narrative, you must not be a “real” woman.

With every new manufactured grievance — from mansplaining to domestic violence — the same template was applied.

But fear and distrust don’t operate in a vacuum. Human psychology makes this clear: when people are taught to fear and distrust a group, and are simultaneously conditioned to see themselves as its perpetual victims, resentment takes root. Over time, that resentment hardens — and turns into hatred.

This is one of the most dangerous psychological dynamics in any society. History shows us that when a group is consistently portrayed as a threat — and held collectively responsible for every grievance — the result is always the same: hostility, dehumanization, and eventually outright hatred.

This relentless cycle of fear and blame hasn’t just fostered distrust — it has built a culture steeped in in-group bias, where one group (women) is seen as morally superior and perpetually victimized, while the other (men) is cast as inherently dangerous and unworthy of empathy.

The inevitable result? A rising hatred of men.
A hatred fueled by distorted narratives, reinforced by media echo chambers, and protected by ideological gatekeepers.

This is how fear was manufactured — how, one lie at a time, an entire culture was led to see men not as allies, protectors, or partners, but as threats. And in the process, feminism didn’t just fracture relationships between men and women — it cultivated an atmosphere where distrust breeds resentment, and resentment curdles into hate.

At every turn, this framework of fear and blame has redefined normal male behavior as oppressive. It has warped public perception, silenced men’s voices, and redirected vast social resources toward problems often exaggerated or misrepresented.

The cost?
A growing cultural divide.
The breakdown of the American family and male female relationships.
And a generation of boys and men taught to feel ashamed of their very nature.

Feminism — with its invented victimhood and relentless blame — has become one of the most deceptive and self-serving movements in American history. It's time we start calling it out. And it’s time we return, slowly but surely, to the truth:

Men are good.

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
Posts
Articles
February 12, 2026
A Conversation on Matrisensus — With Warren Farrell, Janice Fiamengo, Lisa Britton, David Shackleton, and Tom Golden

A Conversation on Matrisensus — With Warren Farrell, Janice Fiamengo, Lisa Britton, David Shackleton, and Tom Golden
David Shackleton’s newest book, Matrisensus, is not a small argument.

Matrisensus is not what happens when women are in charge. It is what happens when the family’s moral logic is applied where society’s civic logic should govern. In this sweeping examination, David shows how cultural consensus forms — and how it can come to center women’s experiences, priorities, and moral framing as the unquestioned norm. The mechanism, he argues, polarizes our moral narrative, distributing compassion and accountability not by conduct but by identity. The result is a culture in which designated victim groups are treated as morally untouchable, while those who question the framing are cast as suspect — with profound consequences for law, family, education, and public trust.

So a group uniquely qualified to engage these ideas gathered for this video.

Joining me were Warren Farrell, Janice Fiamengo, Lisa Britton, and of course the...

00:59:58
January 22, 2026
Something Wicked

Today’s conversation is with three women who share something rare: they can see through the fraud of feminism—and they’re willing to say so out loud.

Hannah Spier, M.D. (a psychiatrist from the mental-health world) breaks down how feminist ideology has seeped into therapy culture and quietly turned “help” into a kind of self-worship—often at the expense of families and men.
https://hannahspier.substack.com/

Janice Fiamengo, Ph.D, brings the historical lens, showing that feminism has never really been about “equality,” but about power—and how the story has been rewritten so effectively that even critics sometimes repeat the mythology.
https://fiamengofile.substack.com/

And Carrie Gress, Ph.D., author of Something Wicked (releasing now), lays out the argument that feminism and Christianity aren’t compatible—because feminism functions like a shadow religion: its own moral framework, its own commandments, its own “sins,” and its own sacred cow (female autonomy). ...

01:13:49
December 20, 2025
Bias Against Men and Boys in Mental Health Research

This video is a summary of the three studies we have examined the last three Saturdays. It’s a brief and relaxed look at the high points of those articles. Here’s a summary:

This video examines a pattern I’ve seen repeatedly in psychological research: when data complicates the familiar story of men as perpetrators and women as victims, the data about boys and men often disappears. Using three real studies—on teen dating violence, reproductive coercion, and “masculine norms”—I walk through how boys’ suffering is minimized, misrepresented, or erased as research moves from full reports to media headlines and public policy. What emerges is not just sloppy science, but a troubling bias that shapes how we see boys, men, and masculinity itself.

00:10:31

Another good one describe things extremely well.

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1BXRPxMeiZ/?mibextid=wwXIfr

Interesting observation about testosterone in men that lines up with what I have seen

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/18J1ySdych/?mibextid=wwXIfr

If only if our society could just acknowledge this and celebrate it more it would be a hudge step in valuing men more!!

February 23, 2026
post photo preview
Where Galoway Stops Short
Calling Men to Rise Without Naming What Pushed Them Down

Where Galoway Stops Short - Calling Men to Rise Without Naming What Pushed Them Down

Something unusual has happened in mainstream culture: a prominent public figure has spoken to men without contempt.

In his widely circulated reflections on masculinity, Scott Galloway tells men things they rarely hear anymore — that discipline matters, that status is real, that no one is coming to save them, and that adulthood still requires effort, competence, and responsibility.

In a culture that often speaks about men as a problem to be managed, he speaks to them as adults.

That alone makes his work a step in the right direction.

But it is only a step.

Because embedded within his message are two assumptions that deserve closer examination.



When Pain Is Treated Like Weather

Galloway acknowledges that many men are struggling. He names loneliness, economic displacement, sexual exclusion, and a growing sense of irrelevance.

But these realities are framed as impersonal shifts — like automation, globalization, or changing markets. The world evolved. Adapt.

There is no villain. No moral accounting. Just conditions.

But much of what men are experiencing did not unfold quietly or accidentally.

It happened in open daylight.

For decades now:

  • Boys have been described as “toxic.”

  • Masculinity has been framed as inherently dangerous.

  • Fathers have been treated as optional.

  • Male ambition has been recoded as domination.

  • Male restraint has been interpreted as emotional deficiency.

These were not subtle cultural breezes. They were institutionalized narratives — repeated in media, education, and public discourse.

Men did not imagine this shift. They lived through it.

To speak about male pain without acknowledging the cultural disdain that preceded it is to ghost the very experience men are trying to make sense of.

If a man absorbs, year after year, the message that his nature is suspect, the shame that follows does not originate inside him.

It is absorbed.

And absorbed shame cannot be healed by discipline alone.



Responsibility Without Reciprocity

The second issue is not that Galloway calls men to responsibility.

Responsibility matters.

Structure matters.

Competence matters.

Men do not need to be rescued from adulthood.

But when responsibility is presented as the sole remedy — without acknowledging cultural injury — it subtly transforms pain into proof of failure.

If you are hurting, you must not have adapted well enough.

If you are struggling, you must not be disciplined enough.

Pain becomes diagnostic of insufficiency.

That may produce functionality.
It does not necessarily produce healing.

And it quietly leaves the culture itself unexamined.



What This Is Not

Let me be clear about something.

This is not an argument for coddling men.

It is not an argument for lowering standards.
It is not an argument for emotional indulgence or endless processing circles.
It is not an argument for turning men into women.

Men do not need to be babied.

They need to be understood accurately.



What Men Actually Need

What is missing from the conversation is something I would call respect-based empathy.

Respect-based empathy does not treat men as fragile.
It does not assume that emotional expression is superior to endurance.
It does not pathologize male withdrawal.

It recognizes that men often heal differently — and that those differences deserve admiration rather than suspicion.

When a man withdraws for a day or two after a setback, that may not be avoidance. It may be integration. When he fixes something, builds something, runs hard, works longer hours, or goes quiet, he may be metabolizing stress in a deeply male way.

For many men, solitude is not escape. It is work.

But in a culture that filters coping through a single emotional style, male processing is easily misread as deficiency.

And that misreading quietly reinforces the very problem we claim to address.



Admiration Is Fuel

Men are fueled by admiration and respect.

Not indulgence.
Not protection.
Respect.

When a man feels respected, he expands.
When he feels perpetually scrutinized or pathologized, he contracts.

The cultural shift that would help men most is not softer expectations.

It is moral clarity.

Clarity that says:

“Yes, some of this pain did not originate inside you.”
“Yes, some of it came from narratives that diminished you.”
“And yes, the way you work through it has dignity.”

Responsibility matters.

But responsibility without acknowledgment of cultural harm becomes another burden.

Strength and suffering can coexist.

Calling men to rise without first admitting that they were pushed down in public view is not maturity. It is amnesia.

And offering responsibility without respect-based empathy risks reinforcing the very isolation we claim to address.

Men do not need coddling.

They need to be seen clearly.

They need standards, yes — but they also need a culture wise enough to recognize the dignity in how they endure.

Until we add that understanding, responsibility alone is not enough.

Men Are Good.

Read full Article
February 19, 2026
post photo preview
Do Men Face Prejudice?
A dissertation that reveals what the APA quietly overlook


Do Men Face Prejudice?

A dissertation that reveals what the APA quietly overlook

The American Psychological Association likes to remind us that psychology should be guided by empathy, cultural awareness, and respect for lived experience. Few would argue with that. These values are written directly into the APA Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men, published in 2018.

On paper, the Guidelines sound humane and thoughtful. They urge psychologists to be gender-sensitive, to avoid stereotyping, to understand the social contexts shaping boys’ and men’s lives, and to guard against bias that might harm the therapeutic alliance.

All good things.

But there is an important question we almost never ask:

What happens when those principles are applied fully and consistently to men — including the possibility that men themselves may be targets of prejudice?

A largely unknown doctoral dissertation from 2020 offers a surprisingly clear answer.



A brief introduction most people never received

In 2020, psychologist Aman Siddiqi completed a doctoral dissertation titled A Clinical Guide to Discussing Prejudice Against Men. It was submitted quietly, without media attention or controversy, and has remained largely invisible outside academic circles.

That is unfortunate — because it does something rare.

Rather than arguing politics or ideology, Siddiqi does something very simple and very professional:
He takes the existing psychological science on prejudice and asks whether it applies to men.

Not rhetorically. Clinically.

He does not invent new standards. He does not dismiss women’s issues. Instead, he asks whether psychologists may be overlooking an entire category of harm because it doesn’t fit the dominant narrative.

And in doing so, his work quietly exposes a tension at the heart of the APA Guidelines themselves.



What the APA Guidelines say — and what they assume

The APA Guidelines for Boys and Men emphasize several themes that many clinicians will recognize:

  • Boys and men are shaped by restrictive gender norms

  • Emotional suppression harms mental health

  • Masculinity can be socially reinforced in unhealthy ways

  • Psychologists should challenge stereotypes and build empathy

All of that ​may be true — as far as it goes.

But notice something subtle.

The Guidelines overwhelmingly frame men as:

  • Shaped by norms

  • Socialized into restriction

  • Influenced by expectations

What they almost never frame men as is this:

Targets of prejudice.

This matters more than it might seem.



Why “prejudice” is not the same as “socialization”

Siddiqi’s dissertation makes a distinction that is obvious once you see it — and strangely absent from much of clinical training.

Socialization asks:

“What messages did you absorb growing up?”

Prejudice asks:

“How are you perceived, judged, dismissed, or morally framed by others right now?”

These are not the same thing.

A man may be distressed not only because he learned to suppress emotion — but because when he does express vulnerability, he is:

  • Not believed

  • Seen as dangerous

  • Treated as less worthy of care

  • Assumed to be at fault

The APA Guidelines speak at length about helping men change themselves.
Siddiqi asks whether psychology has done enough to question how men are viewed.

That shift alone is quietly radical.



The empathy gap we don’t name

One of the strongest parts of Siddiqi’s work is his discussion of what he calls the male gender empathy gap — the tendency to respond less sympathetically to male suffering, especially when it conflicts with familiar narratives.

This is not framed as cruelty. It is framed as normalization.

Some prejudices persist not because people hate a group — but because dismissing that group’s suffering has become socially acceptable.

Siddiqi outlines several mechanisms that maintain this acceptability:

  • Trivialization (“It’s not that serious.”)

  • Denial (“That doesn’t really happen.”)

  • Justification (“There must be a reason.”)

  • Intimidation (“You can’t say that.”)

If you’ve worked with men long enough, you’ve heard these dynamics described — often haltingly — in the therapy room.

The APA Guidelines warn clinicians not to invalidate clients.
Siddiqi shows how invalidation happens when male distress falls outside approved frames.



When good intentions become blind spots

Perhaps the most uncomfortable implication of Siddiqi’s dissertation is this:

Clinicians themselves may unintentionally participate in prejudice against men — precisely because their training never gave them a framework to recognize it.

When a man describes feeling:

  • Disbelieved in a conflict

  • Treated as disposable

  • Assumed to be dangerous

  • Morally pre-judged

A well-meaning therapist may instinctively:

  • Reframe the experience

  • Redirect responsibility

  • Minimize the injury

  • Interpret it as defensiveness or entitlement

Not out of malice — but out of habit.

The APA Guidelines urge psychologists to be self-reflective about bias.
Siddiqi asks whether psychology has reflected deeply enough on its gender asymmetries.



A question the Guidelines never quite ask

The APA is comfortable naming androcentrism — male-centered bias — in culture.

Siddiqi raises a quieter question:

What happens when cultural sympathy flows primarily in one direction?

He uses the term gynocentrism not as an accusation, but as a descriptive lens — a way of understanding how concern, protection, and moral framing may cluster unevenly.

Whether one accepts the term or not, the phenomenon it points to is familiar to many men:

  • Female suffering is presumed legitimate

  • Male suffering is often contextualized, explained, or doubted

The APA Guidelines never directly address this imbalance.
Siddiqi does — calmly, clinically, and without rhetoric.



Why this matters now

In recent years, we’ve seen growing concern about:

  • Male loneliness

  • Male suicide

  • Boys disengaging from school

  • Men dropping out of institutions

Many responses still default to:

“Men need to open up.”
“Men need to change.”
“Men need better coping skills.”

Those may help.

But Siddiqi’s dissertation suggests something deeper:

If we never examine how men are seen, we will keep asking men to adapt to environments that quietly misperceive them.

The APA Guidelines aim to help boys and men.
Siddiqi’s work asks what those guidelines truly require — if we apply them without exemptions.



A final thought

This dissertation does not reject psychology’s values.

It takes them seriously.

And in doing so, it reveals a simple, uncomfortable possibility:

We may believe we are being fair to men — while still failing to see them clearly.

That is not an accusation.
It is an invitation.

And it is one psychology would do well to accept.

Read full Article
February 16, 2026
post photo preview
Institutional Sexism: The Bias We’re Not Allowed to See - Part 3 - Conclusion



Institutional Sexism: The Bias We’re Not Allowed to See - Part 3 - Conclusion

If institutional sexism against men is so pervasive, why can’t we see it?
Why can a society capable of diagnosing “microaggressions” and “implicit bias” remain blind to its own structural prejudice against half its citizens?

The answer lies in a deeper psychological bias — one older than feminism and broader than politics. It’s the instinct to center women’s needs first: gynocentrism.

Gynocentrism isn’t hatred of men; it’s compassion with blinders on. It’s the moral reflex that sees women as fragile, men as durable, and suffering as legitimate only when it’s female. It shapes our empathy map from childhood — the little girl who cries is comforted; the boy who cries is told to toughen up. By adulthood, that reflex is baked into the culture.

When feminists in the 1960s began describing institutions as oppressive to women, they were building on this foundation. The public accepted the narrative easily because it fit the moral intuition that women need protection and men need correction. The idea of institutional sexism against women felt right; the idea of institutional sexism against men felt absurd.

But intuition isn’t truth.

Gynocentrism acts like an ideological shield: it protects women from scrutiny while leaving men exposed. When a woman fails, the system failed her; when a man fails, he failed himself.
The result is a self-reinforcing loop — a feedback mechanism that rewards female victimhood and punishes male vulnerability.

Even academia, which claims neutrality, is steeped in this moral reflex.
Gender-studies programs that once promised to challenge inequality now function more as temples of ideological maintenance. Their role is not to question whether men face systemic bias, but to explain away any data suggesting they do. The assumption is always that men hold the power, even when they demonstrably don’t.

That’s not scholarship; it’s theology.

And like all theology, it protects itself by defining heresy. The heretic, in this case, is anyone who points out that compassion has been rationed by sex.



7. The Human Cost

When systems consistently favor one sex’s pain over the other’s, people learn. Boys learn it first.

They learn it in classrooms that scold their energy and reward compliance.
They learn it in media that depicts them as bumbling, violent, or disposable.
They learn it in families where fathers are peripheral, or where mothers wield the quiet authority of assumed virtue.

By adulthood, many men have absorbed the lesson: your feelings are a burden, your needs are negotiable, your failures are proof.

This is how institutional sexism becomes internalized.
Men stop expecting fairness, and worse, they stop expecting empathy. When injustice occurs — in courts, workplaces, or relationships — they don’t see it as systemic. They see it as personal ​failure or weakness.

That resignation is perhaps the cruelest outcome of all.
Because institutions don’t have to oppress loudly when their subjects have already consented to being overlooked.

The emotional toll is enormous but unmeasured. It shows up in statistics — suicide rates, addiction, homelessness — but the deeper wound is existential. When a man realizes that the society he contributes to has little instinct to protect him, something vital in his spirit hardens.

As one father told me after losing custody of his children, “I didn’t just lose them. I lost faith in the idea that fairness even applies to me.”

Institutional sexism isn’t only about policies. It’s about the quiet message that some lives merit more compassion than others. And that message, delivered generation after generation, corrodes our collective sense of justice.



8. Reclaiming the Term

It’s time to reclaim the language.

If systemic bias means patterns of disadvantage embedded in structures, then we must be willing to name those patterns wherever they occur — not just where they fit a fashionable narrative.

Institutional sexism should never have been gendered. It describes a process, not a direction: the way institutions absorb moral assumptions and translate them into policy. Sometimes those assumptions favor men. Increasingly, they favor women. The honest mind must be able to see both.

Reclaiming the term doesn’t mean denying women’s​ or men’s historical struggles. It means applying the same analytical lens to everyone. It means intellectual consistency.

We’ve built a society where calling attention to male disadvantage is considered controversial, while calling attention to female disadvantage is considered virtuous. That asymmetry is itself a form of institutional sexism — the kind that hides behind moral approval.

The first step toward balance is honesty. We must be willing to ask the forbidden question:

If equality truly matters, why are we afraid to see when the system tilts against men?

If we can’t even name institutional sexism when it harms half the population, then the word equality has lost its meaning.

The goal isn’t to replace one victim class with another. It’s to restore integrity to the moral compass of our institutions — to remind them that fairness, by definition, cannot be selective.



Closing Note

Perhaps someday, a university course on “institutional sexism” will examine both sides honestly. Students will study how empathy, once a virtue, became gendered; how compassion was politicized; how language turned from a tool of truth to a weapon of ideology.

Until then, it falls to those outside the institutions — writers, thinkers, fathers, teachers, ordinary men and women — to hold up the mirror.

Because the greatest act of equality is not claiming more compassion for one sex.
It’s extending it, finally, to both.

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