MenAreGood
The War on Male Identity
July 01, 2025
post photo preview


Is This Brainwashing? How Feminist Narratives Mirror Thought Reform Tactics — and Target Men

By now, most of us have heard the term “brainwashing.” It usually brings to mind Cold War images of broken POWs or disturbing cult documentaries. But what if the most pervasive forms of psychological manipulation aren’t hidden in bunkers or religious compounds — but embedded in mainstream institutions that claim to promote justice?

Psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton, who studied Communist reeducation camps in Maoist China, laid out the classic framework for understanding brainwashing. In his landmark work, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, Lifton identified eight core mechanisms that coercive systems use to break down and reshape the self.

At the heart of it? A psychological attack on your identity — followed by shame, blame, and the expectation that you publicly confess and “rebuild” yourself according to the group’s ideology.

Sound familiar?

Over the past few decades, feminist ideology and their media and governmental allies— have used these exact tools to reshape how society sees men. Not just some men. All men. And nowhere is this more evident than in our schools, media, family courts, and even the criminal justice system.


First, Attack the Identity

Lifton observed that the first move in coercive thought reform is to undermine a person’s core identity — to instill doubt, guilt, and eventually shame. Today, men are told from boyhood that their nature is suspect. That masculinity is toxic. That their instincts, strengths, and even their emotions — especially anger — are part of the problem.

Being male is treated not as a biological or psychological trait, but as a moral flaw. Attack the identity.


Second, Shame, Blame, and Confession

Once identity is destabilized, the system demands confession. And modern institutions have become very good at this.

In HR meetings, classrooms, and even therapy, men are asked to “acknowledge their privilege,” to “own their part in the patriarchy,” and to pledge allegiance to ideologies that blame them collectively — not for what they’ve done, but for what they are.

Even worse, some of the most destructive institutions have absorbed this logic completely.


Family Courts and the Deadbeat Dad Myth

The family court system has long operated on a set of unspoken assumptions: that women are naturally more nurturing, that children belong with mothers, and that fathers — if they protest — are bitter, controlling, or dangerous.

When a man loses custody (which happens the vast majority of the time), he is then forced to pay for children he may barely be allowed to see. If he struggles financially — or dares to resist — he’s branded a “deadbeat dad” and possibly jailed. There is no presumption of innocence, no room for his story, and no empathy.

This is not justice. It’s reeducation by punishment.

Men are told that to be “good fathers,” they must obey, pay, and stay silent. They must prove they’re not what the system already assumes they are. That’s not family law. That’s psychological control dressed up in legal robes.

What we’re witnessing in the family court system is not just legal bias — it’s a full-spectrum psychological assault that mirrors Lifton’s model of thought reform. Fathers are stripped of identity (as protectors and caregivers), subjected to guilt and shame (for systemic outcomes they didn’t cause), and pressured into submission through confession and compliance. The state doesn't just want their money — it wants their silence, their obedience, and their internalized blame. In this way, the family courts don’t just separate fathers from their children — they separate men from their dignity and their purpose. It’s not just unjust. It’s indoctrination.


Domestic Violence and the Scripted Confession

Nowhere is the narrative more rigid than in the world of domestic violence policy.

For decades, feminist advocacy groups have dominated the public discourse and funding around domestic violence. The result? A cultural myth: that men are almost always the perpetrators, and women the victims.

This flies in the face of decades of peer-reviewed research — including dozens of studies showing that domestic violence is often mutual, that women initiate it just as often as men, and that male victims are frequently ignored, ridiculed, or arrested themselves when they call for help.

But the ideology doesn’t allow for nuance. The narrative is fixed: if you’re a man, you must be the problem.

Men entering anger management or court-mandated programs are often required to:

  • Confess their wrongdoing — regardless of the facts.

  • Accept their role as aggressor.

  • Admit they’ve internalized toxic masculinity.

  • Pledge to “do better” by adopting feminist-defined attitudes.

That’s not help. That’s indoctrination. The entire framework is built not on healing, but on ideological conformity.


Lifton’s Eight Mechanisms of Thought Reform Applied to Men


Lifton breaks down brainwashing into eight distinct categories, based on his observations and interviews with survivors of Communist Chinese reeducation programs in the 1950s. Disturbingly, many of these same tactics are now being used — intentionally or not — against men in today’s culture. Here’s a breakdown of how each of Lifton’s eight categories applies to the modern male experience.


 


1. Milieu Control

Control over communication — both internal (thoughts) and external (speech). Limits what the subject hears, says, or believes.

➤ Applied to Men:

Men today are surrounded by institutions — schools, workplaces, media, and even therapy — that present only one permitted narrative about gender: that men are privileged, women are oppressed, and masculinity is a problem to be corrected. Alternative voices are excluded, mocked, or deplatformed.

  • In schools, boys are taught about “male privilege” but not about male suicide, fatherlessness, or educational disadvantages.

  • In universities, “gender studies” often function as ideological echo chambers where dissenting views are considered harmful or even violent.

  • In HR departments, “equity training” frequently frames masculinity as a liability rather than a contribution.

The result? Men learn to silence their inner objections, to distrust their instincts, and to keep their mouths shut for fear of social punishment.


2. Mystical Manipulation

The ideology is presented as the ultimate moral truth. Group goals are divine, transcendent, or historically inevitable.

➤ Applied to Men:

The feminist worldview — especially its radical and institutionalized form — is not just presented as a viewpoint; it’s presented as a moral imperative. Dissent isn’t treated as reasoned disagreement; it’s treated as a moral failure.

  • “The future is female.”

  • “Patriarchy hurts everyone.”

  • “Believe all women.”

These slogans are not open to challenge. They carry the force of moral absolutes — as if opposing them is akin to opposing civil rights or basic human decency.

Men are told that redemption can only come through alignment with the ideology: renouncing their instincts, confessing their privilege, and proving their worth through ideological obedience.


3. Demand for Purity

Subjects must strive for an unattainable moral purity. Any sign of “impurity” is cause for guilt and self-condemnation.

➤ Applied to Men:

Being a “good man” today often means apologizing for being a man. Men are told that their masculinity is inherently toxic, their socialization inherently violent, and their very presence potentially threatening.

Even if a man is kind, respectful, and responsible, the system still implies that he benefits from a power structure that hurts women. He is never clean enough.

  • “Unlearn toxic masculinity.”

  • “Check your privilege.”

  • “Listen and do better.”

The purity demanded is impossible. The goalposts always move, ensuring men remain in a permanent state of moral inadequacy.


4. Confession

Subjects are encouraged or forced to confess past sins (real or invented) to reinforce guilt and dependence on the group.

➤ Applied to Men:

Men are pressured to publicly confess their complicity in systemic oppression. These confessions are often ritualized and performative, serving not to repair relationships, but to demonstrate submission to the ideology.

  • In court-ordered domestic violence programs, men are required to admit guilt even if the evidence is weak or contradictory.

  • In schools and corporations, “privilege walk” exercises and diversity sessions often push men to publicly acknowledge guilt for their race, gender, or upbringing.

This isn’t introspection — it’s coerced self-abasement. The more a man confesses, the more he is seen as redeemable — but only through compliance.


5. Sacred Science

The group’s beliefs are beyond question. The ideology is presented as absolute truth, not open to debate.

➤ Applied to Men:

Feminist theory — particularly as institutionalized in law, education, and media — is often treated as sacred and unchallengeable. Counter-evidence is not refuted — it’s ignored, ridiculed, or suppressed.

  • Men who cite peer-reviewed studies showing mutual or female-initiated domestic violence are dismissed.

  • Mentioning male educational decline, family court bias, or suicide rates is framed as “whataboutism” or a distraction.

  • Criticizing feminist narratives — even politely — is labeled as misogyny or “fragile masculinity.”

This ideological rigidity shuts down critical thinking, ensures conformity, and delegitimizes male perspectives.


6. Loading the Language

The group uses jargon and slogans to control thinking and shut down analysis.

➤ Applied to Men:

Language around gender has become ideologically weaponized. A handful of emotionally charged buzzwords are used to frame all male behavior as suspect — and all pushback as aggression.

  • “Toxic masculinity”

  • “Mansplaining”

  • “Deadbeat Dads“

  • “Male fragility”

  • “Microaggressions”

These terms are not neutral. They are thought-stoppers — designed to make discussion impossible and guilt automatic. Once a man is labeled, he is silenced.

This language also redefines common behavior (like confidence, assertiveness, or disagreement) as morally or emotionally defective — if it comes from a man.


 


7. Doctrine Over Person

The ideology takes precedence over individual experience. If personal reality contradicts doctrine, the doctrine wins.

➤ Applied to Men:

Men who speak up about false accusations, loss of child custody, abuse by female partners, or institutional discrimination are often ignored — not because their stories are implausible, but because they don’t fit the ideological script.

  • A man who’s been assaulted by a woman? He must be mistaken.

  • A father who wants shared custody? He must be controlling.

  • A male student struggling in a female-dominated classroom? He must just need to “try harder.”

His lived reality is invalid because the narrative says otherwise. The ideology is never wrong — only the man is.


8. Dispensing of Existence

Those who reject the group’s ideology are treated as morally inferior or even non-human.

➤ Applied to Men:

Men who resist ideological conformity are dehumanized — in subtle and not-so-subtle ways.

  • They’re called “incels,” “misogynists,” or “angry white males.”

  • Their pain is mocked. Their dissent is pathologized.

  • They are erased from public sympathy — excluded from empathy in media, policy, and law.

If a man questions the narrative, he is not just wrong — he is bad. And once labeled, he can be canceled, fired, or dismissed without remorse.


​ The Bigger Picture

Each of these mechanisms is powerful on its own. But together, they create a comprehensive system of psychological control — one that targets men not for what they’ve done, but for who they are.

This is not liberation. This is not equity. This is coercive persuasion, systematized and scaled through courts, classrooms, corporate policy, and cultural narratives.

It doesn’t need a prison. It doesn’t need a cult leader. All it needs is a story about men that no one is allowed to question — and institutions willing to enforce it.


What’s the Result?

We now have millions of men — fathers, husbands, sons — who’ve been subjected to a psychological system that demands shame, confession, and reprogramming. Their emotional pain is minimized. Their voices are silenced. Their identity is on trial — every day.

This isn’t just about political correctness. It’s not even about feminism anymore. It’s about control. The same kind Lifton described in totalist regimes. The same kind used in cults.

And it’s happening — quietly, efficiently — in courtrooms, classrooms, corporate boardrooms, and therapy sessions across the country.


Time to Name It

We need to start calling this what it is: coercive psychological control. Thought reform with better branding. Men aren’t broken. Masculinity isn’t toxic. But the system that wants to remake them — through shame, guilt, and forced confession — might be.

It’s time we stood up and said no. Not because we’re defensive. But because we know the truth:

No healthy culture builds itself by humiliating its men.

Men Are Good.


Please do share this post far and wide. We need to get the word out. Thanks for your help with this. Tom

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
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
November 19, 2025
The Relentless War on Masculinity

Happy International Men's Day! It's a perfect day to acknowledge the relentless war on masculinity? Here we go!

In this video I sit down with four people I deeply respect to talk about a book I think is going to matter: The Relentless War on Masculinity: When Will It End? by David Maywald.

Joining me are:

Dr. Jim Nuzzo – health researcher from Perth and author of The Nuzzo Letter, who’s been quietly but steadily documenting how men’s health is sidelined.

Dr. Hannah Spier – an anti-feminist psychiatrist (yes, you heard that right) and creator of Psychobabble, who pulls no punches about female accountability and the mental-health system.

Lisa Britton – writer for Evie Magazine and other outlets, one of the few women bringing men’s issues into women’s media and mainstream conversation.

David Maywald – husband, father of a son and a daughter, long-time advocate for boys’ education and men’s wellbeing, and now author of The Relentless War on Masculinity.

We talk about why David wrote this book ...

01:05:19
November 17, 2025
Cancel Culture with a Vengeance

Universities and media love to brand themselves as champions of free speech and open debate. But what happens when those same institutions quietly use legal tools to gag and erase the very people who challenge their orthodoxies?

In this conversation, I’m joined by two of my favorite thinkers, Dr. Janice Fiamengo and Dr. Stephen Baskerville, to dig into a darker layer beneath “cancel culture.” We start from the case of Dr. James Nuzzo, whose FOIA request exposed a coordinated effort by colleagues and administrators to push him out rather than debate his research, and then go much deeper.

Stephen explains how non-disclosure agreements, non-disparagement clauses, and mandatory arbitration have become a hidden system of censorship in universities, Christian colleges, and even media outlets—silencing dissenters, shielding institutions from scrutiny, and quietly stripping people of their practical First Amendment rights. Janice adds her own experience with gag orders and human rights complaints, and ...

00:57:23
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

A Gay woman explaining women and its very insightful!

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

It’s sad that it’s is this way. But she is right.

She is right and it’s going to happen

December 22, 2025
post photo preview
What Men Bring to Christmas


Women are often the heartbeat of the social side of Christmas — the cards, the gatherings, the baking, the presents, the details that make everything glow. But what men bring to Christmas is just as essential, even if it’s quieter and less visible.

Men bring structure. They’re the ones hauling the tree, hanging the lights, fixing what’s broken, driving through the weather, making sure there’s wood for the fire and fuel in the car. They create the framework that holds the celebration up — the unspoken foundation that allows everything else to happen.

They bring steadiness. When things get tense or chaotic — when someone’s late, or the kids are bouncing off the walls — it’s often the calm presence of a man that settles the moment. That quiet “it’s all right” energy grounds the room and restores a sense of safety and ease.

They bring tradition and meaning. Many men are the keepers of ritual: the same breakfast every Christmas morning, the drive to see the lights, the reading of ’Twas the Night Before Christmas. Their constancy ties the present to the past. It gives children a sense that they belong to something enduring.

And men bring humor — the kind that doesn’t just entertain but heals. When the wrapping paper piles up or the cookies burn, it’s a man’s grin or a playful remark that resets everyone’s mood. Men’s humor carries wisdom; it says, let’s not take ourselves too seriously. It reminds us that Christmas isn’t about perfection — it’s about joy.

Finally, men bring quiet joy. They find it not in the spotlight but in watching the people they love — a partner’s smile, a child’s laughter, the flicker of the tree in the dark. Their satisfaction is in knowing they helped create that warmth, often without needing credit for it.

When I worked as a therapist with the bereaved, I saw this again and again after a father’s death. Families would describe a subtle shift — not just grief, but a loss of containment. Without dad, things felt looser, more chaotic, less certain. The house might look the same, but the emotional gravity had changed. What they were missing was that quiet, stabilizing force men bring — the invisible boundary that holds the family together without needing to be named.

It’s one of the paradoxes of men’s contribution: you don’t notice it when it’s there, only when it’s gone.

Women make Christmas sparkle, but men make it stand. Together they form the harmony that makes the season whole — love expressed in different languages, both necessary, both beautiful.

Read full Article
December 18, 2025
post photo preview
Men's Strengths Are Treated as Flaws
Why the Masculine Way Keeps Getting Misunderstood

 


Why the Masculine Way Keeps Getting Misunderstood

I’ve been thinking lately about men and the quiet burden they carry in today’s world.
Not just the obvious burdens — responsibility, provision, protection — but something deeper and harder to name.

It’s the burden of being misunderstood in the very places where men are strongest.

And I don’t mean misunderstood in a poetic way. I mean misinterpreted, pathologized, and often dismissed — simply because men do things differently than women.

You see this most clearly with emotions. Men have a distinct, consistent way of handling feelings. It’s not random, and it’s not a flaw — it’s a pattern rooted in biology, social roles, and testosterone. But rather than recognizing these differences, the modern lens tends to treat the male way as “deficient.”

Women talk to process.
Men act or withdraw to process.

Women regulate through expression.
Men regulate through doing.

Yet the male way is almost never acknowledged as legitimate. Instead, it’s measured against a female template — and found wanting.

And once you see this pattern, you start noticing it everywhere.


1. Emotional Life: Men as “Defective Women”

We tell men that their way of dealing with emotion is wrong. Not just different — wrong.

When men get quiet, we call it “shutting down.”
When they problem-solve as a way to soothe themselves, we call it “fixing instead of feeling.”
When they regulate through solitude, we call it “avoidance.”

In other words, men are told they’re unhealthy if they don’t process emotions like women.

The absurdity is breathtaking: the male way of processing emotion works — and has worked across millennia. But because it doesn’t resemble the female way, it’s treated as defective.


2. Fatherhood: The Strengths That No One Sees

The same pattern shows up in fatherhood.

Fathers do certain things instinctively:

  • Rough-and-tumble play

  • Boundary-setting

  • Encouraging independence

  • Pushing challenge and risk in manageable doses

All of these have strong empirical backing as enormously beneficial for children, especially boys.

But fathers rarely get credit. Instead, their natural strengths are reframed as:

  • Too rough

  • Too distant

  • Not nurturing enough

  • Not “tuned in”

  • Toxic

Meanwhile the mothering style — relational, verbal, protective — becomes the default standard, and fathering is viewed as a flawed version of mothering.

But fathering isn’t “mom minus something.”
It’s a different, vital system.


3. Communication: Male Directness Pathologized

Men tend to speak more directly.
Shorter sentences.
Less emotional detail.
More focus on solutions, hierarchy, and efficiency.

This is not inferior communication — it’s optimized communication for male social structure and cooperation.

But in mixed-sex environments it’s often framed as:

  • Cold

  • Abrupt

  • Lacking empathy

  • Emotionally immature

Men’s communication works beautifully in the settings it evolved for — teams, tasks, crisis response, collaboration. But again, the female style becomes the gold standard, and the male style becomes the pathology.


4. Stress Responses: Women “Tend and Befriend,” Men “Fight, Focus, and Fix”

Shelly Taylor described how women handle stress: connect, talk, seek support.

Men, however, tend to:

  • Narrow their focus

  • Move toward action

  • Systemize

  • Get quiet

  • Scan for solutions

This is not emotional deficiency — it’s biology. Testosterone, competition, and precarious manhood all channel men toward action in the face of stress.

And these responses are what make men effective in crisis-intensive fields: firefighting, military, surgery, rescue work, engineering, construction.

But instead of recognizing this, the male stress response is labeled as repression.

Again: men measured by a female template.


5. Moral Psychology: Duty Recast as Toxicity

Men have a moral framework built around:

  • Duty

  • Sacrifice

  • Responsibility

  • Endurance

  • Protection

These are profoundly other-focused values — the moral foundation that keeps families and communities standing.

And yet today, we reframe these as:

  • Stoicism = unhealthy

  • Duty = patriarchy

  • Provision = control

  • Protection = toxic chivalry

The very virtues that once held society together have become targets.


6. Male Social Structure: Hierarchies Seen as Oppression

Male friendship and bonding grow out of:

  • Shared tasks

  • Friendly competition

  • Banter

  • Hierarchies based on competence

  • Cooperative shoulder to shoulder action

These are healthy, functional systems.

But modern culture calls them:

  • Bullying

  • Toxic

  • Aggressive

  • Immature

  • Exclusionary

Even hierarchies — which men rely on to keep group conflict down — are reframed as power structures that must be dismantled.


7. Male Sexuality: Normalized for Women, Pathologized for Men

Women’s sexuality is described as relational, emotional, expressive.

Men’s is described as:

  • Dangerous

  • Primitive

  • Immature

  • Objectifying

Men’s sexual wiring — visual, compartmentalized, spontaneous — is treated as a moral failing rather than a normal biological pattern.

Once again, the female pattern is the normative human pattern.
The male pattern is a deviation from health.


The Pattern Underneath It All

Here’s the core insight:

Any domain where men differ from women is reinterpreted as a domain where men are deficient.

If women communicate one way, that becomes the “healthy” style.
If women grieve one way, that becomes the “healthy” style.
If women bond one way, that becomes the “healthy” style.
If women parent one way, that becomes the “healthy” style.

Men become defective humans rather than fully developed men.

This is gynocentrism at its quietest but most powerful: the female mode becomes the normative template for being a good person, a good partner, a good parent, even a good human.

And anything that lies outside that template is viewed as suspect.


Why This Matters

Because men internalize it.
They feel awkward, confused and even ashamed of the very strengths that once grounded them.

  • The father who plays rough feels judged.

  • The man who gets quiet under stress feels broken.

  • The husband who solves problems instead of emoting feels scolded.

  • The young boy who competes or wrestles is told he’s aggressive.

  • The man who expresses duty is told he’s part of a system of oppression.

The message is everywhere:

“Be less of yourself.”
“Do it the women’s way.”
“Your instincts are suspect.”
“Your strengths are flaws.”

And the result?
Men stop trusting their nature.
And when men distrust their nature, they lose their anchor.

And we all lose something essential.


But Here’s the Truth

Men’s ways are not just legitimate.
They are necessary.

For families.
For communities.
For society.
For children.
For order and safety.
For stability.
For love.

We don’t need men to be more like women.
We need men to be fully and unapologetically men — and to be recognized for the good they bring.

And that starts with saying clearly and without hesitation:

Men’s ways aren’t deficiencies.
They’re strengths — and we should honor them.

Men Are Good!

Read full Article
December 15, 2025
post photo preview
Did CNN Lie About Boys?
The Study That Was Twisted: How CNN Turned “Exposure” Into “Toxic Masculinity”


The Study That Was Twisted: How CNN Turned “Exposure” Into “Toxic Masculinity”

In October, 2025, CNN ran a commentary by communication professor Kara Alaimo claiming that boys exposed to “digital masculinity” online have lower self-esteem, are lonelier, and that such content fuels offline violence against women. The problem? None of that is what the data actually show.

Alaimo based her argument on a Common Sense Media survey titled “Boys in the Digital Wild: Online Culture, Identity, and Well-Being.” After reading both the CNN piece and the full 88-page report, the contrast couldn’t be sharper. What she presented as a story of crisis looks, in the actual data, like a story of ordinary adolescent life — with a few predictable patterns and a lot of healthy boys.

What the Survey Really Found

The 2025 report surveyed 1,017 boys ages 11–17 across the U.S., asking about their online habits, exposure to “masculinity-related” content (posts about fighting, fitness, dating, or making money), and indicators of well-being such as self-esteem and loneliness.

Here are the key numbers:

  • 86 % of boys with “high exposure” ​to masculine themed content had normal self-esteem. Only 14 % showed low self-esteem — a small minority.

  • Over half reported feeling belonging and liking who they are online.

  • 68 % said this content “just appeared” in their feeds; they weren’t seeking it.

  • “Boys still embrace caring behaviors, with 62% believing in being friendly even to those who are unfriendly to them, 55% putting others’ needs before their own, and 51% caring about others’ feelings more than their own.”

  • Strong offline mentorship predicted the healthiest outcomes.

  • Fathers ranked highest as the most admired and trusted role models — more than celebrities, influencers, or athletes — showing that boys still look to their dads for guidance and identity.


In short, the majority of boys are fine. A small group shows some struggles. The strongest predictor of resilience isn’t censorship or re-education — it’s healthy offline relationships.

What the Survey Didn’t Measur​e

This part matters most: The survey never asked whether boys believed or endorsed the content they saw. It only asked if they had encountered it. Exposure does not equal endorsement.

Seeing a video about boxing, entrepreneurship, or dating advice says nothing about whether a boy admires or rejects it. Yet Alaimo’s article blurs that crucial distinction. She assumes that viewing equals internalizing — that the algorithm shows, and the boy obeys. That’s not science; it’s projection.

How CNN Distorted the Findings

Alaimo’s piece takes mild statistical associations and turns them into moral certainties. Here’s how:

  • What the report actually said: 86 % of high-exposure boys did not have low self-esteem.

  • What CNN claimed: “Boys with higher exposure have lower self-esteem and are lonelier.”

  • Why that’s misleading: It turns a small correlation into a blanket statement.

Here’s the image from the survey:

 

Note that the study itself said most boys had healthy self-esteem, and that 14% of high-exposure boys reported low self-esteem—which means 86% did not. Alaimo’s claim would have been accurate if she had written that a slightly higher percentage of high-exposure boys reported low self-esteem compared to moderate- and low-exposure groups. But she didn’t. Instead, she stated flatly that high-exposure boys have lower self-esteem. That isn’t honest reporting—it’s a distortion that misleads readers into believing the data showed something it didn’t. Here’s the quote from the CNN article:

 

She did the same thing with the loneliness issue. The survey showed that 70% of high exposure boys were not shown to be lonely. But this didn’t keep Alaimo from claiming that higher exposure to masculine content made boys more lonely. Here’s the graphic from the survey:

 

In another part of the article Alaimo says the following:

 

When you follow the link she labels as “my research,” there’s no actual study showing that negative messages about women and girls cause offline violence. The link leads instead to another article summarizing her opinions on the topic. While she refers vaguely to a “wide body of research,” none of the studies she mentions establish a causal connection between online content and real-world violence against women. In fact, the evidence she cites is general research on media violence, not on misogyny or social media behavior.

Alaimo seems intent on frightening parents into believing that if their sons spend time online, they’ll absorb misogyny like secondhand smoke—emerging damaged, insecure, and primed for violence against women. It’s a manipulative narrative built on fear, not evidence. What parent wouldn’t feel alarmed by such a claim? And yet, that fear is precisely the tool being used to steer boys away from open spaces where they might think and speak freely.

Here are some more distortions:

• What the researchers cautioned: “The study cannot prove causation.”
→ What CNN implied: Digital masculinity causes low self-esteem—and even violence against women.
→ Why that’s misleading: It ignores the study’s explicit caveats.

• What the study measured: Exposure, not belief.
→ What CNN wrote: As though boys automatically absorbed misogynistic messages.
→ Why that’s misleading: It substitutes ideology for data.

• What the report also noted: Online spaces provide connection, belonging, and skill-building.
→ What CNN left out: The most positive findings.
→ Why that’s misleading: It works to create a one-sided moral panic.


What the Study Actually Emphasized

The Common Sense Media team didn’t call for censorship or surveillance. Their conclusion was strikingly balanced:

“With thoughtful intervention from parents, educators, policymakers, and industry, we can help boys navigate these digital environments while maintaining the human connections essential to their well-being.”

In other words, mentorship matters most. They recommend encouraging offline friendships, sports, robotics, and other group activities — spaces where boys can build confidence and identity without online distortion.

Alaimo’s takeaway? By the end of the article, she does encourage offline group activities—but the damage was already done. Readers were left with the clear impression that the manosphere is a dangerous place. This fits neatly with what appears to be her larger goal: to discourage parents from allowing boys to engage with those online spaces and to steer them back toward environments where the narrative is safely controlled.

A Pattern of Ideological Storytelling

This is not the first time feminist commentary has blurred the line between seeing and believing, between association and causation.

It’s part of a broader cultural reflex: assume that anything linked to masculinity must be toxic. When an adolescent boy shows interest in strength, competition, or success, the narrative pathologizes it as “hypermasculine.”

But strength, drive, and mastery are not dangerous traits. They are the same impulses that lead boys to protect, to build, and to grow — when guided by good mentors.


The Real Story: Boys Need Connection, Not Correction

What the data actually tell us is simple and deeply human:
Boys are online, yes. Some of what they see is rough, crude, or confusing. But most are fine. What they need most are adults — fathers, coaches, teachers, uncles, community leaders — who can talk with them about what they see, help them think critically, and model a balanced kind of strength.

When commentators like Kara Alaimo twist research into another attack on masculinity, they don’t protect boys — they alienate them further. They feed the very disconnection the data warn against.

Bottom Line

The Common Sense Media report offers a nuanced view of how boys navigate digital life. The CNN piece that claimed to summarize it turned that nuance into ideology.

The study: “Most boys are doing fine; let’s support them.”
The article: “Masculinity is toxic; it’s making boys and women unsafe.”

That’s not journalism. It’s advocacy in disguise — and it’s time readers started calling it what it is.


Why Feminist Commentators Fear the Manosphere

When CNN commentator Kara Alaimo warned that “digital masculinity” is harming boys, her real anxiety wasn’t about boys at all. It was about control.

The loss of gatekeeping power

For decades, feminist scholars and journalists held near-total control over how gender was discussed in mainstream culture. University departments, newsrooms, and social-media policy boards all spoke from the same script: masculinity is a problem to be corrected; feminism is the solution.

Then the internet happened. Podcasts, YouTube channels, Substack pages, and online forums created an uncontrolled space where men could speak to one another about purpose, rejection, fatherhood, meaning​ and a host of other topics that were forbidden in traditional places. Some of those voices are clumsy or angry, but many are thoughtful and compassionate—addressing needs the establishment had ignored.

To academics like Alaimo, that independence looks like rebellion. What she calls “the manosphere” isn’t a hate movement; it’s a marketplace of ideas she can’t supervise.

Shaming as a tool of control

When direct censorship fails, moral shaming becomes the fallback. The labels—toxic, dangerous, extremist—are meant to end the conversation before it starts.
Alaimo’s CNN piece is a textbook case: she takes a mild statistical correlation from a Common Sense Media survey and turns it into a moral warning that “masculinity online” makes boys lonely and violent.

This isn’t social science; it’s social conditioning. The goal is to make boys feel guilty for showing interest in strength, fitness, or ambition—traits that once defined healthy manhood. Curiosity becomes complicity. Click on a video about discipline, and you’re suddenly part of a “radicalization pipeline.” It also sends a message to parents that they need to control their boys online activity or face his loneliness, low self-esteem, and violence.

Projection and double standards

What often goes unnoticed is how these writers display the very hostility they accuse men of harboring. They generalize, moralize, and treat half the population as a threat in need of supervision. When men question feminist orthodoxy, it’s labeled hate. When women condemn men collectively, it’s celebrated as activism.

This double standard isn’t born of hatred so much as fear—the fear of losing moral authority. The manosphere’s unforgivable sin isn’t misogyny; it’s disobedience.

The real reason the manosphere exists

Men aren’t gathering online to plot against women. They’re doing it because they’ve been shut out of the cultural conversation. Schools tell them they’re privileged; therapy often tells them they’re defective; the media tells them they’re dangerous. The online world, for all its rough edges, at least lets them talk back.

The healthiest parts of that space offer something our institutions once did naturally: mentorship, brotherhood, challenge, and purpose. Those are not extremist ideas—they’re human needs.

What this panic reveals

When writers like Kara Alaimo insist that masculinity itself is the problem, they reveal more about their ideology than about boys. The panic over “digital masculinity” is the sound of a monopoly losing its grip. As soon as men can define themselves without approval from the establishment, the establishment cries harm.

But the truth is simpler: boys are searching for models of competence and belonging, and they have every right to look for them wherever they’re found.

The path forward

We don’t need another crusade against masculinity. We need more honest conversation—without the gatekeepers, without the shame, and without the moral panic. Let the data speak, let the boys speak, and let men continue the long-overdue work of reclaiming a healthy sense of who they are.

M​en and Boys are Good

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals