MenAreGood
Science or Spin? Testosterone, Masculinity, or the Last Gasp of Woke
6 hours ago
post photo preview

This post examines a recent article published in the Psychology of Men & Masculinities (© 2024, American Psychological Association, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 347–356). The journal is produced by APA Division 51—the same group responsible for publications like the misandrist APA Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men. Historically, Division 51 has maintained a strongly feminist orientation, though there are signs that it is beginning to shift, if only slightly, away from those roots. The journal issue in question is titled "Uncharted Territory: The Future of Men and Masculinities" and appears to have been a call to imagine new directions for the field. As the journal itself states: “Accordingly, we invited manuscripts for a special issue in Psychology of Men & Masculinities to envision the future of the field.” This post focuses on just one of the articles included in that special issue. See what you think.




Science or Spin? Testosterone, Masculinity, or the Last Gasp of Woke

In their recent article, “Gonadal Hormones: The Men, the Myths, and the Legends,” Burris and Knox set out to challenge what they call “essentialist beliefs about gonadal hormones” (EBAGHs). At first glance, this seems like a worthwhile goal—questioning rigid stereotypes and promoting scientific literacy around testosterone and estrogen. The authors argue that the public overestimates the causal power of testosterone, particularly in relation to aggression, strength, sexuality, and masculinity. But the deeper you go, the more the paper begins to reveal its own biases, blind spots, and ideological framing. Though the authors claim to be correcting misinformation, they often sidestep established science in favor of cultural critique—and what they leave out speaks louder than what they include.



Questioning the “Widely Held Belief” Premise

A major issue in the article is the central claim that people broadly believe “testosterone equals men” and “estrogen equals not-men.” This idea is treated as if it's a cultural fact—but the authors offer no solid evidence to back it up. No surveys. No polling. No representative data.

To be fair, the paper makes a reasonable case that some men see increasing their testosterone levels as a way to feel more masculine, and that some may view estrogen as something that could diminish that sense of masculinity. But that’s a far cry from demonstrating that the public broadly believes testosterone defines being male while estrogen signifies not being male, or that testosterone is viewed as entirely good and estrogen as entirely bad. Since these assumptions form the foundation of the authors’ argument, the lack of direct evidence to support them represents a significant flaw.

Instead of establishing the problem with data, the article relies on indirect cues—placebo studies, media examples, and scattered anecdotes. This ends up looking like a straw man: a cartoon version of what people supposedly believe, used to set up a tidy narrative arc.



The Missing Question: Why Do Men Want to Be More Masculine?

One of the strangest omissions in the paper is its refusal to ask the most important question: Why do men want to be more masculine? The authors treat this desire as something odd or unhealthy—like it’s a social problem to be solved—without ever asking what’s driving it.

The reality is that men operate in a masculine status hierarchy, where increased masculinity often brings greater access to success, admiration, influence, and romantic attention. Men at the top of this hierarchy tend to attract the highest-value partners, gain more respect, and earn more. The drive to be more masculine isn’t irrational—it’s strategic.

What pushes men upward in that hierarchy? Testosterone. It fuels status-seeking, assertiveness, and competitiveness. The work of Christoph Eisenegger has shown that testosterone’s real effect ​goes beyond aggression, ​and into a deeper, more adaptive drive to attain and maintain status.

Earlier researchers missed this by focusing only on aggression. Eisenegger and others have helped reframe testosterone as a status-regulating hormone, not a simple violence switch. Meanwhile, socially, men are under pressure from the outside as well—culture rewards success and punishes failure. The research of Joseph Vandello on "precarious manhood" captures this reality: masculinity is seen as earned and easily lost, and men are expected to prove it repeatedly.​ Men are driven to pursue status by both their biology and their culture—a squeeze play that uniquely impacts them from both directions. Biologically, testosterone fuels the internal drive to compete, achieve, and assert dominance, particularly in the context of social hierarchies. At the same time, cultural norms and expectations reward success and status while penalizing weakness or failure. Together, these forces create constant pressure on men to prove their worth and climb the masculine hierarchy.

​When a man seeks out testosterone therapy or aims to boost his levels, it’s not because of hormone myths—it’s because he’s looking for a way to gain or protect status. EBAGHs? He’s probably never heard of them. What’s on his radar is something more immediate: respect, relevance, and success.



One-Sided Framing: Masculinity Bad, Estrogen Good?

Another problem that runs throughout the article is its imbalanced treatment of the two hormones. Testosterone is consistently tied to negative traits—aggression, narcissism, insecurity, overcompensation—while estrogen is presented as gentle, wise, and quietly life-saving.

Testosterone gets pathologized; estrogen gets celebrated.

It’s not just the tone—it’s what’s missing. There’s no mention of testosterone’s role in confidence, energy, libido, mood regulation, risk-taking, or motivation—traits that help men engage, compete, and persevere. There’s no definition of healthy masculinity and no acknowledgment of the strengths it can carry.

Meanwhile, estrogen is portrayed as a miracle compound. The article claims it supports male sexual functioning, protects against Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, boosts cardiovascular health, improves immune function, and enhances verbal fluency. Some of that may be true, but the imbalance starts to feel ideological.

And here’s a glaring omission: while they praise estrogen for contributing to male sexual function, they fail to mention that testosterone is essential for male sexual functioning. That’s not an obscure finding—it’s medical consensus.

This selective storytelling gives the impression that one hormone is dangerous and outdated, while the other is sophisticated and life-giving. That’s not science—it’s spin.



Selective Science and the Missing Half of the Story

The authors claim public misunderstanding of testosterone is a serious problem—but make no meaningful attempt to clarify what testosterone actually does. Instead, they pivot into speculation that “hypermasculine” beliefs push men toward things like red meat, alcohol, steroids, and fear of inadequacy.

Steroid abuse? Fair concern. But red meat and alcohol as signs of pathological masculinity? That’s a reach—and it says more about the authors’ worldview than it does about hormone biology.

They toss around the term “hypermasculinity” without defining it, and make no distinction between harmful behaviors and everyday masculine traits. And once again, no mention of healthy male striving, protectiveness, responsibility, or the deeper psychological needs testosterone helps fulfill.

Foundational work ​on the testosterone flood in utero from researchers like Melissa Hines is ignored. Eisenegger is cited, but not for his most important contributions. Status-seeking, fear reduction, social assertiveness, and leadership impulses—all well-studied aspects of testosterone—are simply left out.

Meanwhile, estrogen gets a glowing review, complete with a long list of benefits and ​few caveats.



What They Left Out

In the end, the most telling part of the article isn’t what it says—it’s what it doesn’t. The authors claim to want to dispel myths, but avoid giving readers a clear understanding of testosterone. They frame masculinity as fragile or excessive, but never define it or explore its constructive roles. They reduce men’s hormonal motivations to cultural confusion, without acknowledging the very real biological and social pressures men face to achieve, compete, and succeed.

If the goal is to move beyond simplifications, the authors miss the mark. Their narrative replaces one myth with another—painting testosterone as dangerous and masculinity as insecure, while quietly holding up estrogen and femininity as the default solution.

That’s not advancing the science. It’s just rebranding the bias.

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
April 23, 2025
The Anti-Male Propaganda in Netflix's Adolescence

In this discussion, Hannah Spier, Janice Fiamengo, and Tom Golden take a critical look at the anti-male messaging embedded in the Netflix series Adolescence. Together, they unpack the show’s characters, storylines, and the implausibility of the events depicted, highlighting how such narratives reinforce harmful cultural stereotypes about boys and men. The conversation shines a light on how entertainment media can quietly shape public perceptions, often portraying male characters as either predatory, weak, or disposable, while sidelining the real experiences and complexities of young men.

00:59:27
April 07, 2025
Federal "Family Policy": A Story of Mischief

Join Tom Golden, Stephen Baskerville, Shah, and Don Bieniewicz for an eye-opening discussion on U.S. family policy—exploring the many ways it harms men, undermines families, and violates constitutional principles.

With firsthand experience inside the system, Shah and Don offer powerful insights, while Stephen brings over 20 years of research and writing on the subject. The video concludes with a call to action: contact the White House and recommend Stephen Baskerville as the director of ACF and Shah for consideration as the head of OCSS.

Stephen’s Books
Taken Into Custody https://amzn.to/3nGaMh6
The New Politics of Sex https://amzn.to/3DIYjif
Who Lost America: Why the United States Went “Communist“ and what to Do about it https://www.amazon.com/Who-Lost-America-United-Communist/dp/1915755662

Don’s papers:

(1) The model child support guideline that I drafted for the Children's Rights Council is here:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Donald-Bieniewicz?ev=hdr_xprf

(2) And the ...

00:56:26
March 29, 2025
Regarding Men 24 - Sicko-Therapy

Recorded 2020

Janice Fiamengo, Paul Elam, and Tom discuss the twisted ideas of feminist therapy. If feminists are not admitting that they hate men, what does that do to any form of therapy based on feminist ideas?

Laura Brown http://www.drlaurabrown.com/feminist-therapy/
Psychology Today on Feminist Therapy https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapy-types/feminist-therapy

00:37:00
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
May 09, 2025
The Margins of Mercy

This is an excellent essay on moral exclusion and its impact on men. It explores how men are often pushed outside the boundaries of moral concern and highlights feminism as a likely driving force behind this dynamic.

https://critiquingfeminism.substack.com/p/the-margins-of-mercy

April 26, 2025
MHD - The Princess Treatment Exposed

I follow MHD on Patreon and enjoy many of his vids. Here’s one of his videos that was also on youtube. See what you think.

Sargon, dancing around the red pill.

May 17, 2025
Stereotype Threat for me, but not for thee: The Feminist Double Standard of Gender Stereotyping

Stereotype Threat for Me but Not for Thee: The Feminist Double Standard on Gender Stereotyping

 

Modern feminist thought has deeply influenced how society perceives and responds to gender-based stereotypes. Feminists have rigorously documented how stereotype threat impacts women and girls—how being reminded of negative gender-based assumptions can lower their performance, limit their confidence, and reduce their opportunities. As a result, enormous institutional energy has been devoted to minimizing stereotype threat for females across education, employment, and media.

Yet in a jarring contradiction, the same feminist voices that crusade against the stereotyping of girls often perpetuate, ignore, or excuse deeply harmful stereotypes about boys and men. From classrooms to courtrooms, from media headlines to college campuses, males are frequently cast in the most unflattering terms imaginable: violent, toxic, emotionally stunted, hypersexual, power-hungry. This glaring double standard is rarely acknowledged—and when it is, it's often waved away as justified.

The result is a cultural imbalance where girls are protected from stereotypes, while boys are buried under them. Let’s examine how this disparity is constructed, maintained, and what it costs all of us.


Stereotype Threat and the Feminist Crusade to Protect Girls

Feminists have long argued—and rightly so—that stereotypes about girls can shape outcomes. One of the most cited examples comes from the realm of STEM education. Studies have shown that girls perform worse on math tests when reminded of the stereotype that "girls aren’t good at math." This phenomenon, known as stereotype threat, was popularized by social psychologists Claude Steele and Joshua Aronson. Feminists embraced the concept and used it to campaign for reforms in teaching, testing, curriculum design, and media messaging.

Other domains soon followed. Feminists argued that girls were reluctant to lead because of the “bossy” label, or that societal beauty standards hurt girls’ self-esteem and academic performance. They noted that girls were silenced by fear of being called “sluts,” or that women in professional settings were discredited as “too emotional.” Each of these concerns was framed not just as an individual struggle, but as a systemic injustice—something society must urgently address.

And society listened. School systems restructured grading rubrics. Teachers were retrained. Billions were poured into programs to boost girls' confidence in science, leadership, and athletics. The public and private sectors launched endless initiatives to remove barriers caused by female stereotype threat.

In short, feminist activism produced a world where girls’ psychological safety was treated as sacred.


The Stereotyping of Boys: An Avalanche of Contempt

While girls were being lifted out of the trap of stereotype threat, boys were being pushed further in.

Instead of confronting negative assumptions about boys and men, feminist rhetoric often amplifies them. From slogans like “toxic masculinity” to academic theories of male privilege and patriarchy, boys and men are persistently painted with a broad and damning brush.

Here are just a few of the common stereotypes promoted or tolerated in feminist narratives:

  • “Toxic masculinity” — Suggests that traditional male traits like stoicism, competitiveness, or strength are inherently dangerous or pathological.

  • “All men are rapists” — A paraphrase of radical feminist assertions such as those made by Andrea Dworkin and echoed in various feminist circles, promoting the idea that male sexuality is fundamentally predatory.

  • “Men are pigs” — A socially tolerated insult that would be unthinkable if genders were reversed.

  • “The future is female” — A slogan implying men are obsolete or that society would be better off without them.

  • “Teach boys not to rape” — A blanket accusation that implies boys are budding criminals in need of reprogramming.

The sheer scale of anti-male generalizations today is staggering. Feminists have created entire frameworks—like the Duluth Model of domestic violence—that treat men as default aggressors and women as default victims. In higher education, young men are often presumed guilty under “believe all women” policies that strip them of due process. In mainstream media, the “bumbling dad,” the “man-child,” or the “creepy predator” are staple characters.

Meanwhile, no serious feminist movement campaigns to shield boys from these psychological burdens. There is no widespread effort to protect boys from stereotype threat. No national initiatives to challenge the myth that “boys don’t cry” or that “boys are naturally violent.” Instead, when boys struggle or fail, they’re often told to check their privilege or try harder not to be a threat.


A Culture That Justifies Male Stereotyping

One of the most troubling aspects of this double standard is the moral justification feminists use for maintaining it. The typical logic goes something like this:

  • Men have power.

  • Therefore, they can’t be victims.

  • Therefore, criticizing or generalizing about them is not harmful.

  • In fact, it’s necessary for justice.

This thinking allows feminists to cast boys and men in extremely negative terms while insisting that no real harm is done. But this argument collapses under scrutiny.

First, boys are not “the patriarchy.” They’re children. They don’t hold systemic power. Yet from an early age, they are fed messages—through media, school, and sometimes family—that their natural traits are problematic. If stereotype threat is damaging to girls, how much more damaging is it to tell boys they are inherently dangerous?

Second, even adult men are not immune to the effects of persistent shaming and stereotyping. Research on stereotype threat applies to any group facing negative assumptions. If women avoid STEM because they feel they don’t belong, what happens to boys who are told they’re emotionally broken, likely to abuse, or irrelevant?

The feminist model claims to fight for equality. But equality means fighting harmful stereotypes wherever they exist—not just when they affect women.


The Human Cost of Ignoring Stereotype Threat in Boys

Boys today are falling behind in almost every major metric. They lag in literacy, high school graduation rates, and college enrollment. They are more likely to be suspended, medicated, or diagnosed with behavioral problems. They are less likely to be encouraged to express vulnerability, receive mental health care, or have their pain taken seriously.

Feminist rhetoric plays a significant role in this decline. By flooding the culture with negative images of maleness, it reinforces the very stereotype threat that it claims to abhor—only this time, it targets boys.

Consider a boy growing up in today’s world. He hears that his male role models are “toxic.” He learns that his normal competitive urges are suspect. He sees men in the media portrayed as fools, predators, or bullies. He enters a classroom where empathy is reserved for girls and suspicion is reserved for boys. If he acts out, he’s a threat. If he withdraws, he’s invisible. Either way, he’s lost.

What message does this send to boys? What expectations do we set? What futures do we foreclose?

The cost isn’t just male suffering—it’s societal dysfunction. When half the population is taught to distrust itself, we all lose. Relationships become harder. Families fracture. Collaboration becomes suspicion. We create not equality but enmity.


Toward True Equality: Challenging All Stereotypes

If we are serious about ending stereotype threat, we must abandon the feminist double standard that protects girls while demonizing boys. Equality demands consistency.

We must challenge the notion that “masculinity” is toxic. We must stop normalizing phrases like “men are trash” or “all men are predators.” We must stop teaching boys that their natural impulses are shameful. And we must recognize that stereotype threat applies just as much—if not more—to boys who grow up under a cultural cloud of suspicion and contempt.

Imagine if we treated boys with the same empathy and concern we extend to girls. Imagine if we taught them that their emotions matter, that their strengths are assets, and that their masculinity is something to be honored, not erased.

True progress will not come from selectively dismantling stereotypes. It will come from rejecting all dehumanizing generalizations—whether they target girls or boys, women or men.

Only then will we live in a culture that affirms the dignity and potential of every human being.

 
Read full Article
May 13, 2025
post photo preview
From Eye Color to Gender: How Jane Elliott's Classroom Experiment Mirrors the Modern Treatment of Masculinity

From Eye Color to Gender: How Jane Elliott's Classroom Experiment Mirrors the Modern Treatment of Masculinity

In 1968, Jane Elliott, a third-grade teacher in Riceville, Iowa, conducted a bold and controversial classroom experiment that would come to be recognized as one of the most powerful demonstrations of how discrimination and prejudice take root. In the wake of Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination, Elliott sought to help her white students understand the arbitrary cruelty of racism. Her tool? Eye color. On one day, she told her class that brown-eyed children were smarter, cleaner, and better than their blue-eyed peers. Brown-eyed children received privileges, while blue-eyed children were demeaned and denied recess. The next day, she reversed the roles. What she observed was chilling: within minutes, children began to conform to their assigned roles. The "superior" group acted arrogant and condescending, while the "inferior" group became withdrawn, anxious, and performed worse academically. The exercise was a vivid demonstration of how easily social hierarchies can be constructed—and how quickly they can damage a child’s self-perception.

More than fifty years later, Elliott’s insights are more relevant than ever. Although we no longer divide children by eye color in classrooms, we have developed subtler—and often more insidious—ways of creating social hierarchies. One such modern construct is the term "toxic masculinity." Originally coined within academic and therapeutic contexts to describe specific harmful behaviors associated with some aspects of traditional male gender roles, the phrase has since entered popular culture as a blunt instrument. Instead of being used with nuance to critique destructive behaviors, "toxic masculinity" is often employed as a sweeping condemnation of masculinity itself. In doing so, it functions much like Elliott’s classroom exercise, designating boys and men as morally inferior based on an intrinsic characteristic.

In Elliott’s experiment, children quickly learned to internalize their assigned value. Similarly, in today's culture, boys and men are increasingly exposed to messaging—through schools, media, and even therapeutic models—that suggests something inherently wrong or dangerous about being male. They are told they are prone to violence, emotionally stunted, and responsible for a host of social ills. Like the blue-eyed children, many boys internalize this message, leading to shame, self-doubt, and disengagement. They may feel they must apologize simply for being who they are.

Just as Elliott's students began to perform worse academically when placed in the "inferior" group, boys today are underperforming in schools. Boys now lag behind girls in reading and writing skills, are more likely to be diagnosed with behavioral disorders, and are more likely to drop out of high school and avoid college. Could part of this trend be linked to the erosion of positive male identity? When a boy’s natural traits—physical energy, competitiveness, assertiveness—are consistently labeled as problematic, he may begin to disengage from institutions that seem to reject him.

The effects aren’t limited to boys. As Elliott observed, the "superior" group in her class quickly became smug and less empathetic. Girls growing up in a culture that equates masculinity with toxicity may unconsciously develop a sense of superiority or distrust toward boys and men. They may be less inclined to empathize with male struggles or more likely to assume bad intent in male behavior. This moral ranking damages the ability of boys and girls to form healthy, respectful relationships.

 

The consequences extend into adulthood. For men, the persistent framing of masculinity as a problem can result in emotional suppression not because masculinity prohibits feeling, but because society penalizes men both for expressing emotion and for not doing so in the approved manner. A man who shows grief through silence and action rather than verbal sharing is often seen as "emotionally unavailable." Conversely, a man who expresses anger or frustration may be labeled as aggressive or toxic. This double bind can leave men emotionally stranded, unable to find safe ways to process and communicate their feelings.

Women, too, are affected. The widespread narrative of toxic masculinity fosters fear and suspicion, undermining trust between the sexes. It can shape how women approach relationships, parenting, and even professional environments. Some may feel the need to "correct" men or view them as a threat to be managed. Others may feel disillusioned or hopeless about finding male partners who meet ever-shifting emotional standards. In either case, the relational divide grows deeper.

Jane Elliott's experiment demonstrated how power dynamics based on arbitrary traits can warp perceptions, relationships, and individual potential. She showed how quickly children could learn to see others—and themselves—as lesser or greater, good or bad, based on a label. Today, we risk doing the same by using a term like "toxic masculinity" without nuance or precision. When boys hear the phrase, many don't interpret it as "some forms of male behavior are harmful"—they hear "something is wrong with you." When girls hear it, they may internalize a belief that maleness is suspect.

It would be unthinkable today to conduct an experiment like Elliott's in a public school. But that doesn't mean we're not running our own social experiments, with equally high emotional stakes. We are shaping a generation of boys and girls with the messages we send—explicit and implicit—about gender, value, and morality. If Elliott taught us anything, it’s that these messages matter deeply, and that the harm caused by labeling can manifest quickly and painfully.

The solution is not to ignore harmful behaviors associated with male socialization, just as Elliott's goal was not to deny the reality of racism. But we must be precise in our language and compassionate in our teaching. We must separate masculinity from harm and focus instead on the specific actions and attitudes that cause damage—regardless of gender. Otherwise, we risk constructing a new hierarchy of virtue that punishes half the population simply for being born male.

In a world that claims to value inclusion, compassion, and equality, we must remember that these ideals apply to everyone. Boys and men are not exceptions. The path forward lies not in moral condemnation but in understanding, dialogue, and a shared commitment to human dignity—blue eyes, brown eyes, male or female.

Read full Article
May 11, 2025
post photo preview
Time to Act: 15 Ways Maryland Can Support Its Boys and Men

For too long, the challenges faced by boys and men in Maryland have been overlooked. From distorted media portrayals to cultural narratives that paint masculinity as a problem, boys and men are often viewed through a lens of suspicion or deficit. In late April, I presented the following 15 ideas to the Governor’s staff—not a list of services or budget items, but focused proposals aimed at improving the public image and cultural understanding of boys and men in our state. These ideas are about restoring balance, affirming the value of boys and men, and challenging the negative stereotypes that continue to shape policy and perception. If we truly cared about them, this is where we would start.

I would love to hear any ideas you might have for additional items.


IDEAS

1. Using social media to share positive messages about boys and men
For example, on platforms like X.com, we could promote male-positive, research-based messages. I could assemble a group of experts on boys and men to contribute content—brief, impactful posts that could be shared by either the Governor or designated staff. Maybe like this:

 

2. Publish male-positive op-eds in Maryland newspapers
My team could write short, male-positive articles that the Governor could submit as op-eds to local newspapers. He could choose to take credit for the writing or cite the original sources—either approach would work. The key is getting these important messages into the public conversation.

3. Educate boys about the uniqueness of being male
Introduce age-appropriate lessons in health class, social media, or op-eds, that help boys understand what makes being male unique. For example, boys experience a surge of testosterone in the womb that shapes brain development and influences behaviors like play styles. Later, during puberty, rising testosterone levels can even reduce access to emotional tears. Helping boys understand their many biological differences can foster self-awareness, confidence, and a healthier sense of identity.

4. Father Facts - The Importance of Father Presence
Research has shown that fathers play a crucial role in their children's development. We are finding that many of the things that fathers do automatically with their children are instrumental in the child's development. Simple actions like throwing a child into the air, can aid in the child's later ability to navigate risks. Engaging in rough and tumble play has been linked to reducing future tendencies towards violence. Additionally, a father's role in setting limits contributes significantly to a child's development of empathy. Recognizing these impacts, and many others, can motivate fathers to be more involved with their children, driven by a sense of importance rather than guilt or shame. Dads Matter. These ideas can be shared via tweets, op-eds, in-service trainings etc.

5. Host a statewide essay contest in Maryland public schools
Launch an essay contest inviting boys to write on the topic, “The 5 Best Things About Being a Boy.” Winners could be selected at the school, county, and state levels, across elementary, middle, and high school divisions. Prizes might include a meeting with the Governor or having their essay published in the Baltimore Sun.

6. Distribute low-cost stickers with positive messages about boys and men
We could design simple, inexpensive stickers with messages like “Boys Are Good” or “Maryland Loves Men and Boys.” A local Maryland printer might be willing to donate a large batch—potentially thousands. These could be handed out to young students or used as small prizes and incentives. Students might compete to design the best sticker, and the winners would be used for distribution?

7. Explore donated ad space for male-positive messaging

Look into whether Maryland bus or train companies would be open to donating advertising space to promote positive messages about men and boys.

8. Helping Moms Understand Boys

With the rise in fatherless homes, it's more important than ever to help mothers understand their sons. This was the focus of my most recent book, and there’s so much that moms can learn that makes parenting boys easier and more effective.

What are the key differences between your sons and daughters—and how can you use those differences to better support your son while also making parenting less stressful? Boys often respond better to a different style of discipline and a different approach to handling emotions. When moms truly understand their sons, good things happen—for both of them.

9. Teach young men about the unique ways they process emotions
It’s an important but often overlooked fact that boys, even at a young age, process emotions differently. Teaching this concept can be incredibly beneficial for all boys. One approach is to share stories from cultures like the Dagura people of Africa, where men’s emotional responses are understood and valued differently. This helps boys see the diversity of emotional experiences. Another powerful way is to share stories of men overcoming trauma, such as how Michael Jordan healed after the murder of his father. These narratives can offer insights into emotional resilience and help boys understand their own emotional landscapes.

10. Launch a speaker series on boys, men, and masculinity
Create a speaker series focused on issues related to boys, men, and masculinity. If funding allows, these could be in-person events—but a more accessible and cost-effective approach would be to host them online. Virtual talks could be broadcast live, recorded, and then archived to build an online library of expert insights, available for ongoing education and outreach.

11. Calling Young Men: Share Your Voice
Invite boys and young men to send in short, 15-30 second videos answering this question:
What’s the toughest thing about being a boy today?

Too many boys grow up feeling like no one really cares about their struggles. Let’s change that.

This might allow our young men to speak up, be heard, and know they’re not alone. We’ll compile the videos and publish them to give boys a voice in a world that often overlooks them.

12. Create a Custom GPT Focused on Boys and Men
The technology now exists to upload books and articles into AI and have it answer questions based on that material. With a custom GPT, we can build a powerful tool that provides in-depth, accurate information about boys and men—grounded in trusted sources.

Even better, this tool can be customized to credit the authors and include links to their books or articles whenever their work is referenced. That makes it a win for both the public and the authors: people get reliable answers, and authors gain visibility and support. (I think you all know that I already started one for my books...ask it any question about men/boys and trauma/healing)

13. Encourage Maryland universities to develop Men’s Studies programs

Nearly all universities offer Women’s Studies programs—so it seems like a natural next step to create similar opportunities focused on men and boys. Encouraging Maryland universities to develop Men’s Studies courses or full programs would be a powerful way to foster deeper understanding of men, masculinity, and the male experience.

14. Consider establishing a Men’s Shed
The Men’s Shed movement, which began in Australia, has spread worldwide, though the U.S. has been slower to adopt it. However, the U.S. Men’s Shed Association is a great resource that could offer support. Men’s Sheds provide a space where men can gather, work on projects, or simply relax—whether cooking, watching TV, or enjoying each other’s company. It’s a unique opportunity to create a dedicated place for men to connect and engage in meaningful activities.

15. Begin the process of establishing a Commission for Men and Boys
Maryland has had a Commission for Women and Girls since the 1970s, but there is no equivalent body focused on the needs and challenges of boys and men. Creating a Commission for Men and Boys would provide a dedicated platform to address these issues and promote positive, research-informed policies. It’s a meaningful and necessary goal for greater balance and inclusion. (Actually this idea is getting started with some Maryland legislators expressing interest in sponsoring the bill.)

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