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

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.

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.