The Price of Needing Help: How Men Lose the Right to It

In a powerful essay on men and homelessness, Peter Marin put into words something most people never stop to see:

“To put it simply: men are neither supposed nor allowed to be dependent. They are expected to take care of others and themselves. And when they cannot or will not do it, then the assumption at the heart of the culture is that they are somehow less than men and therefore unworthy of help. An irony asserts itself: by being in need of help, men forfeit the right to it.”

Marin’s words capture an unspoken cultural law: a man’s value is measured by his independence and ability to provide—not by his humanity. This isn’t just a philosophical problem; it’s a practical one that plays out every day in men’s lives.

The Double Standard of Dependency

When women are in need, the language society uses is sympathetic—“vulnerable,” “at risk,” “deserving.” For men, the same situation draws terms like “lazy,” “weak,” or “failure.” That double standard is so ingrained that when a man reaches a point of real need—whether after a job loss, a divorce, a health crisis, or a mental breakdown—he is often met with judgment before compassion.

And this bias doesn’t stop at individual attitudes. It’s baked into how our systems are built:

• Domestic Violence Services – Shelters, funding, and awareness campaigns overwhelmingly target female victims. Male victims are treated as rare anomalies, even though research consistently shows that a significant portion of domestic violence victims are men.

• Suicide Prevention – Men make up the majority of suicide deaths, yet crisis messaging, outreach, and resources often use language and imagery that doesn’t resonate with how men process distress.

• Mental Health Services – Therapy culture often centers emotional expression in ways that align more naturally with women’s coping styles, leaving men feeling out of place or misunderstood.

• Divorce Court – Fathers asking for equal custody can find themselves treated as if they are asking for a special privilege rather than a natural right.

• Homelessness Support – Shelters for men are fewer in number, and services can be harder to access because their need is perceived as a personal failing rather than an unfortunate circumstance.

The Cost of Appearing Dependent

Dependency is seen as a violation of the masculine role. That’s why so many men mask their pain behind stoicism, anger, humor, or action—they know that if they show vulnerability, they risk losing respect, opportunities, and even relationships.

The tragedy is that emotional pain is almost impossible to express without appearing dependent. That means men are often forced into a no-win choice: suffer silently, or risk the stigma of asking for help.

One Man’s Story

Consider Mark, a 48-year-old father of two. After a factory closure, he lost his job of 20 years. The bills piled up, and the stress began eating away at his health. He started waking up at 3 a.m. with his chest tight, wondering if this was the heart attack that would leave his kids without a father.

When he finally called a suicide prevention line, the volunteer on the other end told him, “Maybe you should take some time off work.” She didn’t realize he’d been out of work for eight months. When he explained his situation, she gently suggested a men’s support group—only to discover there wasn’t one in his county. The nearest was 90 miles away.

Mark’s wife suggested therapy, but when he went, the counselor asked about his feelings toward his father and childhood rather than the urgent crisis of how to keep the lights on. Mark stopped going after two sessions.

Soon, he stopped asking for help altogether. “I felt like the more I said I needed help, the more I was proving everyone right—that I was a failure.”

Breaking the Iron Rule

Marin’s observation should make us uncomfortable, because it forces us to see the quiet cruelty built into our expectations of men. The irony he points out—that the moment a man needs help is the moment we believe he doesn’t deserve it—isn’t just about homelessness. It’s about domestic violence, suicide services, mental health care, the courts, and every system that assumes men should take care of themselves, no matter the cost.

Because the truth is simple: men don’t stop being worthy of help the moment they need it.

Why do Women Cling to Feminism?

There's a powerful force at play that binds both men and women to the belief that feminism stands for equality. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, public perception remains steadfast. This strong adhesive, I believe, is gynocentrism—an often unnoticed bias that influences both genders to avoid confronting the truth.

But what exactly is gynocentrism? It's the pervasive belief that women's needs, desires, and perspectives should take precedence. This societal tendency elevates women's experiences to a central position in discussions of justice, equality, and societal norms. Remarkably, many are unaware of this bias within themselves; it operates subtly yet significantly in everyday life.

Feminists, whether knowingly or not, have harnessed gynocentrism as a tool to shield their ideology from scrutiny. By framing their movement around the principle that women's well-being and viewpoints must be prioritized—a core tenet of gynocentrism—they've built an ideology that resonates not just with women, but also with men who unwittingly accept this framework.

1. Emotional Investment and Identity

Feminism offers an emotionally charged, identity-affirming cause that, for many women, becomes central to how they define themselves and their place in the world. Gynocentrism amplifies this by creating a cultural framework in which women’s experiences are not just important, but inherently more valid and deserving of attention than men’s. Within this framework, feminist ideology is elevated from a political stance to a moral imperative — a movement that feels inseparable from one’s personal worth and identity.

Because gynocentrism positions women’s struggles as uniquely significant, feminism is perceived not simply as one of many social causes, but as the cause — the rightful focal point of empathy, policy, and moral concern. This emotional elevation makes feminist beliefs harder to question, because doing so feels like a denial of women’s legitimacy or suffering. For women, this gynocentric framing allows personal grievances to be folded into a broader, sanctified struggle, making feminism both empowering and emotionally protective.

Men, too, are drawn into this framework. Socialized to prioritize women’s needs and seek moral approval through deference, many adopt feminist ideals not out of conviction, but out of a sense of duty or fear of moral condemnation. Biology also plays a role, as evolutionary pressures have shaped men to be caretakers and protectors, further reinforcing this inclination. In this way, gynocentrism doesn’t just support feminism—it shields it, fuels it, and emotionally compels loyalty to it, even in the face of contradictory evidence or unfair outcomes.

2. The Power of Groupthink and Social Reinforcement

Feminism thrives on social reinforcement, and groupthink plays a significant role in maintaining this ideological strength. In a gynocentric society, the idea that women’s perspectives should dominate is not only normalized but encouraged, creating an environment where challenging feminist ideals feels uncomfortable or even socially unacceptable. This dynamic is further amplified by women’s strong in-group bias—a well-documented psychological tendency to show loyalty, empathy, and moral deference to other women, often at the expense of fairness to those outside the group. In feminist circles, this in-group loyalty reinforces a collective identity centered on shared grievances and moral superiority, making dissent feel like betrayal. The power of groupthink is sustained by constant affirmation that women’s needs are paramount, and anyone questioning this premise risks social ostracism—or worse, being labeled a misogynist. This creates an atmosphere where individuals—especially men—find it difficult to voice opposition, as doing so is perceived not as a critique of ideas, but as an attack on women themselves and the gynocentric norms that have been so deeply entrenched in society.

3. Fear of Losing Hard-Won Progress

For many women, feminism is not just a political or social movement — they have been led to believe that it’s the framework that secured their rights, safety, and dignity in a historically male-dominated world. This association makes feminism deeply personal and emotionally charged. Gynocentrism reinforces this by framing women’s societal gains not merely as important milestones, but as personal validations of their identity and worth — making feminist progress feel inseparable from female value itself. It casts any challenge to feminist orthodoxy — even a measured critique — as a threat to women’s safety, freedom, or status.

As a result, the push to prioritize women’s rights over men’s is not just about fairness or equality; it becomes a reflexive act of self-preservation. For women who have internalized feminism as synonymous with progress and protection, any perceived rollback is existential. The fear is not just that rights might be lost, but that their societal value might be diminished.

Gynocentrism amplifies this anxiety by maintaining a singular focus on women’s needs, portraying them as the perpetual underdogs, regardless of social context or material advantage. This selective lens obscures male suffering, sidelines men’s rights, and downplays the unintended consequences of a one-sided narrative. In doing so, it creates an emotional and moral environment where any call for balance or shared empathy is viewed with suspicion — or even hostility — because it feels like a threat to hard-won ground.

4. Media and Cultural Narratives

The media and cultural narratives overwhelmingly reflect and reinforce gynocentrism, often framing women as the default victims and men as the default perpetrators. Feminism, which aligns itself with this framework, benefits from the widespread acceptance of these skewed narratives. Media portrayals of gender dynamics rarely include nuanced views on how both men and women can suffer from societal issues. Instead, they lean heavily on the gynocentric view that women’s needs—whether related to equality, protection, or support—should always take precedence. By embedding this perspective into the cultural psyche, feminism gains more followers and becomes harder to challenge.

5. Victimhood and Empowerment

Feminism often draws strength from a narrative of victimhood, positioning women as the oppressed group within a patriarchal system. Gynocentrism powerfully reinforces this narrative by casting women not only as victims, but as noble underdogs—vulnerable, morally righteous, and inherently deserving of society’s protection and focus. In Western culture, the underdog holds a revered place; their struggle evokes sympathy, support, and a moral imperative to act. Feminism thrives within this framing, as it leverages the societal instinct to champion the underdog and victim, to advance its ideological goals.By elevating women's struggles above all others, gynocentrism ensures that women's issues dominate the discourse, while simultaneously portraying any challenge to that focus as callous or regressive. This dynamic plays directly into feminism’s hands, enabling it to cloak itself in moral legitimacy while resisting scrutiny or balance. The victim-centric framing doesn’t just protect feminism—it empowers it, converting women’s suffering into a cultural rallying point that demands continuous attention and policy response.Meanwhile, men’s struggles are minimized or ignored, as their pain does not fit the underdog narrative gynocentrism upholds. As a result, feminism benefits from a cultural lens that shields it from criticism and maintains women’s narratives as central, unquestionable, and morally superior, while men are relegated to the margins of empathy and policy.

Gynocentrism not only elevates women's suffering—it also provides cover for open hostility toward men. In a cultural context where women are presumed morally superior and perpetually victimized, attacks on men are rarely seen for what they are: expressions of contempt, generalization, and at times outright hate. Feminist rhetoric that blames men collectively for societal problems is tolerated—even celebrated—because gynocentrism flips the moral lens. Where fairness would demand reciprocity and empathy for all, gynocentrism excuses misandry as justified outrage. Without this protective framing, the vilification of men that often occurs in feminist discourse would be seen clearly as morally bankrupt and socially destructive.

6. Unconscious Bias and Cognitive Dissonance

Feminism, when viewed through the lens of gynocentrism, creates a powerful cognitive dissonance for those who challenge it. Cognitive dissonance refers to the mental discomfort that arises when a person is confronted with information that conflicts with their deeply held beliefs or values. In this case, gynocentrism shifts the framework to one where women’s needs and experiences are always considered more important than men’s. When people are faced with information that contradicts this bias—such as evidence of men’s suffering—cognitive dissonance kicks in. It becomes difficult to argue otherwise without being labeled as misogynistic or unsympathetic to women’s issues. This bias makes it easy for people to ignore or rationalize evidence that challenges feminist ideas, because doing so would force them to confront the deeply held belief that women’s perspectives should always come first. As a result, cognitive dissonance leads many to dismiss the realities of male suffering—such as the high rates of male suicide or domestic violence against men—without any corresponding societal change, reinforcing the gynocentric framework.

7. The Sense of Solidarity and Collective Purpose

Feminism offers solidarity, a sense of purpose, and a collective identity for many women. The gynocentric framework supports this by positioning women as a collective group with a shared cause that is viewed as morally righteous. Feminism becomes more than just a political movement—it is a personal and communal experience where women rally around the belief that their needs are paramount and have been neglected by men. Gynocentrism ensures that this solidarity remains intact by consistently placing women’s rights and experiences at the center, leaving little room for other perspectives that might dilute or challenge this collective purpose.

8. Social Media and Confirmation Bias

Social media platforms, with their emphasis on viral content and quick engagement, amplify gynocentric narratives by perpetuating the idea that women’s voices and concerns should dominate. These platforms often create echo chambers where feminist ideas are not just accepted but celebrated, reinforcing the idea that women’s needs should always take precedence. Gynocentrism drives this reinforcement, making it difficult for people—especially men—to challenge feminist narratives without facing backlash. The confirmation bias that exists on these platforms further cements the dominance of the feminist narrative, as users are more likely to encounter content that supports the gynocentric view of gender dynamics.

Conclusion

Gynocentrism is not a side effect of feminist ideology — it is its lifeblood. It provides the cultural scaffolding that shields feminism from scrutiny, fortifies its moral authority, and ensures its dominance in public discourse. By placing women’s needs, perspectives, and grievances at the emotional and ethical center of society, gynocentrism makes feminism feel not like an ideology, but like common sense — even when its claims defy evidence or fairness.

This framing is so deeply embedded in our institutions, our media, and our social instincts that most people — including many well-meaning women and men — defend feminism reflexively, without realizing they’re defending a worldview that demands moral deference to one sex while marginalizing the other. The emotional, social, and psychological incentives to protect feminism are all reinforced by the gynocentric lens through which we view gender.

It also enables something more corrosive: the normalization of male-blame. Gynocentrism allows feminists to attack men collectively—assigning them guilt, privilege, or violence by default—without triggering the moral backlash such generalizations would provoke if directed at women. In this way, gynocentrism not only shields feminism from criticism; it also empowers it to wound others without accountability.

Until we recognize this hidden framework, genuine conversations about equality will remain impossible. So long as gynocentrism goes unexamined, feminism will continue to operate with cultural impunity, upheld by a society that mistakes favoritism for fairness and silence for justice.

The first step to restoring balance is to see the bias — and name it. Gynocentrism must be brought out of the shadows if we are ever to build a society where the needs of both men and women are heard, honored, and held to the same moral standard.

Men Are Good.

Why Is Masculine Maturity So Hard to Talk About Today?

In the early 1990s, you could walk into a bookstore and find entire tables devoted to the male journey. Robert Bly’s Iron John was a bestseller. Sam Keen, James Hillman, Michael Meade,​ Robert Moore, Richard Rohr — all were offering soulful, intelligent takes on what it meant to be a man. It wasn’t about domination. It wasn’t about “reclaiming power.” It was about emotional honesty, growth, and purpose. In other words: maturity.

Fast forward to today, and you’ll find… almost nothing. Talk about masculinity now and the conversation quickly turns to toxicity, privilege, or fragile male egos. Where once there was myth, poetry, and psychology, we now get slogans and shame.

Why did this happen? Why is masculine maturity such a neglected subject?

Here are a few answers — and a couple of stories that may help explain why the silence around men runs so deep.

1. The Cultural Suspicion Toward Masculinity

Over the last fifty years, masculinity has been treated less as a stage of growth and more as a problem to be managed. Many institutions — academic, psychological, media-driven — have become allergic to the idea that men might have unique struggles, let alone a need for support. Masculinity is often reduced to a stereotype: aggressive, emotionally stunted, dangerous. So it’s not surprising that serious explorations of mature masculinity are viewed with skepticism — or simply ignored.

I experienced this firsthand when I joined the American Psychological Association’s Division 51, the group supposedly devoted to studying men and masculinities. Initially, I was welcomed. A few of the men there had read Swallowed by a Snake, my first book, and treated me with respect.

But over time, it became clear this wasn’t a group focused on men. It was a feminist-aligned group focused on monitoring men. That would have been fine if it had also been balanced — but it wasn’t.

One moment still sticks with me. I asked the group — these were top psychologists, many regularly quoted in national media — if they had ever heard of Robert Moore, the Jungian analyst who literally co-wrote King, Warrior, Magician, Lover, one of the most influential models of the mature masculine ever created.

Not one of them had heard of him.

These were the gatekeepers of psychological discourse around men, and they had never encountered one of the most insightful thinkers on the subject. That’s when I realized: this wasn’t a field seeking to understand men — it was a field managing a narrative about men.

They later kicked me out of the group.

2. The Disappearance of Mentorship and Male Space

The maturation of men has always required something very simple but essential: older men guiding younger men. That doesn’t mean domination or militaristic hierarchy — it means real mentorship. Time together. Shared wisdom. A hand on the shoulder.

But today, male-only spaces are either disappearing or treated with suspicion. Most institutions that once created these bonds — churches, trades, father-son traditions — are either crumbling or feminized. Men don’t know where to go, and the culture doesn’t really care that they’re drifting.

3. The Mythopoetic Movement Was Shamed Out of Existence

In the 1990s, the Mythopoetic Men’s Movement made a serious attempt to give men a space to grow, reflect, and feel. Men gathered, sometimes in the woods. They drummed. They told stories. They cried. They got honest.

They did exactly what the culture — and women — had been begging men to do for decades: engage emotionally, get their priorities straight, and connect with other men in a non-competitive, supportive environment.

So what happened?

The media mocked them. Relentlessly. Headlines rolled out: “Men Go Into Woods to Beat Drums and Take Off Their Clothes.” Late-night shows made jokes. These men weren’t harming anyone. They were healing. But that seemed to frighten people — especially the idea that men were coming together in a community that wasn’t controlled or mediated by women.

Instead of being praised, they were ridiculed and dismissed. The movement, shamed out of existence, faded.

4. No Urgency for Male Development

When girls or women face emotional hardship, society responds — with programs, policies, and public empathy. But when boys or men face disconnection, despair, or aimlessness, the response is often: “Toughen up.” Or worse: silence.

There’s a deep-rooted empathy gap when it comes to men. The assumption seems to be that men don’t need emotional depth, spiritual development, or mentorship. They just need to behave. This assumption is not only wrong — it’s dangerous. Because without maturity, all you get is drift, anger, or collapse.

5. Fear of Being Labeled

Today, if you talk too much about men’s needs, you risk being labeled “anti-feminist” or “reactionary.” Even well-meaning men tiptoe around the topic for fear of being misunderstood. As a result, the public conversation is cautious, shallow, or entirely missing.

And yet, quietly, the hunger remains.

Men are looking for guidance — not from social media influencers or political ideologues, but from grounded voices who actually understand what male development looks like from the inside.

So Where Does This Leave Us?

We’re in a strange place. The world criticizes men constantly, but offers no real path to growth. It tells men to “do better,” but doesn’t explain how — or even what “better” means, other than being more like women.

Masculine maturity isn't about dominance, nor is it about submission. It's about becoming whole — integrating strength with compassion, solitude with connection, responsibility with joy.

That journey still matters. In fact, it may matter now more than ever.

And those of us who have walked part of that road — and seen its value — need to keep the conversation alive.

Even when it's inconvenient.

Even when it's mocked.

Even when it's lonely.

Because the silence around men has never been a sign of health. It’s a sign that something sacred has been neglected.

And it’s time we returned to it.