MenAreGood
6 Things the Mental Health Industry Gets Wrong About Men
August 27, 2025
post photo preview

Preface: The Double Bind Men Face

In a previous post, we looked at how men are often excluded from help when they appear dependent. Our focus was on culture—how society expects men to remain independent, and how men who fail to meet that standard are judged as weak or less deserving of care. These judgments come from all directions—women, men, institutions, and even therapists.

It’s easy to see how this cultural default discourages men from seeking therapy. If help is only for those who admit weakness, and admitting weakness means you lose status, the path forward becomes nearly impossible. Most men learn early: always appear independent. Don’t ask. Don’t need.

Therapy, on the other hand, requires vulnerability. It asks men to reveal struggle, uncertainty, and emotional need. For many, that feels like walking directly into the line of fire—the very place they’ve been punished before. No wonder so many avoid it unless they absolutely have to.

What we’ll explore today is an added layer—one that comes from inside the man himself. Not just cultural messaging, but biological wiring. Men receive a double push: society tells them to be independent, and their biology—especially testosterone—echoes that same directive.

In the post below, we’ll take a closer look at how testosterone shapes men’s emotional behavior, especially in therapeutic settings. The more we understand what’s going on beneath the surface, the more compassion—and effectiveness—we can bring to the work of helping men heal.


 




6 Things the Mental Health Industry Gets Wrong About Men


We’ve built a mental health system that often misunderstands men.
Not because therapists don’t care, or because the science isn’t out there—but because many of the core assumptions about men’s emotional lives are built on a framework that fits women better than men. And that misfit? It drives men away. It leaves them unseen. And it often shames them for responding in ways that are biologically and psychologically normal for males. A 2011 paper by Eisenegger, Haushofer, and Fehr—The Role of Testosterone in Social Interaction—offers a major insight: testosterone drives status sensitivity, motivation, risk-taking, and protective emotional strategies. When we understand that, a lot of “male resistance” to therapy starts making sense. Here are six key things the mental health field gets wrong about men—and how we can do better.




1. “Men avoid therapy because they fear vulnerability.”

The truth: Many men avoid therapy because it feels like a status threat—and testosterone reinforces that instinct.

Testosterone heightens a man’s sensitivity to social threats—especially those that signal a potential loss of standing, respect, or dominance. Angry facial expressions, emotional pressure, unclear expectations, or even intense eye contact can feel like status challenges rather than invitations to connect.

Layered on top of that biology is a lifetime of cultural training. Most men grow up learning that independence is strength—and dependence is weakness. They’re taught to solve problems alone, not reveal them. Testosterone supports this stance by motivating status-seeking, autonomy, and competitive positioning.

So when a man is invited into therapy and asked to reveal his inner world, he’s not just being asked to share—he’s being asked to violate both his biology and his conditioning. What’s called “resistance” is often a natural response to a situation that feels unfamiliar, disempowering, and loaded with risk.

In those moments, you might see him:

  • Break eye contact and look down or away

  • Sit back, go quiet, or shift posture to reduce tension

  • Use humor to deflect

  • Say very little—not because he doesn’t care, but because the wrong move could cost him

This isn’t fear of vulnerability. It’s a biologically wired instinct to protect status in uncertain environments—amplified by a lifetime of being told that asking for help means you’ve already failed.

2. “Men are emotionally disconnected.”

The truth: Men often process emotion differently—testosterone shifts how they engage empathy, especially in high-stakes or competitive situations.

Research shows that testosterone reduces automatic empathy responses—like facial mimicry or reading subtle emotional cues—particularly in contexts that might involve competition or threat. That doesn’t mean men don’t care or don’t feel. It means their emotional systems are tuned to assess, not absorb, especially when status or safety is on the line.

Culturally, boys are often discouraged from emotional openness early in life. They’re rewarded for composure, strength, and staying in control. Over time, they learn to internalize emotion, rather than externalize it.

So in adulthood, especially under pressure, men may not “mirror” emotion in familiar ways:

  • He doesn’t match a sad face with a sad face

  • He misses subtle emotional cues unless they’re made explicit

  • He stays logical or matter-of-fact during emotional conversations

  • He may look emotionally “flat” when he’s actually carefully regulating or analyzing what’s happening

This isn’t emotional disconnection—it’s emotional management, shaped by both biology and lifelong social feedback. When we stop expecting men to respond like women—and instead tune into how they do engage—we start to see that empathy is there. It just speaks a different language.

3. “Men don’t trust easily because they’re guarded or cynical.”

The truth: Testosterone lowers baseline trust in uncertain situations—especially when status or vulnerability is involved.

Testosterone has been shown to reduce generalized trust, particularly in high-stakes or competitive settings. This isn’t paranoia or dysfunction—it’s strategic. In evolutionary terms, misplaced trust could mean defeat, betrayal, or loss of position. Testosterone prepares men to assess before they invest.

Culturally, this gets reinforced by repeated experience. Many men have learned the hard way that opening up too quickly can backfire—especially if it exposes weakness, emotional need, or dependence.

So when a man enters a new environment like therapy—or even a relationship conflict—he’s not defaulting to cynicism. He’s scanning for clarity, fairness, and safety.

You might see him:

  • Hold back emotionally, even when invited to open up

  • Look for hidden motives or question the process

  • Rely on himself rather than ask for support

  • Be slow to believe reassurance, especially if things feel emotionally tense

This isn’t distrust in you personally. It’s the biological and social consequence of having been trained—internally and externally—to protect himself from being taken advantage of.

Trust, for many men, isn’t the starting point. It’s the result of consistent respect, clear expectations, and earned safety over time.

4. “Real healing happens when you express your emotions.”

The truth: For many men, healing happens through action—and testosterone supports that path.

Testosterone isn’t just about strength or competition—it’s about drive. It fuels goal-directed behavior, reward-seeking, and persistence. That’s why many men don’t process pain by sitting in it—they process it by moving through it.

Add to that the cultural message boys receive from early on: emotions are private, not public. While girls are often socialized to verbalize and share, boys are encouraged to channel, contain, or convert emotion into something productive.

So when a man loses someone, faces failure, or hits a life crisis, he often doesn’t head straight for a therapist’s office or a tearful conversation. He heads for action.

You’ll see it in the man who:

  • Rebuilds the deck after his father dies

  • Launches a scholarship fund in his son’s name

  • Pours himself into work after a breakup

  • Withdraws to plan, repair, or restore a sense of control

These aren’t distractions from emotion. They are emotional expressions—just in a different form. In fact, research suggests that testosterone supports action-based coping and suppresses affiliative, emotionally expressive tendencies in competitive or high-stress situations.

And here’s something crucial:
Men don’t just take action for action’s sake. They often do it in honor of someone or something. A man builds the bench his father always talked about. He organizes a tournament in his son’s name. He finishes the project his friend never got to complete.

When action is combined with honoring, it becomes something more than coping—it becomes a ritual of healing. The doing and the remembering work together. The movement carries meaning.

If we keep insisting that healing must look like emotional disclosure, we risk invalidating the very real ways men already process grief, loss, and pain—through effort, honor, and purpose.

5. “Men’s silence means they’re emotionally shut down.”

The truth: Men’s silence is often a protective response—shaped by testosterone, experience, and emotional strategy.

Silence in men is one of the most misunderstood behaviors in therapy, relationships, and even friendships. It’s often labeled as avoidance, stonewalling, or disconnection. But more often than not, it’s something very different.

Testosterone enhances status sensitivity and threat vigilance—especially in social situations where expectations are unclear or the stakes feel high. In those moments, going quiet isn’t about disengaging; it’s about managing risk. For many men, silence is a way to preserve dignity, reduce the chance of saying something regrettable, or buy time to process complex emotion.

Culturally, boys are also taught to be cautious about emotional exposure. If you speak too soon, or too openly, it can be used against you. So many men learn that staying quiet isn’t failure—it’s control.

In these moments, you might see a man:

  • Go quiet during conflict, not out of indifference, but to keep from escalating

  • Look away or physically retreat when overwhelmed, not to disconnect, but to recalibrate

  • Say “I don’t know” when he actually means “I’m not sure how to say this without getting it wrong”

This isn’t emotional shutdown. It’s strategic silence.

And here’s the key: when that silence is met with respect instead of pressure, many men will eventually speak. But only after they’ve had time to feel safe, oriented, and prepared to respond on their own terms.


6. “If men just opened up more, therapy would work better for them.”

The truth: Therapy needs to adapt to men—not the other way around.

The prevailing model of talk therapy often assumes that emotional expression, verbal processing, and vulnerability are the starting point of healing. But for many men, that’s the end point—something that only comes after safety, trust, and shared purpose have been firmly established.

Testosterone plays a key role here. It supports behaviors that protect autonomy, status, and goal-directed action. It doesn’t reward emotional exposure unless that exposure serves a larger mission—like protecting someone, honoring a loss, or building something meaningful.

Culturally, men have been conditioned to associate emotional openness with dependency, and dependency with shame or failure. From early on, they’ve been taught that independence equals strength—and strength equals worth.

So when therapy immediately asks men to "share their feelings," it can feel like a request to abandon everything they've been rewarded for their whole lives.

That’s not resistance. It’s identity conflict.

If we want therapy to work better for men, we have to start where they are:

  • Use structure, goals, and action as entry points

  • Build trust through consistency, not intensity

  • Offer dignity and choice, not pressure

  • Make room for silence, strategy, and movement

  • Respect independence, even while inviting connection

Men don’t need to become less male to heal. They need a therapeutic space that honors how they already process the world.

Final Thoughts: What Happens When We Get Men Wrong

🎯
 

Each of these six points challenges a core assumption in the mental health world—and offers a window into something deeper.

Men aren’t broken because they don’t fit the standard therapeutic mold.
They’re different. And that difference is both biological and cultural.

When we ignore testosterone’s role in shaping how men respond to trust, status, emotion, and healing, we don’t just miss the mark—we risk pushing men further away from the very support we say they need.

It’s not that men are avoiding healing. It’s that healing, as it’s often framed, doesn’t speak their language.

But when we build bridges—when we respect silence, honor action, adapt expectations, and treat men’s instincts as worthy of trust—something changes.

Men show up.

They engage.

Not by becoming less male. But by being deeply understood as men.

That’s when therapy starts to work.
And that’s when our culture begins to shift—one man, one truth, one act of respect at a time.

community logo
Join the MenAreGood Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
0
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
Articles
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
August 07, 2025
Are Men Great of Good? Yes!

Time for a male-positive message. I created this video a while back, but its message remains as important and timeless as ever. I’d love for it to reach boys who’ve been told—explicitly or implicitly—that there’s something wrong with being male. After so much negativity about men and masculinity, they need to hear something different. They need to hear something true, strong, and affirming.

00:04:59
July 21, 2025
AI Books

We now have a new section that is accessible in the top navbar of the substack page titled AI Books. It contains links to numerous books on men's issues that each have an AI app that is able to answer detailed questions about the book. The above video gives some ideas of how to use these.

https://menaregood.substack.com/s/ai-books

The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell
Fiamengo File 2.0 Janice Fiamengo
Taken Into Custody - Stephen Baskerville
The Empathy Gap - William Collins
The Empathy Gap 2 - Williams Collins
The Destructivists - William Collins
Who Lost America - Stephen Baskerville
The New Politics of Sex -- Stephen Baskerville
Understanding Men and Boys: Healing Insights - Tom Golden
Boys' Muscle Strength and Performance - Jim Zuzzo PhD
Sex Bias in Domestic Violence Policies and Laws - Ed Bartlett (DAVIA)
The Hand That Rocks The World - David Shackleton

Links below

Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell

The Myth of Male Power - documents how virtually every society that survived did so by persuading its sons to be disposable. This is one of the most powerful books...

00:11:44

Something men seem to do all the time that women seem to find extreamaly unlikely or impossible.

Made me laugh!!

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1AKtUoYg8x/?mibextid=wwXIfr

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1FwqtFuR2Z/?mibextid=wwXIfr

I have often made this connection. It’s a little too on point to not research and derstand better. I am fairly sure there is something to it.

January 15, 2026
post photo preview
Why Would Boys Choose AI Over a Real Human?

It’s easy to blame technology. It’s harder to ask why a boy might feel safer talking to a machine than to a person.


Why Would Boys Choose AI Over a Real Human?

An article recently published by The Tyee raises alarms about boys and young men turning to AI companion chatbots for emotional support. The piece is framed as a thoughtful exploration of risk: misinformation, emotional dependency, radicalization, misogyny, and the danger of boys rehearsing their inner lives in the company of a machine rather than a human being.

On the surface, it sounds compassionate. Reasonable, even. Who wouldn’t want to protect young people from harm?

But when you slow the article down and look carefully at how boys are portrayed—what is assumed, what is omitted, and what is quietly feared—a different story begins to emerge. This is not really an article about boys’ needs. It is an article about adult discomfort with boys finding support outside approved channels.

And yes, there is misandry here—not loud, not crude, but woven into the framing itself.



Boys Are Being Explained, Not Heard

The article asks why boys and young men might be drawn to AI companions. That’s a fair question. But notice something immediately: no boy ever speaks.

There are no quotes from boys.
No first-person accounts.
No testimony that is treated as authoritative.

Instead, boys are interpreted through:

  • academic research

  • institutional language

  • risk models

  • public opinion polling

Boys are not subjects here. They are objects of concern.

This is a familiar pattern. When girls seek connection, we listen. When boys do, we analyze.



Male Emotional Life Is Treated as a Deficit

Early in the article, we’re told that boys face pressure to conform to emotional toughness, limiting their empathy and emotional literacy. This is a common trope, and it does important rhetorical work.

It subtly establishes that:

  • boys are emotionally underdeveloped

  • their distress is partly self-inflicted

  • their coping strategies are suspect

What’s missing is just as important.

There is no serious acknowledgment that boys:

  • are punished for vulnerability

  • are mocked or shamed for emotional honesty

  • quickly learn that expressing confusion or hurt can backfire socially

To me, it seems this omission matters. Boys don’t avoid emotional expression because they lack empathy. They avoid it because it is often unsafe.

AI doesn’t shame them.
AI doesn’t roll its eyes.
AI doesn’t correct their tone.
AI doesn’t imply that their feelings are dangerous.

That alone explains much of the appeal.



Male Pain Is Framed as a Threat

One of the most telling moves in the article is the escalation from loneliness to danger:

“Over time, isolation and loneliness may lead to depression, violence and even radicalization.”

This sentence does enormous cultural work.

Male suffering is not simply tragic—it is potentially menacing. The implication is clear: we must intervene, regulate, and monitor because these boys might become dangerous.

Notice how rarely female loneliness is framed this way. Women’s pain is treated as something to be soothed. Men’s pain is treated as something to be managed.

That asymmetry is not accidental. It reflects a long-standing cultural reflex: male distress is tolerated only insofar as it does not alarm us.



AI Is Cast as the Problem, Not the Symptom

The article repeatedly warns that AI companions provide a “frictionless illusion” of relationship. They affirm rather than challenge. They comfort without conflict. They validate rather than correct.

All of that may be true.

But the article never asks the most important question:

Why does a machine feel safer than a human being?

If boys are choosing AI over people, that tells us something uncomfortable about the human environments we’ve created:

  • schools where boys are disciplined more than understood

  • therapies that privilege verbal fluency and emotional disclosure

  • cultural narratives that frame masculinity as suspect

  • media portrayals that associate male grievance with moral danger

AI did not create these conditions. It simply exposed them.



The Misogyny Panic

At one point, the article imagines a boy frustrated in a relationship with a girl, and worries that a chatbot might echo his resentment and guide him toward misogynistic interpretations.

Pause there.

The boy’s frustration is immediately framed as a moral hazard.
His emotional pain is treated as something that must be challenged, corrected, or redirected. The girl’s role in the relational dynamic is never examined.

This is a familiar cultural rule:

  • men’s hurt must be monitored

  • women’s hurt must be believed

That is not equality. That is a hierarchy of empathy.



The Telltale Reassurance

The article includes this sentence:

“It is important to note that boys and young men are not inherently violent or hypermasculine.”

This kind of reassurance only appears when the reader has already been nudged toward suspicion. It functions less as a defense of boys and more as a rhetorical safety valve.

“We’re not saying boys are dangerous,” it implies.
“But we need to be careful.”

Careful of what, exactly?
Of boys speaking freely?
Of boys forming interpretations that haven’t been pre-approved?



What This Article Is Really About

Beneath the stated concern about AI is a deeper anxiety: boys are finding connection without adult mediation.

They are:

  • seeking reassurance without moral correction

  • exploring their inner lives without being pathologized

  • forming narratives without institutional oversight

That is unsettling to systems that have grown accustomed to managing male emotion rather than trusting it.

The solution offered, predictably, is not listening.
It is regulation.
Restriction.
Monitoring.
Expert oversight.

Boys are once again framed as problems to be handled, not people to be heard.



The Sentence That Cannot Be Written

There is one sentence the article cannot bring itself to say:

“Boys are turning to AI because they do not feel safe being honest with adults.”

If that were acknowledged, responsibility would shift.
Away from boys.
Away from technology.
And onto a culture that routinely treats male emotional life as suspect.



A Different Way to Read This Moment

From where I sit, boys turning to AI is not evidence of moral decay or technological danger. It is evidence of relational failure.

When a machine feels safer than a human being, the problem is not the machine.

The question we should be asking is not:
“How do we stop boys from using AI?”

But rather:
“What have we done that makes human connection feel so risky?”

Until we are willing to ask that question honestly, boys will continue to seek spaces—digital or otherwise—where their inner lives are not immediately judged.

And I can’t fault them for that.

Read full Article
January 12, 2026
post photo preview
How Gynocentrism Masquerades as Maturity, Empathy, and Love


How Gynocentrism Masquerades as Maturity, Empathy, and Love

One of the reasons gynocentrism is so difficult to challenge is that it rarely announces itself. It does not arrive as hostility toward men. It does not require anyone to say, “Men matter less.” In fact, it often appears wearing the language of virtue.

It looks like maturity.
It sounds like empathy.
It feels like love.

And that is precisely why so many decent, conscientious men live inside it without ever naming it.

1. Gynocentrism as “Emotional Maturity”

From a young age, boys are taught that maturity means emotional restraint. That part is not necessarily wrong. But somewhere along the way, restraint quietly turns into self-erasure.

A “mature” man is expected to:

  • De-escalate conflict, even when he didn’t start it

  • Absorb criticism without defensiveness

  • Yield when emotions run high

  • Take responsibility for relational tension

When a woman is upset, maturity means responding quickly and carefully. When a man is upset, maturity means questioning himself.

Over time, men learn a subtle rule:

If she is distressed, something must be wrong.
If he is distressed, he must be wrong.

This double standard is rarely stated outright, but it is widely enforced. Men who challenge it are described as immature, fragile, or emotionally stunted. Men who comply are praised for being “evolved.”

The result is not balance. It is a moral asymmetry.

2. Gynocentrism as Empathy

Empathy is meant to be mutual. But under gynocentrism, empathy becomes directional.

Men are encouraged—often relentlessly—to attune to women’s feelings:

  • to anticipate them

  • to prioritize them

  • to protect them

Meanwhile, men’s emotional experiences are treated as less legible and less urgent. A woman’s distress is seen as meaningful data. A man’s distress is treated as noise, defensiveness, or latent pathology.

Notice how often men are told:

  • “Listen to how she feels.”

  • “You need to understand the impact.”

  • “Her emotions are valid.”

And how rarely they hear:

  • “Your experience matters too.”

  • “You’re allowed to be affected.”

  • “Let’s be curious about what you feel.”

Men internalize the idea that empathy means placing themselves second. They become skilled at reading others while becoming strangers to themselves.

This is not empathy. It is emotional labor performed in one direction.

3. Gynocentrism as Love

Perhaps the most powerful disguise gynocentrism wears is love.

Many men come to believe that love means:

  • sacrificing without limit

  • suppressing their own needs

  • avoiding anything that might cause female discomfort

They learn that a good man protects the relationship by absorbing tension rather than expressing it. Harmony becomes the highest value—even when it comes at the cost of honesty.

What makes this especially insidious is that no one has to demand it.

Men assume it.

They assume that:

  • her needs are more fragile

  • her pain carries more moral weight

  • his endurance is part of the deal

So when a man goes quiet, he tells himself he is being loving. When he lets go of something that mattered to him, he calls it compromise. When he feels invisible, he frames it as strength.

Love, under gynocentrism, becomes a test of how much a man can endure without complaint.

4. Why It Feels “Normal”

Gynocentrism persists not because men are coerced, but because the assumptions feel reasonable.

After all:

  • Women do express distress more openly.

  • Men are often physically and emotionally stronger.

  • Conflict does escalate when men push back.

But reasonable observations quietly turn into unreasonable conclusions.

Strength becomes obligation.
Sensitivity becomes entitlement.
Peace becomes the man’s responsibility alone.

What began as care turns into hierarchy.

5. The Cost to Men—and to Relationships

The tragedy of gynocentrism is not just that men lose themselves. It’s that relationships lose honesty.

When men cannot safely express frustration, sadness, or fatigue, intimacy becomes one-sided. When men are praised for silence rather than truth, connection becomes performative.

Eventually, men either:

  • disappear emotionally

  • erupt unexpectedly

  • or leave quietly, confused about how love turned into loneliness

None of these outcomes serve women either.

6. Seeing It Is the First Step

The most important thing to understand is this:

Gynocentrism does not require bad intentions.
It thrives on good ones.

It feeds on men’s desire to be kind, fair, and loving—and quietly redirects those virtues into self-neglect.

Naming it is not about blame.
It is about restoring balance.

Because maturity includes self-respect.
Empathy includes the self.
And love that requires one person to disappear is not love—it is compliance.

Once men see this pattern, many feel something unexpected.

Not rage.

Relief.

Relief that the unease they felt had a name—and that fairness does not require their erasure.

Read full Article
January 08, 2026
post photo preview
The Reasonable Man


The Reasonable Man

Evan liked to think of himself as fair.

He listened. He adjusted. He didn’t raise his voice. When there was tension, he assumed he had missed something—some emotional nuance, some unspoken need. That, he believed, was maturity.

When his wife, Laura, came home upset from work, Evan canceled his plans without mentioning them. It seemed obvious that her day mattered more. When she criticized his tone, he apologized—even when he wasn’t sure what he had done wrong. If she was unhappy, the situation required fixing, and fixing required him.

This wasn’t resentment. It was love.

At least, that’s what Evan told himself.

When decisions came up—where to live, how to spend money, which friendships to maintain—Evan instinctively deferred. Laura had stronger feelings, clearer opinions. He told himself that intensity meant importance. If something mattered more to her, then it mattered more, period.

When his friend Mark complained about feeling sidelined in his own marriage, Evan felt embarrassed for him.

“You just have to be more emotionally aware,” Evan said. “Women carry more of that burden.”

Mark didn’t argue. He just looked tired.

At work, Evan was the same way. When female colleagues spoke, he nodded, encouraged, amplified. When men expressed frustration, Evan subtly distanced himself. He didn’t want to be that guy—the one who failed to notice women’s struggles. If there was a conflict, he assumed the woman had been wronged, even if the facts were unclear. Experience had taught him that neutrality was risky.

Better to err on the side of empathy.

At home, Evan grew quieter over the years. Not withdrawn—just careful. He edited himself mid-sentence. He learned which opinions created friction and which disappeared smoothly. He stopped bringing up his exhaustion. He told himself it wasn’t that bad. Other men had it worse.

When Laura once asked why he seemed distant, Evan froze. The question felt dangerous, like stepping onto thin ice. He reassured her quickly, explaining that he just needed to “work on himself.” She nodded, relieved. The conversation moved on.

Evan felt oddly proud of that moment. He had protected the relationship.

It wasn’t until much later—after a sleepless night, after rereading an old journal entry he barely remembered writing—that something shifted.

The entry was simple:

I don’t know where I went.

That sentence unsettled him.

He started paying attention—not to Laura’s emotions, but to his own patterns. He noticed how quickly he assumed women’s distress carried moral weight while men’s distress required explanation. How often he treated female discomfort as an emergency and male discomfort as a character flaw. How rarely he asked whether his needs were reasonable, and how often he assumed they were negotiable.

He realized something uncomfortable: none of this had been demanded outright.

He had assumed it.

He had assumed that women’s feelings were more fragile, more important, more deserving of protection. That men should absorb impact quietly. That harmony depended on male self-erasure. That good men yield first—and keep yielding.

Only then did Evan have a word for what he had lived by.

Not kindness.
Not empathy.
But a quiet, invisible prioritization—so ingrained it had felt like morality itself.

Gynocentrism.

He didn’t feel angry when he named it. He felt sad. Sad for how natural it had seemed. Sad for how reasonable it had felt to place himself last without ever calling it a choice.

For the first time, Evan wondered what fairness would look like if it included him.

And the question, once asked, refused to go away.

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