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
July 15, 2026
The Women's Health Narrative Meets the DATA

What if one of the most common claims in health policy simply isn’t true?

We’ve all heard the refrain: women are underfunded, under-researched, and left behind by the medical establishment. It’s repeated so often that most people never stop to ask for the evidence.

In this roundtable, Jack Kammer, Ed Bartlett, Ed Stephens, Jim Nuzzo, and I compare that narrative with the available data. We examine research funding, clinical trial participation, life expectancy, and the unintended consequences of policies that consistently prioritize one sex while neglecting the other.

This isn’t an argument against women’s health. It’s an argument for evidence, fairness, and a healthier future for everyone.

Link to the Feminist pdf that calls for 20 Billion dollars for women’s health!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IKEEZMGXtRNxU4n5K_M1d6k2w-ZP_wVT/view

Jim Nuzzo

The Nuzzo Newsletter on Substack http//jameslnuzzo.Substack.com
X: https://x.com/JamesLNuzzo

Jack Kammer

Jacks Substack Men’s ...

00:35:24
July 11, 2026
Mantoon: A Visit to the Doc

A visit to the Doc.

00:00:14
June 13, 2026
The Feminist Fortune Teller

Can you guess what she will say?

00:00:15
August 10, 2026
Feminism Cannot Be Reformed: It Must Be Destroyed Root and Branch

Janice Fiamengo’s new book is out, and this excerpt from the Foreword gives you a pretty good idea of what to expect. Janice goes straight to the heart of feminism and gives ample reasons for its demolition.

This is an important book. I hope you’ll get a copy for yourself—and maybe send one to someone who is even a little bit open to seeing the reality of feminism rather than the equality mask presented by feminists and so much of the media.

https://fiamengofile.substack.com/p/feminism-cannot-be-reformed

Well worth watch it’s good seeing men calling out women’s bull shit when the same women are not use to fair honest responses!

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1JtTnYLC7K/?mibextid=wwXIfr

July 02, 2026
From Shooter to Heroine: The Glorification of Feminist Violence

I recently joined Hannah Spier, Janice Fiamengo, and Jim Nuzzo for a fascinating discussion about one of our culture’s most striking double standards: why violence by women is so often explained, excused, or even celebrated, while violence by men is treated very differently. We examine Valerie Solanas, the attempted murder of Andy Warhol, the SCUM Manifesto, and the film I Shot Andy Warhol, asking what the celebration and romanticizing of Solanas reveals about gynocentrism, empathy, and cultural bias. I think you’ll find it both thought-provoking and eye-opening.

August 06, 2026
post photo preview
Maybe It’s Time We Invented a Few Words Too



Maybe It’s Time We Invented a Few Words Too

It is truly remarkable how feminism has been able to create words that bolster their ideology and simultaneously demean men. Some of these have been accepted by the general culture and have even become household terms.

Over the years we‘ve seen mansplaining, manterrupting, bropropriating, himpathy, misogynoir, kyriarchy, toxic masculinity, gender washing, leg hair harassment, and ​many others.

​These words have a double punch. They not only describe a behaviour, they also imply a motivation. For example, mansplaining describes a man who is explaining a phenomenom but it also carries the idea that he is doing this out of sexism, arrogance, or a desire to assert male superiority.

​So these phrases don’t merely describe a beahviour, they shape it.​ And underneath it lies the reality that these phrases are actually relational aggression in a more hidden form. Hurtful words that are easy to deny.

Once a behavior has a ​c​atch phrase ​attached, people begin to notice it everywhere. ​And sometimes it encourages people to agree with the feminist lens of its creator.

So I started wondering...Why ​not create a counterpoint? Perhaps it’s time the rest of us invented a few words of our own. Not because we need more labels​ and not because we revel in using relational aggression. But because satire often reveals something ordinary argument cannot.

Here are a few candidates.


Feministsplaining

 


the act of a ​f​eminist explaining something to a man in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner, without regard to h​is own expertise.




EmpathyGapping

 

​The act of offering compassion and empathy to everyone...except when it comes to men.



OvaryActing

 


Finding patriarchy in places where normal people would just call it a bad day.





NarrativeProofing

 

When all the data, even contradictory evidence proves the narrative is sound.




Herpocrisy

 

The remarkable ability to spot bad behavior in men while somehow missing the identical behavior in women.




TheoryWashing

 

When inconvenient facts show up, cover them with enough theory until nobody notices.





Patriarchoscope

 

A precision instrument used to locate patriarchy in any situation. Batteries never included. Confirmation bias always is.

Examples:

  • Boys failing in school? Patriarchy.

  • Men dying younger? Patriarchy.

  • Men committing suicide? Patriarchy.

  • Men working dangerous jobs? Patriarchy.

  • Men drafted into war? Believe it or not... patriarchy.


Of course, these definitions are satirical.

​Well, maybe....

The interesting thing about satire is that it exaggerates just enough to expose a pattern.

If you ​h​ad a chuckle while reading these, ask yourself why. Is it because the​y are ridiculous? Or because they ​are plausible? That may be the larger point.

The words we invent ​are not simply descriptive—they encourage us to interpret reality in particular ways. Maybe that​ is why creating new ​words has become such a powerful part of modern political and academic movements​?

So here’s my challenge. Can you invent a new satirical term?

Leave it in the comments.

Who knows?

If enough people use it, maybe one day some graduate student will cite it in a journal article.

Men Are Good

 
 
 
Read full Article
August 03, 2026
post photo preview
Seeing Men Clearly - Excerpt - Gynocentrism 2

Last week I shared the opening chapter of Seeing Men Clearly. This chapter introduces the central concept on which the rest of the book is built. My hope is not to assign blame, but to better understand the hidden forces that shape how we think about boys and men. As always, I welcome your thoughts.

 



What Is Gynocentrism?

The pattern described in the previous chapter has a name: gynocentrism.

The term is unfamiliar to many readers. It is sometimes misunderstood and often assumed to be accusatory.

Properly understood, however, it is neither an accusation nor a criticism.

As used in this book, gynocentrism refers to a cultural tendency to treat female vulnerability as morally primary. It does not mean hatred of men. It does not mean women are favored in all domains. It does not mean women never suffer injustice.

Rather, it describes a reflex—a hierarchy of concern that operates quietly beneath policy debates, media narratives, and social assumptions. When harm occurs, we instinctively ask: “How does this affect women and children?” We are often slower to ask: “How does this affect men?”

That asymmetry is not always conscious. In fact, it rarely is.

Not a Conspiracy—A Reflex

Gynocentrism is not a coordinated plot. It is not an organized agenda. It is not a secret doctrine taught in classrooms. It is a moral reflex that predates modern politics.

Its origins are open to debate. Some argue it reflects evolutionary pressures in which societies that protected reproductive capacity were more likely to survive. Others point to historical realities in which women were more physically vulnerable in violent environments. Still others emphasize psychological empathy biases that lead human beings to respond more strongly to those perceived as vulnerable.

These debates are worth having. But they are not central to this book. The central question is not origin. It is operation. What happens when a reflex becomes institutional default?

From Instinct to Structure

When a bias is widely shared, it begins shaping decisions without requiring coordination. It influences headlines, research questions, funding priorities, policy language, and perceptions of moral urgency. Over time, the reflex becomes structure. And structure often feels neutral. It rarely is.

If female vulnerability is treated as axiomatic, institutions will naturally become skilled at detecting and remedying harms affecting women. Male vulnerability, by contrast, will often require additional explanation before receiving equivalent attention. This does not require malice. It requires only default settings.

The Hierarchy of Urgency

Consider public reactions to harm. When women are victims of violence, the response is often swift and collective. Advocacy groups mobilize. Media attention intensifies. Funding initiatives follow.

When men are victims—even in substantial numbers—the reaction is often more muted. The suffering may be acknowledged, but it is less likely to be framed as a systemic moral emergency. The difference lies not in the worth of individual lives. It lies in the hierarchy of urgency.

Gynocentrism is the cultural gravity that helps create that hierarchy.

Why It Is Difficult to See

The hardest biases to recognize are often those that align with our moral self-image. Most people see themselves as compassionate. We celebrate protection. We admire sacrifice. We view concern for the vulnerable as a virtue.

When a bias appears in the form of kindness, it does not feel like bias. This is one reason gynocentrism often goes unnamed. To question it can feel like questioning compassion itself. But examining a reflex is not the same thing as rejecting it. It is simply asking whether the reflex should remain invisible.

The Question This Book Asks

The purpose of this book is not to argue that women should be protected less. It is to ask what happens when the protection of one group becomes the default moral frame through which all gender issues are viewed.

When that frame becomes embedded within institutions, predictable patterns begin to emerge. Educational practices may assume a single developmental model. Policies may allocate resources asymmetrically. Research may frame male suffering as secondary. Cultural narratives may normalize male disposability. These patterns are not random. They follow from the reflex.

Gynocentrism is not the enemy. Unexamined bias is the problem.

If we are serious about fairness, equality, and moral consistency, we must be willing to examine the hierarchies we have inherited—especially those that feel virtuous. The chapters that follow explore how this reflex operates in modern institutions. Not to inflame. But to illuminate.

 

We've seen how a hidden moral hierarchy can shape the way we respond to suffering. But how does that hierarchy become embedded in schools, research, laws, and public policy? In the next chapter, we'll explore how a cultural reflex gradually becomes an institutional reality.

Read full Article
July 30, 2026
post photo preview
When Research Pushes a Narative
What I Discovered After Reading Amerix Instead of Reading About Him



I recently read an article in the journal Men and Masculinities about a Kenyan health care worker and masculinity writer who goes by the name Amerix on X. The paper described him as an influencer with more than two million followers and expressed deep concern about what it saw as his misogyny and harmful influence on men.

I had never heard of Amerix. So before reading any further, I decided to spend some time reading his posts on X for myself. Here are a few:

1. Amerix
It is easy to blame your:
• Childhood
• Parents
• Tribe
• Government
It is much harder to accept responsibility for your own decisions.

The day a man stops looking for someone else to blame is the day he begins taking control of his life.


2. Amerix

Men,
A man who can:
- Cook
- Wash his clothes
- Clean his environment
- Organize his closet
- Mend & sew his clothes
- Budget his money

Cannot be manipulated by women.

Be this man!


3. Amerix

Men,
How to be a loser in life:
- Download TikTok,
- Start scrolling mindlessly,
- Ogle at naked women, laugh at shit videos & dumb jokes.

If you consume shit, you will become shit.


After reading dozens of posts like these, I found myself wondering if I had somehow landed on the wrong account.

What I found surprised me. I expected to find someone whose main focus was attacking women. Instead, I found someone consumed with challenging men.

  • Get healthy.

  • Stop making excuses.

  • Save your money.

  • Read books.

  • Learn a skill.

  • Exercise.

  • Build friendships with other men.

  • Take responsibility.

  • Become the kind of man others can depend upon.

What I found was a man who thought highly of masculinity and cared deeply about men who were struggling to find their place in a world that openly criticizes men as being toxic. He challenged them to stop making excuses, take responsibility, and work on themselves as men. I can’t remember hearing a comparable message from feminist writers directed toward women. Their emphasis has generally been on the obstacles women face, the ways society has failed them, and their claims of victimhood. Amerix’s message was very different. He held men accountable and urged them to become stronger, healthier, more disciplined, and more capable.

Why would millions of men and boys be drawn to someone like Amerix?

I don’t think it’s much of a mystery.

His message is remarkably simple: You matter as a man. Now get to work.

He challenges men to improve themselves while offering practical guidance on how to avoid the traps that derail so many lives. Beneath that challenge is another message—one many men have rarely heard—that they have value simply because they are men.

In a culture that casually speaks of toxic masculinity while rarely celebrating the positive possibilities of manhood, that message is powerful. Amerix tells men they have value, but he doesn’t stop there. He also tells them they have a responsibility to live up to that value.

Does Amerix talk about women? Absolutely. He has some strong opinions about women and repeatedly urges men to be cautious in their relationships. He encourages men to value themselves, maintain their own purpose, and not lose themselves in trying to satisfy every desire of a partner. I can understand why many feminists would object to some of his views. He is often blunt and sometimes makes sweeping statements about women. But after reading a number of his posts, I simply can’t say that women are the center of his work. They aren’t. Men are. His central project is encouraging men to become stronger, healthier, more disciplined, and more responsible.

Here’s one of his tweets about women:

Men, You are the driver of your bus. The bus is your life and the route is your purpose. A woman is a passenger in your bus. If you are a careless driver, she will alight. Don’t follow her. Improve your skill & keep going. Another passenger will board.

The paper concludes that Amerix’s message is ultimately dangerous. Here’s how the authors summarize their concern:

Amerix’s ideology thereby not only reproduces the experience of pressure, failure, depression and stress caused by the expectation to fulfil the role of the breadwinner (cf Schmidt 2024), but also fosters a sense of masculine entitlement among Kenyan men (cf Kimmel 2019) that, in case of ongoing lack of success, might produce feelings of rage and aggression. What presents itself as a form of self-scaling (Schmidt and Kibuye ) masculine repair might thus rather be a vicious cycle of destroying oneself, other men, society, and women.

I paused when I read that.

This is not merely a criticism of some of Amerix’s ideas about women or relationships. It is a much broader claim. The authors argue that his overall message of masculine self-improvement ultimately becomes “a vicious cycle” that destroys the man himself, other men, society, and women.

That is an extraordinary conclusion.

Extraordinary conclusions deserve equally strong evidence.

What surprised me was how little attention was given to the positive themes that dominate so much of his work—discipline, health, responsibility, purpose, and accountability. Those themes receive relatively little discussion, while the paper concludes that his overall message leads toward entitlement, aggression, and ultimately the destruction of oneself, other men, society, and women.

Then, a few pages later, the paper makes another striking claim: (emphasis mine)

Amerix’s suggested practices of masculine self-repair thus have three important
characteristics differentiating them from other forms of social repair. They are, firstly, not outward-oriented but practices of caring for one’s masculine self. They are, secondly, prone to paranoia because changing their masculine self will cause a change in how men see the world, namely as interlaced with feminist ideology and micro-practices that need to be uncovered and corrected. Lastly, masculine self-repair is considered self-scaling, that is small acts of (re)masculinizing are believed to cause changes in men’s relations to other people as well as cause the world to run according to its masculine nature again. According to Amerix, masculine self-repair therefore leads to a revelation of the fact that men live in a perverted world that can, however, be tilted back onto its masculine trajectory if enough men decide to repair their masculine selves.

Wait a minute.

The authors argue that Amerix’s message makes men “prone to paranoia” because they begin to see feminist ideology woven throughout modern society.

Really?

But that immediately raised another question in my mind.

If encouraging men to see feminist influence throughout society is said to foster paranoia, shouldn’t we also ask whether encouraging women to see patriarchy throughout society might produce a similar effect?

The point is not that either movement is necessarily paranoid.

The point is that the same psychological standard should be applied consistently.

If one worldview is examined for its tendency to heighten suspicion, then competing worldviews deserve the same scrutiny.

That seems reasonable to me.

This also brngs up a related issue. The authors seem upset that Amerix would make sweeping negative generalizations about women, Okay. But if they are going to take that route shouldn’t they also hold the same judgment against all of the sweeping generalizations about men that are made on a daily basis? Men are toxic, men are privileged, etc. I have never heard a feminist or feminist researcher hold themselves accountable in that manner. Have you?

I finished reading Amerix with a more positive impression than I expected.

I finished reading the paper with a more negative impression than I expected. Not because it criticized Amerix. But because I don’t think it gave an accurate representation of him.

Before we criticize anyone, we have an obligation to understand what they are actually trying to accomplish.

After reading both, I came away believing the paper understood Amerix’s most controversial statements. I’m not convinced it understood Amerix himself.

Men Are Good.

Amerix X account

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