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

Mothers Raise Children - Fathers Raise Adults

It’s a saying that provokes strong reactions: “Mothers raise children; fathers raise adults.”
At first glance, it seems to box parents into rigid roles. But when you dig into decades of family psychology and cross-cultural research, you find something profound: fathers, in particular, have a special knack for cultivating traits that help children not just survive, but thrive in the unpredictable, sometimes harsh realities of adult life.

One of the most powerful of these traits is resilience — the ability to recover from setbacks, navigate stress, and adapt to challenges without falling apart. When we look at how fathers tend to interact with their children, a consistent theme emerges: they build resilience in ways that complement the secure base mothers provide.

Fatherhood and the Toughening Effect

Developmental psychologist Daniel Paquette coined a concept called the “activation relationship”. In this dynamic, fathers encourage children to explore new things, tolerate moderate risks, and push their limits — all while knowing there’s still a safety net.

For example:

• Fathers more often engage in rough-and-tumble play, which is both thrilling and boundary-testing. A father wrestling with his toddler is doing more than bonding — he’s teaching the child to handle excitement, physical contact, surprise, and frustration in a controlled environment.

• Dads frequently introduce novel or slightly challenging situations: climbing higher on the playground, trying a new skill, or confronting a fear like jumping into deep water. Each small push into discomfort helps the child build confidence and learn how to stay calm under stress.

Resilience Through Controlled Risk

One way to understand fathers’ role is through the idea of “safe risk.”
Research by Michael Lamb, Ross Parke, and many others shows that fathers tend to tolerate more risk than mothers do. Where mothers are more likely to caution or prevent, fathers are more likely to supervise from a distance and let the child test their boundaries.

This doesn’t mean reckless parenting — far from it. Instead, it’s a finely tuned balance:

Enough freedom to fail safely, enough trust to learn that setbacks don’t mean catastrophe.

Studies have found that children with engaged fathers are more comfortable with problem-solving, more willing to try new things, and more likely to persist through frustration. This “resilience training” is one reason father involvement predicts better coping skills in adolescence and adulthood.

Handling Rough Emotions

Resilience is not just about facing physical challenges — it’s also about managing emotional storms. Fathers tend to socialize emotions differently than mothers:

• Fathers are more likely to joke, tease, or playfully provoke, which helps children learn to handle mild embarrassment, mild frustration, or friendly competition.

• Fathers often demand more emotional self-control in play: a child who whines or melts down during a game may be gently nudged to “try again” rather than immediately comforted.

• This doesn’t mean fathers are cold — rather, they model that big feelings can be tolerated, expressed appropriately, and moved through, rather than avoided.

This aspect of fathering has been linked to better anger management, more adaptable stress responses, and lower rates of anxiety in children.

Cross-Cultural Evidence

This pattern is not just a Western phenomenon. In Fathers Across Cultures, Roopnarine and Hossain found that even in traditional societies, fathers frequently play the role of the “risk introducer” and limit-tester. Whether it’s Inuit fathers supervising ice fishing or Kenyan fathers encouraging bold climbing, fathers reliably push children to grow more competent in navigating real-world dangers.

A Secure Base and a Launch Pad

When psychologists talk about secure attachment, they often focus on mothers as the primary source of comfort. But many studies — including Grossmann’s work — show fathers often build a different but complementary attachment: one centered on exploration and adventure.

Together, mother and father offer two essential gifts:

• The secure base: warmth, safety, unconditional acceptance.

• The launch pad: challenge, freedom, resilience.

Children who have both are often better equipped to handle life’s inevitable setbacks and uncertainties.

Why This Matters Now

In modern times, fathers’ unique contribution is often overlooked. Social narratives reduce fathers to “helpers” or mere breadwinners, rather than recognizing them as essential resilience-builders. Yet the evidence is clear:

Fathers teach children how to fall down, stand up, and try again — the essence of becoming a capable, adaptable adult.

This matters now more than ever. Many of our most pressing cultural problems — from emotional fragility and school violence to chronic anxiety and identity confusion — can be traced back to fatherlessness. When children grow up without a present, engaged father, their chances of developing resilience, maturity, and self-regulation drop dramatically.

As families and communities look to raise children who can thrive in a fast-changing, often harsh world, understanding and supporting the role of fathers is not optional — it’s crucial.

In the End

The saying rings true for a reason:
Mothers raise children; fathers raise adults.
Together, they give kids the love to feel safe and the push to become strong.

This video is fatherhood in action. (Stories With Gui - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uBPmV15qmo?si=NhvBnNgqwzh49rZ-)

Watch how he doesn’t clear the path for his son — he clears the fear of trying again.

He steps over the obstacle himself, then lets his child struggle. When the boy tangles up, Dad lifts him back — but not to carry him across. He resets him so he can solve it alone.

Then he steps back, close enough to protect, far enough to empower.

The boy discovers a new way through — not by stepping over, but by going under. And when he breaks through, he runs straight into his father’s arms, stronger and prouder than before.

This is how fathers raise resilient adults:

• They let us fail safely.

• They teach us to try again.

• They show us that struggle is not punishment, but practice for life.

Mothers raise children. Fathers raise adults. Together, they raise humans who can stand on their own.

Men are Good and Fathers are essential

Key Studies & Recommended Reading

• Michael Lamb (Ed.), The Role of the Father in Child Development

• Ross Parke, Fatherhood

• Daniel Paquette (2004), Theorizing the Father-Child Relationship: Mechanisms and Developmental Outcomes

• Cabrera, Shannon, & Tamis-LeMonda (2007), Fathers’ Influence on Their Children’s Cognitive and Emotional Development

• Roopnarine & Hossain, Fathers Across Cultures

• John Snarey, How Fathers Care for the Next Generation

They All Lie

Every year, we see it in the headlines:

• “Iceland tops global gender equality ranking.”

• “OECD urges countries to close gender gaps.”

• “UN calls for more funding to achieve gender equity worldwide.”

Sounds fair, doesn’t it? A world where men and women both have equal chances, burdens, and protections. But scratch the surface, and you’ll see the truth: these powerful organizations measure “gender equality” in only one direction — where women are behind. Where men are behind, they look away.

Same Story, Different Logo

H​ere’s a very quick look at the major players:

The World Economic Forum (WEF)
Their Global Gender Gap Index famously ranks countries like Iceland as the most “gender equal” in the world. But what does it actually measure? How close women’s outcomes are to men’s — and that’s it. If women surpass men, no problem. If men fall behind — in literacy, suicide, dangerous jobs — not counted.

The OECD
This club of rich countries runs an annual Gender Data Portal. It tracks pay gaps, women in leadership, and girls in STEM. Does it track boys’ reading scores falling behind? Men’s soaring suicide rates? Men dying on the job? Not really. “Gender equity” means more women in boardrooms — not fewer men in morgues.

The United Nations (UN Women & Gender Equality Index)
The UN’s flagship Gender Inequality Index checks how far women lag in health, political power, and income. Nowhere does it penalize countries for boys dropping out of school or fathers losing access to children. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 5) are explicit: the goal is to “achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.”

The European Union (EU Gender Equality Strategy)
Same blueprint: get more women in tech, more women in politics, more women at the top. Men’s mental health? Boys falling behind in classrooms across Europe? Not a funding priority.

The World Health Organization (WHO)
When the WHO talks about gender, it means women’s reproductive rights, maternal care, and violence against women. Men’s shorter life expectancy or higher suicide rates are footnotes at best — or framed as burdens on family well-being, not as gendered injustices themselves.

What Governments Do​?

National governments follow suit. Canada calls its agency Women and Gender Equality Canada — but only funds programs for women and girls. The USA​ formerly had the White House Gender Policy Council for “women and girls.” The UK has a Minister for Women and Equalities — but no Minister for Men. ​There is actually an organization NACW whose mission statement says that they will "sustain, strengthen and advocate for women’s commissions​." It appears there are now over 200 women's commissions in the US while Men's commissions could likely be counted on one hand. When it comes to “gender,” men have become invisible.​

 

​These organizations have developed strategies to keep the focus on women and to avoid any focus on men. This is so universal that it is hard to believe it is not intentional and conscious. With the precise and consistent omission of any vulnerability for men, it makes it very hard to believe this is not a conscious choice on their part. The best way to understand their arrogant and narcissistic choices is to look closely at the ways they choose to present their data. That is what we will do now.

​

 

​Let’s take them one by one. First up: the WEF.

The World Economic Forum is the easiest to expose for its blatant bias against men. In their 2024 Global Gender Gap Report, they let the truth slip on page 67. (Hat tip to David Geary for uncovering this gem.)

“ Hence, the index rewards countries that reach the point where outcomes for women equal those for men, but it neither rewards nor penalizes cases in which women are outperforming men in particular indicators in some countries. Thus, a country that has higher enrolment for girls rather than boys in secondary school will score equal to a country where boys’ and girls’ enrolment is the same.

Ok, can you say “Own goal?” They’ve just admitted exactly what we’ve been pointing out all along: their Global Gender Gap report is only about women — it completely ignores any disadvantages faced by men and boys. When they talk about gender equality, what they really mean is more benefits for women. This is gynocentrism in its purest form.

But it gets even worse. On page 72 of the 2025 report, they make this stunning admission:

"healthy life expectancy the equality benchmark is set at 1.06 to capture that fact that women tend to naturally live longer than men. As such, parity is considered as achieved if, on average, women live five years longer than men."

What? Parity is achieved if women live five years longer than men? Seriously? They’re claiming it’s normal — even expected — for women to outlive men? Someone should remind them of a bit of history: women didn’t consistently live longer than men until medical advances, especially in maternal and natal care, dramatically reduced deaths related to childbirth. Before that, men and women generally had equally short lifespans.

Since then, women’s longevity has increased significantly thanks to targeted medical improvements, while men’s lifespans have also improved — but not by as much. The obvious solution is not to treat women’s advantage as “natural” but to invest more resources in men’s health and close the gap. Yet instead, they take the coward’s way out, pretending women’s extra years are somehow a biological given. It’s just another glaring example of their disregard for men’s lives.

Let’s now turn our attention to another major gynocentric advocate: the OECD. We’ll be examining their 2020 OECD Gender Equality report, which is featured on YouTube. I’ve created a video analyzing this report. If you’d like to watch the full video, you can find it here.

 

​Take a look at this chart. Notice how the pink balloons mark areas where men supposedly have "advantages" and are "doing better", while the blue balloons mark areas where women are "doing better". At first glance, this seems like a fair way to compare things — but let’s look closer.

 

By labeling men’s disadvantages as women’s advantages, the chart hides the reality that men face significant hardships. For example, look at the last blue balloon: it marks women’s so-called “advantage” of being less likely to be murdered. See the trick? They frame the fact that men are murdered far more often as if it’s some sort of benefit for women — neatly burying the fact that male victims even exist. It’s sneaky, and frankly, it’s deceitful.

At a glance, the chart suggests men and women have roughly equal advantages and disadvantages. But they’ve massaged the data to create this illusion. Take the first pink balloon — the one farthest from parity. It claims men have an advantage because they do less unpaid work. But when I checked U.S. data on unpaid work, I found that the difference is far smaller than the OECD figure they used.

I also noticed the balloons aren’t even accurately placed relative to the parity line. So I made my own version of the chart, which I believe is a bit more truthful. You can see it below. Now it’s clear: men’s so-called “advantages” are minimal, while women’s advantages — especially in the last three categories of less unpaid work, lower suicide rates, and lower homicide rates — are far more significant.

 

But even my version doesn’t fully expose the extent of their deceit. It turns out their original table used ratio data, which can distort how big or small a difference really is. ChatGPT pointed out that using linear data instead would show the actual distance from parity more accurately.

The chart below (from chatgpt) is based on that linear approach — and it reveals the truth much more clearly.

 

Now we’re starting to get a clearer picture of the true advantages and disadvantages. But we’re still not done. I asked ChatGPT to include a few key disadvantages for men that the OECD conveniently left out — specifically, deaths on the job and deaths in war — and to add these to the list of female “advantages.”

Take a look at the updated chart now:

 

And then I asked it to include genital mutilation and the so called "male advantages" all but disappeared:

 

I hope you can see now how the first OECD chart was hiding things in a most unscrupulous way. Before we go to the next organization I would like to share another way the OECD diminished men and held a steady focus on women. At one point in their report they examined deaths of despair. Unlike the other sections of the report this section did not break things down by sex. If they had it would have been unmistakable that men were facing a huge disadvantage. Can't show that. Instead they showed the data by country and compared the deaths of despair by country and not mentioning the sex breakdown. You can see this in the chart below.

 

After that, the moderator downplayed the significance of the 'deaths of despair,' suggesting they were not particularly important since they only accounted for 2% of all deaths and were typically linked to mental illness. At that point, the graphic below appears in the pink square in the bottom right corner:

 

For the short time that this graphic displays the moderator says the following "although almost four times more men than women die of deaths of despair, the number of women that fall victim to such fatalities has actually risen since 2010 in more than one third of OECD countries so there is some concerning pattern going on here that deserves much more research going forward."

Really? At least they admitted that 4x as many men die of deaths of despair but now they minimize that. She says that yes, men are more often dying from deaths of despair but there is a trend in the minority of countries that shows women's deaths of despair rising, so that should be researched! So the important thing is not that men are 4x more likely to die, it is that, "Oh no!" women's deaths are increasing in the minority of countries! Blatant disregard for men's lives.

Let's move on to the EU.

 

EU “Gender Equality” Is Anything But Equal

The European Union calls its Gender Equality Strategy “a Union of Equality.” Look at the logo, it seems to be both men and women. But scratch the surface, and you find something else: an official plan that sees “equality” as lifting women up — and pretending men’s disadvantages don’t exist.

Right from the first pages, the EU declares:

“The EU promotes gender equality and women’s empowerment in its policies.”

Fine. But where does it mention boys falling behind girls in school? Or men’s suicide crisis — which dwarfs women’s? Or fathers’ struggles in family court? Nowhere.

It defines gender-based violence as something that “is directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately.” Male victims are invisible by definition.

When masculinity is mentioned, it’s only as a problem to be “fixed”:

“Violence prevention focusing on men, boys and masculinities will be of central importance.”

In other words: men are a risk to manage, not a group to protect.

It promises to close the imaginary gender pay gap — but says nothing about men doing the deadliest jobs, with zero life expectancy benefit for all that risk. And when it comes to leadership and boardrooms, men are painted as the default oppressors.

Is this equality? Or a one-sided upgrade plan for women, paid for with men’s silence?

A real Union of Equality would help girls and boys, protect women and men, and close gaps in both directions. Until that happens, this strategy isn’t gender equality — it’s selective compassion in a fancy wrapper.

 

The UN’s Gender Inequality Index (GII) is widely cited as a global measure of progress toward gender equality — but if you look closely, it’s not really an equality measure at all. It’s a tool designed solely to track female disadvantage in three areas: reproductive health, empowerment, and labor market participation. Countries get a better score when women’s outcomes in these categories improve relative to men’s. But nowhere in the index is there any penalty when men face worse outcomes. So when boys underperform girls in education (which they now do in many countries), it doesn’t hurt a nation’s score at all. When men die by suicide at far higher rates than women, that gender gap doesn’t count. When men face higher workplace deaths, harsher sentencing, or greater homelessness, these realities are invisible to the GII’s math.

In effect, the GII is not an “inequality” index — it’s a female advancement index dressed up as an impartial measure of fairness. It rewards governments for improving conditions for women while ignoring areas where men suffer clear, documented disadvantages. This one-sided design skews public policy: it signals to leaders and donors that the gender problem is always about lifting women up, never about helping men when they fall behind. So billions flow toward closing “gaps” that only run one way. Until the UN acknowledges the full spectrum of gendered hardship — for men as well as women — its flagship index will continue to be a selective measure, promoting partial solutions under the banner of “equality.”

 

The World Health Organization (WHO) often frames itself as a champion of gender equality in health. But dig into their gender policies, and you’ll see that for the WHO, “gender” overwhelmingly means women’s health and well-being. Their gender strategies focus heavily on improving maternal care, preventing violence against women, and protecting women’s reproductive rights — all of which are important. But when it comes to men’s stark health disadvantages, the WHO tends to stay silent or treat men’s suffering as a side note rather than a gender issue worth tackling head-on. For example, men have consistently shorter life expectancies worldwide, higher rates of occupational injury, greater substance abuse, and far higher suicide rates — yet these trends rarely drive funding or targeted intervention the way maternal mortality does.

When the WHO does mention men, it’s often to point out how their reluctance to seek care negatively impacts families and communities — in other words, men’s poor health is framed as a burden on others, not as a human cost in its own right. This one-sided approach means men’s unique health risks remain under-researched and underfunded. True gender equality in health would mean acknowledging that both sexes have distinct vulnerabilities — and designing programs that don’t just lift up women, but also address the silent crises shortening men’s lives every day. Until then, the WHO’s “gender equality” remains an incomplete promise, built on selective compassion that too often leaves men out of the picture.

The Scorecard

 

The bottom line: These powerful institutions — from global think tanks to national governments — carefully craft and repeat a one-sided story. They use selective statistics, vague slogans, and cleverly framed charts to keep public attention fixed on the challenges women face, while systematically ignoring or minimizing the very real struggles of men and boys. As a result, the public is fed a comforting illusion: that “gender equality” is an unbiased, balanced goal steadily being achieved.

In truth, this narrative is built on selective compassion. When women fall behind, it’s treated as an urgent crisis requiring funding, laws, and campaigns. When men fall behind — in education, mental health, life expectancy, or family courts — it’s brushed aside, hidden behind technical language, or reframed as women’s “advantage.” This imbalance isn’t just an academic quirk; it shapes how billions of dollars are spent, how policies are written, and how generations learn to see gender fairness as a cause that only flows in one direction.

A truly honest commitment to gender equality would mean looking courageously at where both sexes struggle — and taking real action to close all gaps, regardless of who is disadvantaged. It would mean caring that boys now trail girls in school achievement across the developed world; caring that men die by suicide far more often; caring that dangerous jobs, war deaths, and social isolation disproportionately burden men.

Until these realities are openly acknowledged and addressed, “gender equality” will remain, at best, a half-truth — and at worst, a comforting slogan used to mask deep double standards and selective concern. Real fairness demands more than slogans. It demands the courage to see everyone’s burdens, not just the ones that fit a preferred narrative.