A quick look at how compassion and choice for boys and men is more limited and why.
A quick look at how compassion and choice for boys and men is more limited and why.
Have you ever wondered how erroneous and misleading ideas are spread and maintained in our culture? Look no farther than a social work graduate textbook that errs by telling only a part of the truth. For more on the misandry in social work go here meninsocialwork.org
There is a popular text used in social work graduate schools titled American Social Welfare Policy: A Pluralistic Approach. It is meant to be an introduction to social policy in the US and give students a beginning idea of the state of our social welfare system. The parts I have read seem to be a tool of indoctrination that offers students a very one-sided view of issues. It pushes a liberal feminist agenda that is presumed to be gospel. Perhaps what it leaves out is more important than what it includes. Let’s look a little closer at that.
Yes, the book hammers away at the popular meme that poverty is the biggest problem facing our culture today with the idea that racism is a major factor in creating poverty. What does it leave out? The book ignores the issue of fatherlessness even though this issue has been revealed as foundational and at the root of poverty. If you don’t know, the research has shown significant father involvement seems to be a greater factor in many problem areas than poverty or better schools. In other words poor children with significant father involvement do better on numerous factors than wealthier children without dads. Getting fathers back into the home should be our #1 priority but sadly that is not even on the radar in this book. They simply don’t mention it.
The book quotes a nearly 20-year-old research study by Sara McClanahan about single motherhood but completely ignores the 2013 blockbuster paper by the same author that summarized the research on fatherlessness in the 2000’s. The paper astoundingly shows that fatherlessness is the #1 factor in so many of the social problems we face. This book was published in 2014 so this 2013 journal article was available at the time of publication as were the 60+ research studies the paper summarized. The title of the McClanahan article is “The Causal Effects of Father Absence” and reviews the numerous studies that lead one to see the causative nature of fatherlessness. That’s right, CAUSATIVE.
This is unheard of in social science research that typically relies on strong correlations. This is different. This research says fatherlessness causes the problems. This is huge, especially for social workers whose profession played a strong role in removing fathers from their homes. Starting in the 1960’s welfare payments were dependent on men not being present in the home. Yes, social workers were a party in enforcing that hateful policy. Fast forward to the 21st century when social workers are all too often taking the feminist stance and working in and condoning a biased family court system that favors mothers as caretakers after divorce which decreases the likelihood of father involvement. This is just another way to remove fathers from the home through no fault of their own. Shared parenting is the simple solution if we could only get beyond lawyers, feminists, and social workers who stand in opposition. This book, by ignoring the important role of fatherlessness is neglecting an important side of the story that these graduate students need to hear and discuss. That side of the story is simply omitted.
Perhaps the worst of the one sidedness is in the book’s chapter on discrimination with the portrayal of women as having been oppressed. The book places women in the same boat as blacks and gays. Now wait a minute. Blacks and gays have both faced a great deal of difficulties and hardships due to their skin color or sexual orientation. The book is putting women in the same boat? Um, nowhere near the same. Women have faced discrimination not due to being hated, but more often due to their rigid sex role which saw them as pure and worthy of protection. Traditionally women have been placed on a pedestal, not oppressed.
Try this on for size: “It’s as American as blacks and apple pie!” That doesn’t seem to work so well does it? Okay, how about “It’s as American as gays and apple pie!” Oooops, again, not so hot. Those two really don’t fit. How bout this “It’s as American as mom and apple pie!” Oh yeah! That is just right. Now tell me, why would a country oppress the ones who are the positive symbols of the country and are held up as beloved cultural icons?
American soldiers in Europe during WWII when asked what they missed were most likely to say mom and apple pie. That is apparently where this saying originated. It’s obvious that moms were beloved and held in very high esteem. When people use the phrase “As American as mom and apple pie” they mean to claim that both mom and apple pie are unassailable and universally beloved and agreed upon. No one would disparage moms and very few would disparage apple pie.
So the question boils down to why would a country oppress the very people it held up as their beloved heroes? Of course, the answer is they wouldn’t.
And it was because women were held in such high esteem that radical feminists were able to make the bogus claims to be “oppressed” and get away with it. No one would question mom. She was trusted and believed. This charade, which I think qualifies as the biggest lie of the 20th century, was not pushed by most women, it was pushed by a radical group of women who shoved on us the exaggerations of women’s oppression. Of course the worst of this fabrication was the blaming of men as being the ones who intentionally kept women down.
The claims of women being kept out of the workplace, banking, education etc., had some reality to it. Women have faced discrimination in our culture. It’s just not for the reasons the radicals portray. Men had striven for decades to allow women to be at home with the kids and not be sullied by what they considered to be the coarse nature of money, the workplace, or politics. They wanted women to avoid the coarse nature of those things and fulfill their biological imperative of having and loving their own children. The men were willing to sacrifice their own efforts in order to insure that happening. This was not meant as a way to keep women down, or restrict their opportunities. At this time most women liked the idea of having, raising, and loving their children and were grateful that the men took on the burden of providing the income and keeping them safe. I for one would love to have had someone take on the burden of creating income in order for me to stay at home full time with my children. My wife and I both worked part time in the 1980’s and some of the 1990’s to insure that one of us was at home with the kids at all times. We both sacrificed our careers in order to make this happen. I found that time to be the most joy filled and fulfilling time of my life. What a joy to have that uninterrupted time with those I love? It’s not hard to assume that women have traditionally felt the same sorts of joy. How much bitterness and ungratefulness would it take to transform this gift and label it oppression? Then blame men, the very people that had sacrificed to make that happen?
This “oppression” nonsense was thrust on a gullible population that would do anything they could to help women/moms. Imagine for just a second that fathers were to make similar claims. Just imagine men saying “We are oppressed!” Pretty funny eh? Dads were not, and are not in such an unassailable and lofty position as women. Would they be believed? No, they would be laughed at. But our country, like all western countries, jumps to gynocentric attention when women claim they are being tied to the tracks. People respond to help women. Just have a look at what congress has done for women over the last 50 years.
This book sports a 40-page chapter on discrimination. The largest section in the chapter describes discrimination faced by women. It’s almost 11 pages in length. In comparison gays got 4 pages and blacks got 5 pages. Since this book will likely be read by mostly white women I suppose they are playing to their readership.
The section on discrimination faced by women starts off with a sub-section on violence against women. It quotes a number from a research study that 1.5 million American women were victims of domestic violence. Here’s a great example of the book’s one-sidedness. What’s the important other side that they don’t tell you? It’s that the exact same study, the one the book quoted that claimed there were 1.5 million American women were victims of domestic violence, also found that 835,000 men were victims of domestic violence over the same period of time. But they didn’t say a thing about the men who were victims! By only printing the female number and not mentioning the men it leaves the reader thinking that this problem must be confined to women. We have known for decades that this is false, that men are a significant number of the victims of domestic violence but the media, academia, and the water cooler all fail to recognize this fact.
This is typical of this book and specifically this chapter. They are only telling one side of a very complicated story and by doing so leading the reader to false conclusions. This omitting important information and leaving a one sided approach is not new to feminism. The early domestic violence activists did just that. One woman, Ellen Pence, the founder of the Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project, and author of an important early book on domestic violence said the following about her efforts in helping with domestic violence:
In many ways, we turned a blind eye to many women’s use of violence, their drug use and alcoholism, and their often harsh and violent treatment of their own children.
Why would Pence and her cohorts deny women’s violence and men’s victimhood? Why would they turn away from a woman’s violence towards her children? Good question but one likely answer is that getting funding for helpless women being beaten by burly men was much easier than trying to get funding for a crazed female beating her children or knifing her husband as he slept. If you mention men as victims it ruins the argument that men are the problem. When there is an innocent woman tied to the tracks legislators jump to attention. A man similarly tied? Not so much. People don’t care and the money is not there.
So we see the same pattern of simply ignoring the violence of women and the victimhood of men. Pence was one of thousands of people using this same technique. This left us with a cultural sense that domestic violence was only strong and abusive men beating innocent and defenseless women. This erroneous idea took form in 1994 when the US passed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) that focused on women who were victims and men who were perpetrators. If you have the idea in your mind that women are the only victims you now know that you have been hoodwinked and this graduate textbook simply keeps pushing the lies.
Another section discusses abortion and women’s reproductive rights. It talks about a woman’s right to choose and frets over whether she may lose those rights. What it does not discuss is the fact that women do indeed have choice but men have none. If the woman wants an abortion she can decide unilaterally to do so. If she wants the abortion and he does not, he is out of luck. He has no rights, no choice and just has to deal with it. Her body her choice, his child, her choice. Again, the book tells only one side of the story. The woman’s side.
There is a large section about the wage gap. This is stunningly ridiculous. The wage gap has been refuted by science for years. They know that the gap is a function of her choice of jobs and preferring employment that is not hazardous, dangerous or highly strenuous and that she is looking for flexible hours. This tends to lead her to jobs that pay less. Her choice. This is worse than telling one side. Pushing the erroneous idea of a wage gap is making up a narrative that is simply wrong and having been disproven by science repeatedly. I suppose the narrative they are trying to create is more important than the truth. The book fails in telling both sides of the story. This error is a little more excusable since present day politicians continue to mouth this disproven idea in order to be re-elected and appear to be friendly to women.
There is another large section on female genital mutilation. Legislation was passed years ago outlawing all forms of female genital mutilation even those that are based on religious or cultural norms. They are all forbidden and outlawed. Some of the conversations are on women around the world who might face such genital mutilation. The side of the story they fail to tell is that male genital mutilation is the fourth most popular surgical procedure in the United States. Little infant boys are strapped down, against their will and a significant part of their penis is amputated usually just days after they are born often without anesthesia. I have heard nurses say that the little boys scream and keep screaming, sometimes for days. Many
uninformed people think this is just a little snip. Not so. The amount of skin amputated equals about the area of a post card once the man’s body matures. Even more people think this procedure is medically helpful. Wrong. The medical profession has sung this song before telling us incorrectly that male circumcision will help prevent, syphilis, epilepsy, spinal paralysis, bedwetting, eye problems, deafness, dumbness, tuberculosis, penile cancer, cervical cancer, and now HIV. The US is one of the few countries left that encourages this barbaric practice. This is a horribly painful procedure that is done to more than a million boys each year in the US and no one seems to know or to care. This book is only worried about one side. The women. It turns its back on the pain of these little boys.
I hope you are starting to see that both men and women are facing hardship and discrimination due to their sex roles. In fact, in some ways the female hardship seems mild compared to the males. Remember those young men, the soldiers who said they missed mom and apple pie? Nearly a half million of those young men died in WWII and they died due to their sex role that said they were the ones to go and fight. Why? Because they had a penis.
This book is a glaring example of how false narratives are spread and maintained. Do women have troubles? Of course. But I hope you can see now that men also have significant difficulties and these are ignored by professionals that claim to have compassion for all. It is obvious that they don’t and that they are only interested in one side of the story. The definition of bigotry is to only be interested in one group or your own group. I will let you be the judge how that may play out in social work today.
If you are a social work student or social worker, please complain today to your schools and let them know you won’t tolerate only hearing one side of the story. If you don’t, you will simply get the same narrative over and over again.
For more on the misandry in social work go here meninsocialwork.org
Twenty two veterans commit suicide every day in the United States. Every day. That’s twenty two too many. Want to do something about this? Good. Here’s what you do:
Do as many damn pushups as you can and make a video of your efforts. Post the vid online with hashtags #22kill and #22 if you did 22 pushups. If you did 53 the hashtag would be #53. Simple right?
Yeah, but how can this help?
Well, a group of veterans have started a global movement called #22Kill They are working to bring more awareness to the tragedy that has been slipping by most of us that so many of our veterans are dying from suicide. The idea of their work is to reach 22 million verified pushups. Not only will your pushups move their counter towards the 22 million goal it also sends a message that one more person out there cares about our vets and will take time out of their day to honor them and let them know you appreciate what they have done for all of us.
I admire this group for their efforts. They are using the masculine paths. That is, when men are met with difficulties and struggles they will less often join a support group and more often move to DO something that honors. It is through the action and the honoring that he is able to tell his story. One beautiful example of this is Michael Jordan, who moved towards action after the tragic murder of his father. We all know that Jordan quit basketball after his father’s death. We also know that he started playing minor league baseball in hopes of catching on at the pro level. This confused most of us, just as many of men’s healing paths tend to confuse most people. What we didn’t know at the time was that Jordan’s father always wanted him to be a baseball player and was not shy in telling Michael. So Jordan’s switch to baseball was an action to honor his father. He did it for his dad. Make sense?
Pushups can work in the same way. In fact, their instructions tell you to state your name and then say who you are doing the pushups for. This is connecting the action to honoring. This is healing.
I will be doing my 22 soon and will put it on youtube. I hope you will too.
It also needs to be added that 66 non-veteran males die each day in the US from suicide.
Book The Way Men Heal
Maryland Report on Suicide, Boys and Men
My thanks to Spencer for pointing this out to me.
I have long held that compassion and choice are two issues that play a part in nearly every men’s issue. But why? What do compassion and choice have to do with male suicide or male victims of domestic violence or just about any other men’s issue? Quite a bit actually. Let’s take a look at why compassion and choice are limited for men and then see how compassion and choice are essential ingredients to the issues.
The origins of the lack of compassion and
choice for men is gynocentrism. When you start to understand gynocentrism you will start to better understand the plight of men and boys. Gynocentrism at its most basic, is the mandate that women and children be kept safe and provided for at the expense of men. In other words, men are designated to insure the safety and provisions for women and children on an individual level, the family level, community level and on a macro level. This is not a totally bad thing. It has been what has created and maintained many cultures for millennia. As Stefan Molyneux says, “Eggs are scarce and sperm is plentiful.” This means we have needed to sacrifice our sperm in order to insure the safety of our eggs. Without women the culture dies a quick death. Women must be protected. Gynocentrism protects those who carry the eggs and does this at the expense of its men. This has been a very important element to our cultural success but it does come at a price.
One consequence of protecting the women is that the men will need to at times face danger. The women need to be kept safe and the men will protect the boundary and sometimes die in that process. Our human history of gynocentrism is longer and deeper than most assume. We think of the hunter gatherers as serene and bucolic but that was sometimes far from the truth and gynocentrism predominated. Research shows that some South American hunter gatherer groups faced huge numbers of deaths of their men protecting the women and children1. One group averaged the death of nearly 60% of its males in protecting the women from inter tribal attacks that were among other things, designed to steal the other group’s women! (the average for the groups studied was near 30% male deaths as a result of raids, ambush or larger scale conflicts) He who had the most women wins and these groups made a huge sacrifice of their males to insure they kept their women and children safe.
In its most obvious we can see how gynocentrism plays out when we note that men automatically and without question are the ones facing danger in our culture. Our war dead are nearly 100% male. Our deaths in dangerous occupations are 93% men. Our trashmen and sewage workers are nearly all male. The dirtiest and most dangerous jobs are jobs for men. No one questions this. It just seems right. This is the hidden power of gynocentrism. No one questions and no one notices. Hell, if women actually got equality to the above it would be a huge step down for them.
But gynocentrism runs much deeper than simply being about protecting the borders and doing the dangerous work. It has its tendrils into just about everything, silently and without fanfare. What happens when a woman has a flat tire? How many people have seen the help she will usually garner from men? Now think about what happens if a man has a flat tire. Does he get a similar treatment? Probably not. This is gynocentrism. When there are problems we jump to help women but expect the men to handle it themselves even in today’s atmosphere of “equality”.
What happens when a woman is upset and falls into a sea of tears? Pretty much the same thing as the flat tire. People hover to offer support and see what might be wrong and what they can do. But what happens when men fall into a similar sea? People ignore him and avoid him. It is almost as if a woman’s pain is a call to action while a man’s pain is taboo. Compassion offered to men is a fraction of the compassion offered to women.
There are a number of youtube videos that employ actors to portray men beating women in public. The women are shown to get immediate support and help from male onlookers who see the violence. They quickly jump to her aid not knowing it is an arranged scene. These same videos then reverse the roles and show the women beating men in a similar manner and no one lifts a finger, in fact, they laugh. This is gynocentrism. We expect to help the women and expect the men to help themselves. Note also that we allow women to be dependent but do not allow the same for men.
On an even simpler level think of a man and a woman at work who need to move some boxes from one location to another. Some are heavy, some are light. Who will be moving the heavy ones? It is a foregone conclusion that the man will most often move the largest boxes and will protect her from having to do hard labor. This is gynocentrism.
And then there is the question of attractiveness. When a woman is attractive she gets special perks simply due to her appearance. No man can come close to having a similar response. This is gynocentrism. The eggs are protected and the attractive eggs get very special treatment.
Think of that attractive woman being tied to the railroad tracks. What does that do to the hearts and minds of most people? Most of us have an inborn reaction that says DO SOMETHING to help her. But what about a man tied to the tracks? Is your reaction the same or different? Yes, you likely want to see him helped but is it the same gut wrenching sensation? The plots of many movies and novels are fueled by this gynocentric scenario. We all want the woman tied to the tracks safely released even if it means the death of numerous men in the process. A woman’s needs are a call to action while a man’s needs are often just ignored. He needs to save her!
Just think for a minute what would happen to a man in the military who started complaining that we needed to have more female war deaths in order to make things equal for everyone. How would he be received? All hell would break loose at this questioning of the gynocentric norm and disregard for the safety of women. We see something similar when the opposite happens and men voice their desires for equal opportunities for services for men in things like domestic violence. Those who stand up for the needs of men in our gynocentric culture are seen as misogynistic, that is, they are routinely accused of hating women simply for pointing out the needs of men. Can you see how the fuel for this is gynocentrism?
Another example of extreme gynocentrism is boot camp in the army. What is done? The recruit is taught that he is nothing. He is now not an individual, he is a part of a fighting group. His personal identity is deleted and he is taught to fight for the group, for a cause. He no longer exists. There is no compassion for his personal feelings and needs. Those are a distant second. He also has zero choice. He does what he is told. That is the extreme gynocentric model that plays out to one degree or another in our everyday life.
Do we care about the feelings of the woman tied to the tracks? Oh yes. Do we care about the feelings of the hero who rescues her? No. We care about his actions. His emotions are not important unless his feelings are about HER. Do we care about the emotions of the boot camp recruit? Nope. We care about his actions and what he does. His feelings need to be kept to himself. In the same way, under the gynocentric default we tend to care about the emotions of women but will be averse to the emotions of men. Our interest moves more towards his actions. Think about the last time you saw a woman cry in public. What was your reaction? Most of us want to help, want to offer support. We are drawn to her neediness. Now think about a man crying under the same circumstances you saw the woman. Are you as open to his tears as the woman? Most of us say no, we are not. We are repulsed by his neediness. The man is not expected to be needy, he is expected to have agency. If he is seen as needy he is judged harshly. This is gynocentrism.
These sorts of advantages for women have been going on for many years. In the 19th century men would strive to do the best job of keeping women safe and provided for. Just read their diaries and the diaries of their wives. These men put women on a pedestal. They thought of them as angelic and would try their best to not have them sully themselves with the grime of daily life outside the home. They worked hard to have them stay away from “dirty”things like the workplace or money. They did this because they saw women as worthy of protection (gynocentrism) and were happy to take on the extra burden in order to keep her safe. Then along comes feminism which makes the incredibly noxious and inaccurate claim that women were not held in high esteem at all, they were being oppressed. They took the protections that women had benefited from for centuries and spun them into being oppression. In my opinion this is the biggest lie of the 20th century and it has left a wake of chaos and vitriol. Women now actually believe themselves to be victims and that they have been shortchanged and oppressed. These are the same women who didn’t have to go to war, didn’t have to do the dirty work of building or maintaining the culture, were held in high esteem and basically worshiped (as American as Mom and Apple Pie) now see this as oppression. Houdini could not have done a more impressive magic trick.
So what do you think happened? It could be easily predicted that gynocentrsim would insure that when women appear to be in danger or need that men will jump and meet those needs as best they can. That’s the way both men and women are programmed. And that is just what happened. The feminists claimed to be tied to the tracks and rode, and continue to ride the gynocentric wave of men keeping women safe. Their unfounded claims that women were oppressed and held back have been taken seriously by well meaning highly gynocentric males, including male legislators. These claims of women being tied to the tracks and needing government intervention were welcomed by our gynocentric legislators who wanted to bend over backwards to help women. Over the years women have been given more and more while simultaneously continuing to enjoy the same gynocentric advantages they have been getting for hundreds of years. Our legislators have backed themselves into a corner and are now afraid to say no. They know that they have been hijacked but don’t have the courage to say no to saving a damsel in distress. Saying no would insure a loss in the next election.
This was the beginning of what I like to call Gynocentrism 2.0. The cultural imperative of caring for women continues and is now amplified by false claims of women having been oppressed. Simultaneously Gynocentrism 2.0 showed not only increased focus on the needs and desires of women, it also made a dramatic switch. Men in gynocentrism 1.0 were held in high esteem when they followed through with their role. They were both respected and admired and this was fuel for the masculine. Both sexes were held in high esteem. Now that fuel for men has run out as the admiration and respect has been gaudily replaced with disdain and blame. Incredibly, now men are seen as the problem and held accountable for social problems as if they were the cause. It is all the men’s fault. Much is said about men not doing very well these days but very few people note this important shift. When you don’t put fuel in the engine it ain’t goin too far.
In Gynocentrism 2.0 entire bureaucracies are built to serve women and cater to their difficulties but there are rarely any such bureaucracies built for men. The women are left with a choice of whether to seek help at a government funded facility (payed for with mostly male tax dollars) built for them while the men are left with no choices.
One of the best examples of this is the issue of domestic violence where we have known for decades that men are a sizable portion (likely nearing 50%) of the victims of domestic violence but all of the laws and services are built for women. We spend nearly a billion dollars a year for the Violence Against WOMEN Act (VAWA) that marginalizes the 50% of male victims. Recent research exposed the sad fact that when men who are the victims of domestic violence go to these government funded services for help they are treated very poorly. Often when the men are victims of domestic violence and they turn to the government funded services they are told that they are not victims of domestic violence, they are accused of being the perpetrators! They then send him to treatment for perpetrators! Researchers are calling this “third party abuse”, when the government bureaucracy as a third party, participates in the continued abuse of a victim. This is gynocentrism 2.0 which leaves no compassion for men and far fewer choices in seeking help.
I was involved in lobbying for male victims of domestic violence during the reauthorization of the VAWA in both 2005 and 2012. Our group was well received by then Senator Biden. He and his staff listened to our data and stories about male victims in several meetings at his Senate office. He assured us we would be a part of the hearings. When the hearing came not one of our group was allowed to speak. I couldn’t believe it. Biden was totally aware of the problem of male victims and intentionally sabotaged our efforts to find support for men. It was then that I realized how deeply our system is biased and non-functional. Gynocentrism 2.0.
It’s important to point out that our government has been pushing a gynocentric agenda for some time. In the 1960’s President Johnson set in motion the “War on Poverty” which proceeded to demand the removal of black fathers from their families in order for mom to get welfare. Now our family courts are doing something similar as they remove fathers from the home through no fault on the fathers part. The woman’s needs come first, father’s a distant second.
My state of Maryland created a Commission for Men’s Health a number of years ago. I was fortunate to serve as the vice chair of that commission and wrote three of the four reports that were to be sent to the governor. The reports I wrote were what I call “male friendly.” That is, they voiced and considered the needs of men without bowing to the prevailing political correctness. The chairman of the commission wrote the other report which was a bit more what the Health Department, our host agency, was anticipating. All four reports were unanimously approved by the full commission. When the commission’s work was done and it came time to file the reports to the governor and a host of other Maryland politicians and get them into the Maryland State Library the Health Department only filed the report that was written by the Chairman. They were confronted with this and said, “ooops, we will file it now.” But they didn’t. It took a year to track down the files and finally get them into the Maryland system. The full story of this event will be told in a chapter in Janice Fiamengo’s upcoming book. It couldn’t be more clear that when the needs of men were given voice, the status quo balked. It seems that our mid level bureaucrcrats are filled with gynocentrism 2.0.
I think you can see now how women’s complaints and our legislators zealous rush to help them have turned things topsy turvy. Rape shield laws have been written to protect the rape victims and this is a good thing. But those same laws failed to protect the accused man. His name can be released to the media prior to any conviction. Her name is permanently protected while his name is plastered all over the media and he has his life ruined simply due to an accusation which may or may not be proven false . Gynocentrism 2.0.
Another example is the issue of suicide where males are 80% of all completed suicides. (Chart above: rates are per 100,000 population from CDC WISQARS system.) Incredibly this 80% fact is rarely mentioned in the media leaving most people unaware that the biggest risk factor in suicide is being male. It is not surprising that females get the majority of attention around suicide both clinically and in research. This even though men are the vast majority of those needing help. In 2009 the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) did some research on suicide. I was shocked to see it was a study on girls! I wrote to then NASW Director Elizabeth Clark and asked why the research focused on girls when it was men and boys who were the vast majority of suicides. She wrote me back and said that the funder for the research had specified to only study girls. Just imagine for a moment someone who funded research for Sickle Cell Disease but stipulated the research had to be on whites. Can you imagine the outrage? Blacks are 60-80% of those with Sickle Cell disease and to study only whites would be seen as totally racist but somehow studying only girls and suicide is okay. That is gynocentrism.
Our gynocentric legislators have outlawed any form of genital mutilation of females but have failed to do the same for our baby boys. Boys routinely undergo a surgical removal of part of their penis without anesthesia. Of course the baby boys scream during and after this mutilation. Some nurses say they have seen baby boys scream for days after. Many are thinking today that this trauma creates PTSD for those males who have been circumcised and presently about four out of every 5 males in the United States has suffered this mutilation. Research is showing that psychological impact of circumcision on boys is similar to the psychological impact for girls who have undergone genital mutilation. This procedure is damaging our boys while most people think it is a simple little snip. Wrong. We care about our little girls but fail in mustering enough compassion for boys to shelter them from such barbaric treatment and we give them no choice. Gynocentrism.
In healthcare we have seen our legislators create seven national commissions for women’s health but none for men. We have official government web sites for womenshealth.gov and girlshealth.gov but just look at what happens when you go to menshealth.gov or boyshealth.gov. Nothing. You find a 404 page not found error. It does not exist. Get the picture? focusWhen anyone starts looking critically at our world it becomes clear that gynocentrism is at its core. We constantly hear criticism of men not going to the doctor, etc, but look at the lack of concern for men’s health. Yes, we have seven commissions for women’s health, but none for men. The one bill to create a national men’s health commission has been languishing in congress for over 20 years, with too few sponsors and a general lack of interest. You see this same lack of interest in not even creating a web site for men or boys. Women in need get the help, and men just need to take care of themselves while simultaneously being blamed for their plight. And no one is even aware this is going on. Gynocentrism.
Warren Farrell put together a group of clinicians, academics, researchers, authors and other experts on men and boys who wrote a proposal for a White House Council on Boys and Men. I was happy to be included as one of those who put the proposal together. President Obama had created a council for women and girls as soon as he got into office. Now he was being asked to do the same for boys and men. One of our group members, a man named Willie Isles was an executive with the Boy Scouts and had a meeting scheduled with the President. The plan was for Willie to have two Boy Scouts introduce the idea of the White House Council on Boys and Men to the President. Just before that meeting was to take place the discussion of a council for boys and men was struck from the agenda. It was forbidden to even be discussed. Gynocentrism anyone?
There is an anti-male bias in mental health research. One study on teen relationship violence found that boys and girls are suffering from this problem at similar rate. But once the research is translated into news articles it only focuses on the hardships the girls face. Worse yet, once the study is translated by legislators into an action plan to help the teen violence problem the only ones offered assistance are the girls while the boys are blamed. Yes, boys are abused but they simply don’t get compassion. Gynocentrism
In one study about childhood rape the researchers found that boys were more often the victims of actual childhood rapes than the girls. Then in writing up their research failed to specifically include this information about boys as victims of rape. Furthermore, when they went to the media they also failed to mention the fact that they have found that boys were raped more often than girls. Gynocentrism.
Title IX — Has been a great help to girls and athletics but has dismantled over 1000 men’s college teams. We focus on helping women but ignore the pain of men.
We have all heard of the racial sentencing bias where blacks tend to get stiffer sentences than whites for the same crime. But the research is telling us that there is a bias that is six times as large as the racial bias that sentences men to longer sentences than women. Yet, we hear nothing of this in the media and no one seems to care. Clearly the judges have less compassion for men and offer them far less choice.
I have seen a number of men in therapy who came to me when their wives wanted an abortion and they (the men) wanted to keep the child. The men were powerless to do anything. Can you see how these men had no choice in the matter? His wife said, “My body, my choice” and he said “My child, your choice, I have none.” He had no choice and if he had said something I feel sure he would have heard some variation of big boys don’t cry. Know what I mean? Can you see how no one really cares or offers them compassion for their plight? Compassion and Choice.
Look at men’s clubs and men’s spaces that have been traditional places for men to gather. Gone. They have been opened to women and not replaced with anything that would give men a safe place to simply gather with other men. Men gathering became the enemy with the accusation of secret deals that would keep women out of business dealings. At the same time all women’s clubs have soared. Women only gyms, women only parking places, women only subway cars, women only everything….but no comparable opportunities for men. There are even groups that keep track of all of the groups for women. One is The National Association of Commissions for Women which keeps track of the literally hundreds of commissions for women. That is gynocentrism 2.0 on steroids.
Instead of thinking of choice for men, the majority of our gynocentric culture are thinking instead the word “should.” Men should do this, men should do that and if they don’t, they are not really men. Most men are caught in this drama that researchers are calling “precarious manhood” where men are forced to prove their worth repeatedly in order to be called men. Women do not face a similar situation.
Professions are not immune to Gynocentrism. The profession of social work is a prime example. This group is focused on women and ignores the needs and the hardships of men. Their educational system offers classes on just about every possible client to work with including women, gays, handicapped, children but fails to teach their charges even the first thing about men and boys. This even though men and boys make up a good portion of the clientele they will be working with.
Our focus thus far has been on gynocentrism on the macro level. It is very easy to see the gynocentric imbalance in so many spheres. The point here is not that the services that have been created were not a good thing, or were undeserved. Many of the services offered have been very helpful to women and girls. The point here is that it has been a very one sided ride with nearly all the services going to women and girls, and the men and boys basically ignored. Men and boys have simply not gotten compassion and choice. Gynocentrism 2.0.
But let’s take a quick look at the impact of gynocentrism on a micro level. We have seen so far that the public has very little interest in men’s emotions. While that is surely true on a macro level it is also the case on the micro. What is the tired and hackneyed message that the some women offer her man? Oh, they say “You are not dealing with your feelings.” I hope you can see now that this sort of shaming is really an excuse to NOT deal with his emotions. Much has been written by gynocentric types about men’s not emoting in public, or men not emoting like women, while maintaining the underlying assumption that there must be something wrong with them. But almost nothing has been written about the brick wall men face when they do emote. When men have emotions people disappear. No one wants to hear it.
What I have seen repeatedly is that men have very different ways to process emotions. Ways that are invisible to most. They have likely developed these different ways due to the prevalence of gynocentrism and are happy with their paths to work with their own emotions and gladly take care of things on their own without fanfare and “help.” The saddest part of this is that most women simply do not see his different ways and assume he is “doing it wrong” since it isn’t like what she does.
Gynocentrism creates a cultural default both on a micro and macro level where women’s distress is a call to action and a man’s distress is seen at best as a distraction and at worst a taboo. This leaves men being offered considerably less compassion and fewer choices. In the past 50 years the original gynocentric defaults have morphed into gynocentrism 2.0 which has seen a huge increase in both the lop-sided services favoring women and the disdain and blame focused on men.
Very few people are conscious of this habitual default, they simply assume it is just the way the world works.
Becoming more and more aware of gynocentrism makes it easier to see why men are 80% of the completed suicides but are basically ignored. It makes sense now that men are nearly 50% of the victims of domestic violence but are routinely disregarded. It makes sense now why boys genital mutilation is the fourth most popular surgical procedure in the U.S. even though it is unnecessary and highly damaging. The world is geared to have compassion for women’s needs but not as much for the needs of men. We could go on and on about each of the many men’s issues and see how the lack of compassion and choice plays a part in their dilemma.
The unconscious nature of gynocentrism may be its most ruinous aspect. People are simply unaware of the great differences in the way men and women are treated. It is in some ways reminiscent of the racism I remember in the mid 20th century. People were simply unaware of their treatment of blacks. There were surely outright bigots at the time but the majority of people were basically asleep to the impact of their attitudes and behaviors and went along with the status quo that treated blacks and whites in significantly different ways. The general public was duped by a media that portrayed blacks as inferior and an educational system and even academic research that did the same. With gynocentrism 2.0 we are seeing something very similar but instead of the blacks it is now our men. Today’s gynocentrism is made up primarily of people who are basically unaware of the impact of their behaviors and are simply going along with the gynocentric status quo.
It’s time to wake up.
Knowing these things and taking the red pill* makes it important for us to start offering men and boys greater compassion and choice.
And let’s not forget. Men Are Good!
*Having taken the “Red Pill” is the popular phrase used to denote someone who can see the gynocentrism clearly.
Welcome to menaregood.com a place where men are seen as good and the misandry that judges them is exposed. Probably the best way to find resources here is to use the search or look by category in the sidebar. A good place to start might be a post on Gynocentrism and Masculinity. Some of what you will find will be the three Maryland Reports I wrote as vice chairman of the Maryland Commission on Men’s Health. One is on Male Victims of Domestic Violence, another on Male Suicide, and the last on Men’s Health. There is also a five part series on the bias against boys and men in mental health research. You might also want to have a look at the two part “Survival Guide” for men in couples therapy. Lately I have been writing more on the misandry that can be found in the social work profession. I wrote a two part letter to social workers challenging them to see if they are breaking their own code of ethics by ignoring the needs and hardships of men and boys. I also started a new site on this topic here meninsocialwork.org
Let me know what you think!
Yes, male CEO’s earn only .58 cents on every dollar made by a female CEO. You can see it right here in the Chicago Tribune:
The median pay for a female CEO was nearly $18 million last year, up about 13 percent from 2014. By comparison, male CEOs’ median pay was $10.5 million, up just 3 percent from a year earlier, according to an analysis by executive compensation data firm Equilar and The Associated Press.
Who says there is no wage gap? Using the same misleading statistic as is used routinely by the wage gap gestapo you can see that turnabout is fair play.
Helping Mothers Be Closer to Their Sons is a book that does just that, it helps moms be closer to their sons. It does this by first offering mothers new information on the uniqueness of their sons.
The first section of Helping Mothers Be Closer to Their Sons offers moms the important information the media and others have omitted. It examines the role of the testosterone flood in utero and how this changes boys even before they are born. It looks into the newest ideas drawn from improved methods in testosterone research. These new methods show that testosterone is not about aggression or violence, it is instead about striving for status. That is, pushing him to compete, to win, to be at the top. Testosterone pushes boys to win and this is just one of the many ways that a boy’s biology impacts his way of being.
The book shows how boys adjust their behaviors based on their differences and importantly how moms can use these differences to get closer. Sections on why boy’s emotions are invisible and how to see them, on how they play, how they compete, how they heal and more. Golden offers tips and suggestions about how to take advantage of the boys uniqueness and use it as a way to get close. There are bonus sections on discipline, adolescence, and teaching boys about emotions.
Concise and straight forward this book will put moms in a position to truly appreciate their boys for who they are and to get closer in the process.
Give it a try. You can’t go wrong.
We had a reunion for our summer camp. It was held at one of the attendees home, a young man named Jim. He had an older 20 year old sister, Dora, who was also there. Peter and I were both present having been two of the leaders of the camp.
As soon as Dora saw Peter, she went wild. All girls went wild as soon as they saw Peter – one of my biggest mistakes has always been going on any holiday with him. She hurried upstairs and came back, dressed in a delicious sexy outfit: a short dress, black stockings and ample make-up, hoping to get Peter interested.
But Peter didn’t get interested. The one who got interested was Bob, another teenager and an uncomplicated working-class boy. He made it very clear that he loved what he saw, even though he didn’t touch Dora or say anything indecent.
It was also clear Dora wasn’t happy about the situation at all. We laughed a bit about her, without any malice or disdain: what did she expect, dress up like that and then decide who could chase her and who couldn’t?
This all happened quite a while ago. Nobody would have thought about calling Bob’s behaviour ‘harassment’, even though we laughed a bit about him too, without the slightest malice. Nowadays, Dora would at least have given an interview to a newspaper to prove how sexist men are, that we live in a rape culture that is unsafe for women. Bob’s behaviour isn’t forbidden yet in my own home country, the Netherlands, but some women who are very concerned about human rights are working on it.
ADMITTING THAT SEX IS A PROBLEM
Feminists talk about male sexuality all the time. Anti-feminists and MRA’s hardly ever do, and then it is mostly about false rape allegations, not about (straight) male sexuality as such. Why is that?
Of course, men are already vulnerable protesting against anti-male injustice. They’re portrayed as ‘whiners’ or ‘crybabies’, who are ‘trying to divert the attention from much bigger injustice done to women’. Nevertheless, some brave men are willing to speak out when it’s about affirmative action gone too far, judges being unjust to men, and meta-issues such as free speech for MRA’s and anti-feminists. In fact, those meta-issues very often seem to be the main issue.
Admitting that sex is a problem, however, is lethal for men. Who will ever address the issue except when he is unattractive, clumsy with women, creepy (the word always used in this context) and blaming all his incapability on women and feminism? Men complaining about sex, or the absence of it, are seen as the very worst crybabies. So men shut up about it.
And to cite Warren Farrell: women don’t hear what men don’t say. That goes for anti-feminist women as well. So male and female MRA’s only touch the subject occasionally.
True, Katie Roiphe and Daphne Patai wrote books about it – long ago already. Since then things only worsened.
Male sexuality is demonized by the term ‘harassment’. That term confused me, because my idea of harrassment seemed to be about wilful insults from men who don’t respect women and love to humiliate them. At the same time I wasn’t too sure that bona fide approaching of women with erotic intentions couldn’t be interpreted as such, if only as a result of misunderstanding. So I googled it. What I found was confusing.
One of the more reasonable sites said that as a man (boy), you might unintentionally do things that a woman (girl) didn’t like, and then you’d better apologise to her and make it clear you didn’t mean it that way. No problems with that.
Other sites were frightening. No misunderstanding at all. Asking a colleague out for a drink or dinner, phoning somebody and declaring your love, could all be included under their definition of harrassment. One site said: ‘If something happens that you don’t want, it’s harassment’, turning the whole world into one big therapy group for women that men have to adjust to. Remarkable detail: a questionnaire on one site where 30% of the women thought it ‘harassment’ when a colleague asked them out, made clear that 30% on the other extreme didn’t think it was harassment when somebody complimented their breasts or even bottoms. Goes to show how subjective these things are.
Feminist sites suggest it’s hell out there for women. They are teeming with anecdotes about men doing the most horrible things, grabbing intimate parts, calling women whores etc. If those things are so common, why did they even release the ‘catcalling video’, on which you hardly see anything more horrific than black men saying ‘Good morning beauty’ to a white woman (and that two minutes out of an alleged ‘ten hours’)?
Even more of an embarrassing failure was the video of the woman ‘turning the tables’ by going out on the streets and ‘harassing men’. The men hardly reacted, more surprised than indignant, she had to become very rude to get a negative reaction at all. She proved the opposite point she tried to make: men in the same position as ‘harassed’ women mostly don’t feel humiliated or frightened at all.
SELF FULFILLING PROPHESY
The double standards about ‘harassment’ and ‘objectification’ (that other word demonising male sexuality) are so ridiculous and very obvious that it seems useless to point them out. A Facebook photograph of John Travolta got the comment ‘juicy piece’ by tens of women. (No misunderstanding – I think they have the perfect right to do so.) Pictures of nice asses, whether of men or women, are routinely and enthusiastically complimented by women – men are wiser. Less known than the video’s mentioned above is the video about gays in Amsterdam who got ‘discriminated against’ because they tried to pick up random men on the streets! Of course, that video was linked by the same sites who post one issue against ‘street harassment’ after the other.
There was even a video about an actress dressed up as a nurse, who offered to feel men’s balls in the street, to check if they had cancer. Some men accepted, some reacted a bit embarrassed, no one was indignant. Imagine a man offering to feel women’s breasts, let alone vagina’s! No doubt he’d end up in jail.
So, in a nutshell: the criteria for harassment are vague, double standards are rampant.
The vicious part of it all is not just that some women may not like some men’s behaviour – tastes differ – but that the whole culture suggests men behave that way because they don’t respect women and they love to humiliate them. I find that outright misandrist slander. Even if a man approaches a woman a bit rudely, I think he approaches her because he wants to make contact with her. Possibly wants to have sex with her, but there’s nothing wrong with that either as long as he does’nt force her. (Some feminists will say it is wrong because it is ‘objectification’, but that word is even more meaningless than ‘harassment’, only suggesting it is wrong to find somebody sexually attractive.) But the idea of humiliation is a self-fulfilling prophesy in two ways.
First: when women learn to see compliments, and approaches with erotic intent, not as well-meaning behaviour that might even cheer you up, but as sexist and objectifying, it will be hard for them to take any other viewpoint. They will feel unease and even fear at about every approach by a man, and more and more behaviour will be seen as sexist.
Second: when men learn that approaching women that way is wrong, the nice ones will stop doing it and only the rude bastards will continue their behaviour. And women will complain men can only approach them so rudely…
ROAD IN THE MIST
I hope I made it clear now that the current approach of straight male sexuality is nonsensical and unjust, but so many things in life are nonsensical and unjust. Why then is this especially so bad?
Because it leads to a terrible amount of loneliness and frustration. It may be exaggerated that all the roads men have to approach women are blocked. There are still a lot of good heterosexual relationships, for a week or a lifetime. Nevertheless, for single men, the way to go there often seems like a long, winding road in the mist, littered with hordes, and always with the risk that at the end you turn out to have taken the wrong one. That is not exaggerated. In the Netherlands, there are 2.000.000 single adults on a population of 17.000.000. They they spend hundreds of millions of euro’s yearly on dating sites and organized dating events, often joyless projects which don’t bring them very far. This must be bad for women, too. Loneliness is a big problem, but the institutions fighting loneliness never address this point.
Probably lots of problems of boys between, say, 13 and 25 years old (maybe even the suicide rate) are also connected with this: approaching girls, which has always been a big issue for them and never was a piece of cake, is more frightening than ever. You don’t just risk getting rejected, which is bad enough. You risk getting accused of hurtful behaviour towards the girl, which is horrible, whether there is a real punishment or not. For the last thing a boy wants to do is to hurt a girl he admires.
Many interesting stories and talks about boys hardly mention this. An exception is the excellent articles ‘Sexodus 1 and 2’ by Milo Yiannopoulos (he’s not always excellent in my opinion, but here he is).
Like I said at the beginning: men’s groups and everybody criticising feminism should address the men’s sexuality issue much more often. Not just mention it every now and then, but make it one of the main issues of the movement. It’s worth it.
The girl behind the bar had her hair painted in four or five colors, it looked quite nice and I complimented her about it. A girl standing next to me remarked: ‘She’s staggeringly sexy, ain’t she?’
I took a deep breath and answered: ‘Well, I always learned that men are not supposed to say these things, but now that you ask me, yes, she ís staggeringly sexy.’
She told me she had a history of abuse, but still she could understand men’s problems, and her advice was: always be yourself, and that also meant: compliment women the way you feel like doing.
She had already told me she had a boyfriend, so I didn’t try anything with her. But when I left the party I gave her a big, long hug and said: ‘Thank you for what you said to me. And I’ll tell you: you’re also staggeringly sexy.’ And I meant it. And she loved it.
There is hope.
Eisso Post had his red pill moment in the second feminist wave
when he discovered a lot of ‘prejudices’ against feminism simply were true, and in the third wave when discussions online with feminists turned out to be impossible without being accused and insulted in incomprehensible lingo. He is still rather left-wing, but dogmatically undogmatic. He is an author and a coach for people writing novels and short stories.