MenAreGood
2026 The Year of Men
December 29, 2025
post photo preview

This post is dedicated to my friend Mark Sherman, PhD., his sons, and his grandsons. Mark and I share a quiet hope — that we will live to see meaningful progress in the status of boys and men.

 


Every movement begins as an act of imagination. Before anything changes, someone has to picture what fairness would look like if we truly meant it. I wrote this piece to imagine that world — one where men are finally seen in full, with all their depth, strength, and vulnerability. Maybe we’re not there yet. But maybe 2026 could be the year we start to be.


2026 The Year of Men

Imagine that. 2026 becomes the year of men — a year when the conversation shifts from accusation to understanding. For the first time in half a century, men are discussed not as a problem to fix but as people to know. Their genius, their quirks, their flaws, and their quiet strengths are spoken of with the same nuance once reserved for others. College campuses devote programs to exploring men’s lives — their needs, their distinct ways of solving problems, their inner drives. Professors begin to ask questions that once felt off-limits: How have we misunderstood men? What happens when we stop pathologizing masculine traits and start appreciating them for what they are?

The change begins almost accidentally. A viral documentary follows several men through their daily lives — a father fighting for custody, a veteran mentoring fatherless boys, a young man navigating college under a cloud of suspicion.The film ignites something. People start talking about the thick wall of stereotype threat that has been built around men for the last fifty years, and how it quietly shapes everything — from the classroom to the courtroom. The wall doesn’t fall overnight, but it begins to crack.

Soon, the media joins in. Morning shows run thoughtful discussions about men’s emotional lives — how men experience feelings deeply but process them through action, purpose, and silence. Reporters highlight research showing that men’s stoicism, logic, and devotion to service are not deficiencies in empathy but expressions of it. Family court reforms begin to take shape; male victims of domestic violence are no longer turned away simply because they are male. It feels like a cultural exhale — the long-suppressed conversation finally given air.

At first, people are disoriented. After decades of being told that men’s pain doesn’t count, even fairness feels radical. But something shifts. Women, too, begin to see their fathers, husbands, sons, and brothers with fresh eyes. The conversation isn’t about blame anymore — it’s about balance. A new curiosity replaces old resentment. The year of men doesn’t erase anyone; it invites everyone to understand half of humanity that’s been caricatured for too long.

Could it happen? Could a culture so comfortable blaming men ever turn toward truly seeing them? Maybe not all at once. But every change in history begins the same way — with the simple act of imagining it.



What Changes During the Year of Men

The first signs of change come from the ground up. Teachers start noticing boys again — not as potential problems to manage, but as minds to cultivate. Schools experiment with programs that fit how boys learn best: movement, competition, hands-on projects, and purpose. Reading lists begin to include stories of male courage and vulnerability that go beyond superheroes or villains. Teachers are trained to see how boys’ energy isn’t disobedience — it’s engagement looking for direction. For the first time in decades, boys begin to feel that classrooms were made with them in mind.

On college campuses, the tone shifts from suspicion to curiosity. “Men’s Studies” — long a taboo phrase — finds a foothold. Seminars explore how fatherlessness, male shame, and status pressure shape young men’s mental health. Professors dare to say what was once unspeakable: that men have suffered, too. A handful of women’s studies professors even cross over, lending their voices to help create a balanced understanding of gender that includes both sides of the human story. The conversations are messy but alive — and that’s the point. Truth is finally allowed to be complicated again.

The media, too, begins to rediscover men. Documentaries appear about the quiet heroism of everyday fathers, about men mentoring boys in forgotten neighborhoods, about the millions of men who keep the world turning through labor, repair, and service. Morning talk shows, once filled with segments ridiculing male behavior, start inviting men to speak for themselves. The tone softens. People listen. A viral story circulates about a construction crew that raised money to send a coworker’s son to college after his dad’s death. “This,” one host says on air, “is masculinity too.”

Relationships begin to heal in small but powerful ways. Wives notice that when their husbands go quiet, it’s not distance but effort — a man trying to manage his emotions in the only way that feels safe. Sons start asking their fathers for advice again, and fathers rediscover how much they have to give. In counseling offices, therapists begin learning what clinicians have long said — that men process emotions through action, that their silence isn’t absence but presence in another form. Couples therapy starts to meet men halfway instead of treating them as defective women.

And then there’s mental health. The great unspoken epidemic of male despair finally becomes speakable. Instead of shaming men for not seeking help, society asks why the help offered has so little to do with how men heal. Clinics start experimenting with men’s groups centered around work, movement, humor, and camaraderie — not confession circles that make them feel judged. Suicide prevention campaigns stop using guilt and start using respect. The message shifts from “talk more” to “we see you.” And something remarkable happens: men begin to respond.




The Resistance

Of course, not everyone welcomes the Year of Men.
The early months bring a predictable storm. Certain media outlets call it a backlash. Activist groups issue statements warning that focusing on men will “set back progress.” Think pieces appear overnight insisting that “men already have enough,” as if empathy were a limited resource that must be rationed. A few universities cancel events after protests claim that discussing men’s needs “centers privilege.” But this time, something is different: the public doesn’t buy it. Ordinary people — men and women alike — begin asking simple, disarming questions: How is fairness a threat? How can caring for men possibly hurt women?

The resistance grows louder before it grows weaker. It feeds on fear — fear that empathy for men might expose hypocrisy, that the old narratives might not survive open scrutiny. For decades, the culture has run on a quiet formula: men are the problem, women the solution. Challenging that myth threatens a moral economy that has funded entire industries — from grievance studies to gender bureaucracies to the political machinery that profits from division. When men begin to speak, those who built careers speaking about men feel the ground shift beneath them.

In talk shows and social media debates, the same tired accusations resurface: that compassion for men means indifference to women, that noticing male pain is a form of denial. Yet the tone of the conversation has changed. This time, people have seen too much. They’ve seen fathers emotional pain outside family courts. They’ve seen male victims of abuse turned away from shelters. They’ve watched boys fall behind in schools that call them “toxic” for being active, assertive, or proud. The moral logic of exclusion begins to collapse under its own weight.

And then something unexpected happens: some of the loudest critics begin to soften. A few prominent feminists admit that they never intended for fairness to become a zero-sum game. Others, quietly at first, confess that they are mothers of sons — and they now see what men have endured through their children’s eyes. The resistance doesn’t disappear, but it loses its moral certainty. It becomes clear that opposing compassion for men requires something unnatural: denying reality itself.

The Year of Men doesn’t crush opposition; it transforms it. It doesn’t argue so much as invite. It reminds people that love of men isn’t hatred of women — it’s love of humanity. The movement doesn’t demand anyone’s permission to exist. It simply tells the truth with calm persistence until the shouting fades and listening begins again.



The Renewal

By the end of the Year of Men, something subtle yet profound has changed. The culture feels calmer, more honest, more whole. The anger that once filled every gender conversation has lost its fuel. People have begun to see men not as adversaries or caricatures but as essential parts of the human story — the builders, protectors, thinkers, and dreamers whose lives are as sacred as anyone’s.

The public learns what therapists have known for decades: that men’s silence is often love in disguise. That the man fixing the leaky faucet before anyone wakes is saying thank you in his own language. That the husband who works overtime, the son who restrains his tears at a funeral, the firefighter who risks his life for strangers — all are expressing something profoundly emotional, though the culture has lacked the ears to hear it.

In this new climate, men begin to relax their shoulders. They laugh more easily, reconnect with friends, and find meaning again in work, fatherhood, and service. Fathers feel free to be the masculine dad that they are, and boys no longer learn that masculinity is something to apologize for.

The walls that once separated men and women begin to crumble, replaced by curiosity, gratitude, and humor — the natural bonds of people who have finally stopped competing for moral high ground and started building a shared one.

Women, too, find a surprising sense of relief. Freed from the burden of constant grievance, they rediscover what they always loved about men — their steadiness, their generosity, their willingness to stand in harm’s way. The battle of the sexes gives way to partnership. In homes and classrooms and workplaces, people start asking a forgotten question: What are men for? And the answers are not defensive anymore. They are joyous.

By the time December arrives, commentators summarize 2026 as “the year empathy grew up.” It’s not the end of the story, only the beginning — the moment when society realized that healing half of humanity heals the whole. The Year of Men becomes not just a cultural milestone but a mirror, reminding us that progress isn’t about trading one group’s dignity for another’s. It’s about finally understanding that men are good — and always have been.

Men Are Good.

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