Category Archives: Article and Video

#MeToo — Guilty Until Proven Innocent

Video and Script.

We live in a very dangerous time for men. If they are accused of sex assault or rape they are automatically assumed to be guilty. Whatever happened to due process and innocent until proven guilty? Out the window, but why? That‘s what we are going to talk about. We’ll examine the ways that feminists have encouraged the disruption of due process. I ran into an excellent article on this topic provided by the Center for Prosecutor Integrity titled “‘Believe the Victim:’ The Transformation of Justice”. This video will give you a summary of that article and some additional ideas.

But wait. Before we go any farther. We know that not all accusations are true. Right? Just a quick look at these gentlemen  (here and here) easily makes that point. These are all men who were falsely imprisoned for rape or sexual assault, many of whom for years. It turns out the Innocence Project has rescued 353 cases of wrongful convictions and 274 of those cases were men falsely accused of rape or sexual assault.   That’s about 77% of those who have been freed. Do we see a pattern here? It’s also worth noting that less than 1% of those who were freed for wrongful convictions were women. That’s with about 18% of the jailed population being women. It seems clear that we are not as careful in convicting our men as we are with our women. And we are simply not very careful when it comes to rape.

But why? One answer is of course gynocentrism which defaults to protecting women and children at the expense of men. That is likely a part of the problem but there is obviously much more. I think that the advent of the feminist driven gynocentrism 2.0 has played a much larger role than most assume. If you want to know what I mean by gynocentrism 2.0 you can check out a video linked here. 

The Center for Prosecutor Integrity paper starts by quoting Lewis Caroll and pointing to the Red Queen’s zany idea that you need to start with the sentence and worry about the verdict after.  Yes the wonderful fantasy of Lewis Carroll, and Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.  Think about it. This Lewis Carroll crazy “world upside down” fantasy is now coming true. This is exactly what the feminists are telling us. Sentence first, verdict afterwards.

Let’s have a look.

There are lots of women me too-ing these days. And good for them to speak up about possible past trauma but there is another trauma that is running parallel that no one notices.  That’s the cultural assumption that all of the men who are being accused are guilty.  All of them.  Simply because a woman has accused them they are thought to be guilty. The falsely accused men are alone in their awareness of this travesty. It’s a good guess that they are trapped and left to face alone a great deal of trauma, undeserved judgment, and hatred. In some ways this is standard gynocentric procedure since the emotional pain of men is taboo and the emotional pain of women is a call to action. That is, people run from male emotional pain but work to help the emotional pain of females. We see this in spades and amplified with the me too rush to judgment.

But how did it get so bad? Enter the feminists who have proven over the years to be willing to ignore the pain of men.

What did they do?

Look no farther than the violence against women feminists.  The End Violence Against Women International folks have played a role in this. They wanted more rape convictions so what did they do? They wrote a manual to instruct law enforcement how to treat the accusers. Can you guess what they told them?

I bet you can.

They focused on the idea of “Start by Believing”. They basically portrayed rape and sex assault accusers as needing to be believed at all costs. Without exceptions. Involved police officers should start by believing women who claimed they were raped or sexually assaulted. Believe them no matter what. These feminists seem to be saying that the accusers didn’t need an investigator who sought the truth, no they actually need an understanding buddy and the first thing that new buddy needed to do was believe what they said. No matter what! Just like a good friend!

Hard to believe right? When I read this the first thing that popped in my mind was that this strategy didn’t work out so great with Crystal Gail Mangum and the falsely accused Duke lacrosse boys. The faculty at Duke started by believing and kept believing even though the accuser was a liar.

Have a look at the start by believing web site and what they tell law enforcement. This page has testimonials, let’s read one:

My name is Officer Don Kirk. I am a Police Officer at the University of Utah, Department of Public Safety. When someone tells me they were raped or sexually assaulted, I Start by Believing.

Get the picture? These trainings tell police that they are supposed to believe the victim NO MATTER WHAT. Just what do they think this might do to an accused man who is innocent? Wouldn’t believing the accuser necessarily make one not believe the accused? They don’t seem to care. This is the typical only see one side of the picture bully feminists.

They are not even allowed to consider that there might be a false accusation. In essence what they are asking the police to do is to become an advocate for one party, not an impartial investigator. All the while believing that women never lie.

These feminists are demanding that Sgt Friday who asked for just the facts ma’am be transformed into Mr Rogers. You know, the accuser’s best buddy. Now I liked Fred Rogers but surely even Fred knew he was not suited to be a criminal investigator. This is something the feminists don’t seem to care about. The accuser gets Fred while the accused gets Sgt Friday.

An investigater doesn’t pick sides. He gathers that data and lets the courts decide. But If he tells one party he believes them what does that do to the other? Well, the other party must be guilty!

English Jurist Sir William Blackstone famously said in 1765:

‘It’s better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted’

It seems the feminists are thinking just the opposite, it’s better to see 10 innocent men jailed than to let one guilty man free.

It’s worth noting that this hateful stuff doesn’t talk about complainants or accusers, it only talks about victims. It veers away from using typical vocabulary of investigations. Here’s what the Center for Prosecutor Iintegrity article has to say about this

The pro-conviction, pro-victim orientation of EVAWI’s 2006 manual and other documents is evident in EVAWI’s choice of terminology: the words “alleged,” “complainant,” or “accuser” never appear. In contrast, “victim” appears literally hundreds of times

In 2011 they started the Start by Believing Campaign funded by millions of dollars of grants, that is, taxpayer money, from the Violence Against Women folks. (DOJ) They used this campaign to do workshops and spread this philosophy to law enforcement and other professionals such as detectives, criminal investigators and even college administrators. ugh  What did they train them to do? They trained them to believe the accuser, no matter what. Ooops, I mean believe the victim.

So the VAWA folks are asking us to ignore the possibility of women lying and false accusing when science has shown us clearly that women do sometimes lie.

In fact the more likely form of aggression from women is not physical violence but relational aggression and what constitutes relational aggression? Lies, gossip, false accusations, mis-directions and more. So lying is a part of the female manipulative repertoire and the police are told to start by believing? Really?  For more info on relational aggression see a previous video.

Another part of their philosophy is to demand that officers carry out what they call “trauma informed investigations.” In other words, be sensitive to the state of the accuser and adjust judgment due to her having been traumatized. They go on to list many symptoms that they say are due to trauma that investigators need to overlook since they may be due to trauma. Things like memory lapses, or fragmented memories, or even appearing incoherent. Why overlook these? Well, they claim that the neuroscience of trauma explains that trauma will induce such things as memory losses, and inconsistencies of the story. You know, the sorts of things that red flag an investigator into questioning the veracity of the complainant. Those things. But now the feminists are saying that the things that might be red flags are simply symptoms of her trauma and in fact prove she was traumatized! Wow. What a system! But sadly for feminists the facts of neuroscience seem to say something else. There are studies that indicate that trauma actually improves memory! Trauma is remembered more clearly than an uneventful lunch last week.  hmmmmm

If you want confirmation of the misuse of neuroscience look no further than a Harvard Feminist, Janet Halley, who is attacking this nonsense. Listen to what she says:

The remaining third of the document (and thus the entire remainder of the training) provides a sixth-grade level summary of selected neurobiological research.

What she calls a sixth grade summary others call junk science. And how do they use this junk science to get more convictions? She then goes on to explain how this is used. Remember, this is a Harvard feminist speaking:

The take-away lesson of these pages is that a victim of sexual assault may experience trauma, which in turn causes neurological changes, which in turn can result in “tonic immobility.” Tonic immobility, in turn, can cause the victim to appear incoherent and to have emotional swings, memory fragmentation, and “flat affect.” Her story “may come out fragmented or ‘sketchy,’” and she can be “[m]isinterpreted as being cavalier about [the event] or lying.” These problems, in turn, can cause police and sexual harassment investigators to dismiss serious claims, tragically because of symptoms of the trauma itself.

Can you see how devious this is? What we see is a push for the normalization of symptoms such as inconsistencies, incoherence, fragmentation, lack of memory or others as signs of having been traumatized. These claims happen to also be the very things that an investigator might use to dismiss charges. See how it works? The very things that might prove the defendant innocent are claimed to be due to trauma. What a racket!

So far we have that you must believe the victim and now that you must believe her even if she says things that indicate she is not telling the truth!

What, oh what could the last section be?

The third wave of this zany propaganda is that investigations need to be “victim centered.” What they mean by this is that they believe the victim needs to have more control over the investigation and have input over what needs to be discussed and when. Mind blowing idea.

Imagine it was the other way around. Believe the accused, no matter what. Ignore his inconsistencies, give the accused more say in the way the investigation unfolds. Oh boy. It’s easy to see the preposterous nature of always believeing one side when we suggest to only believe the accused. No one would buy that and all would protest loudly. But the other way and people cheer, sign on, and take the pledge. Yes, these folks have been getting law enforcement to pledge they will start by believing.

These bullies are more than happy to force investigaters to become a one sided advocates to the complainant and to ignore inconsistencies while they crap on the accused.

Can you see how for years these zealots have been pushing the idea that accusers never lie and if you have the audacity to think they might be lying you are a real scumbag misogynist. They have been working the public, the police, our universities and the court system to subvert our system of justice. The most infuriating aspect of this is they are doing this with taxpayer money. Your money, my money. Where is the oversight? It is blatantly obvious that they are defying our constitution and our system of justice. Where are those who are willing to say NO to these bigots?

If we are going to give an advocate to one side of a criminal investigation it seems only fair that we do the same for the other. How many accused men could use an advocate? But that will never happen in our one sided hateful system that allows the accuser to be protected with anonymity while the accused is dangled in front of a hungry press that sells more papers by condemning and ridiculing an accused man. Wouldn’t it be more fair to give both accused and accuser anonymity? Not the way the world works now, no.

I don’t really mind family members, friends or therapists to take on the start by believeing support. That is fine and needed by both the accuser and the accused but where we need to draw a firm line is when we try to influence criminal investigations with ideological propaganda. That is way out of line and in need of immediate correction.

The last word goes to Superior court justice Anne Malloy who articulately summed up this situation:

Although the slogan “Believe the victim” has become popularized of late, it has no place in a criminal trial. To approach a trial with the assumption that the complainant is telling the truth is the equivalent of imposing a presumption of guilt on the person accused of sexual assault and then placing a burden on him to prove his innocence. That is antithetical to the fundamental principles of justice enshrined in our Constitution and the values underlying our free and democratic society.

Well said your honor.

I hope you’ll all come and join us on patreon where we’re starting to meet in video hangouts. All menaregood videos now go to patreon first for review, feedback, and suggestions before being finalized for youtube. We could use your input. Special thanks to J, Paul, and Peter for their helpful feedback on this one.

Join us.

And let’s not forget, men are good, as are you.

Relational Aggression: Is it a Trap for Men?


The latest menaregood video on relational aggression.  You can watch the video or read the exact script below.

A gynocentric world is a dangerous place for men. The hazards are many including traps that are simply beyond the awareness of most. Relational aggression is one of those traps. Most of us are aware of the physical violence of many women and the cultures disinterest in holding women accountable but this is different. Relational aggression is more insidious due to its invisibility and the encouragement from the culture at large. Let’s have a look at this trap called relational aggression.

We have spent nearly 50 years warning women about men’s physical aggression. We’ve created laws, built institutions and flooded the media in efforts to protect women. In the process we have been told repeatedly that this is not just a problem of a few men who are out of control but instead is a problem of all men and their masculinity. This is Crazy stuff.

All the while there has been a muffled silence about women’s aggression. Some has trickled through like a bit of attention on mean girls but the reality and lethality of women’s aggression has rarely leaked into the media. The sad news is that women’s aggression is really a trap for men. Being aware of the trap may help you navigate and steer clear.

With that background let’s have a good look at women’s relational aggression, how it works, where it starts and the dangers and traps that men face as a result. We will also spend a little time in looking at how this form of aggression impacts nearly all men’s issues and importantly how feminism is literally based on this form of aggression but is never called out for it.

Let’s get started.

Relational aggression starts early. The youngest female researchers have identified practicing relational aggression was 2.5 years old. But what is this thing called relational aggression?

The best definition I have seen calls it “Bullying without physical violence.” That sums it up pretty well. Researchers define it something like this:

Behaviors that harm others through damage (or threat of damage) to relationships. They go on to talk about how relational aggression is meant to destroy feelings of acceptance, friendship, or group inclusion. Basically attacking someones identity and trying your best to hurt them without being violent.

How is this accomplished? Well through excluding, ignoring, teasing, gossiping, secrets, backstabbing, lies, false accusations, rumor spreading and hostile body language (i.e., eye-rolling and smirking).

These may sound more tame than physical aggression but think about it. How many suicides have you heard about that were due to someone getting beat up repeatedly? Maybe a few. But then think about how many suicides you have heard about from people being ostracized or shamed by groups? I have heard more of those and I am betting you have too.

So this stuff is lethal. It may sound harmless but that is simply not the case. It can lead to very serious consequences including what is being called 3rd prty abuse which is when relational aggression tricks authorities into unwittingly continuing the abuse.

Relational aggression is also stealth. With physical aggression you leave bruises, scars, or broken bones. These things can be seen. People gasp when they see them. But how about relational aggression? You can’t see it. It Is basically invisible. If that wasn’t bad enough, the invisibility also makes it very difficult to challenge. Try proving someone gossiped and spread lies about you. Try disproving a false accusation. Both nearly impossible but both potentially lethal. This leaves relational violence a stealth tool that is so easy to deny. “Who me? I didn’t do anything, why are YOU so upset about nothing?” And of course gynocentrism plays its ugly part in all this in protecting the lying female making matters worse still.

This is not to say that there are no physically violent women. There are. The research has found some interesting things about violent women. It seems that those women who are physically aggressive and men who are relationally aggressive have been found to have more psychological pathological than their counterparts. So be on the lookout for relationally aggressive men and physically aggressive women. Danger Will Robinson.  Danger!

Some are seeing that one precursor for relational aggression is what they are calllng “hostility attribution bias.” Basically this means that the person assumes wrongly that a hostile act has occurred and wrongly assume it was directed towards them. Say a young girl sees two friends whispering and wrongly assumes it is about her.  She is a experiencing hostility attribution bias and this apparently occurs more with girls and women in relationships.

How many times as a man have I heard something from a woman claiming that I thought a certain way or did something for a certain reason. I know it is completely false but she is beyond convinced that she is right and I am lying. This ever happened to you? I bet it has, repeatedly. The researchers are saying that sometimes it is this hostility attribution bias that stimulates the relational aggression. Makes sense to me and it gives us a clue about how to defend ourselves. Beware of the hostility attribution bias. This is a red hot danger sign. Run if you can.

One researcher, Nicki Crick, studied young boys and girls and found some very interesting results. She noted that 15.6% of the young boys used physical aggression but only .4% of the girls. She also found that 17.4% of the girls used relational aggression and only 2% of the boys. Crick totaled these and realized that the boys and girls were equally aggressive, they just had different paths to get there. The boys were more physical, the girls more relational. More and more of recent research is working to measure both relational aggression and physical aggression but you still don’t hear much about that in the media.

One might assume that if boys and girls have similar levels of aggression that you would find that the culture would address both. Right? Wrong. Our gynocentric culture perseverates on the aggression if males and ignores and even promotes the relational aggression. Men’s violence is seen as atrocious and wicked and women’s relational aggression is ignored.

One indicator of this bias was shown by researchers when they studied the animated films of Disney. What did they find? They found that 100% of the animated Disney films contained relational aggression and specifically found that the average was 11 relationally aggressive acts per hour. That’s an act every 6 minutes or so.   The relational aggression was often portrayed as justified and shown to have few negative consequences. The worst news is that such aggression was often portrayed by female characters who were attractive, rich, and popular.

The media is literally training our young girls that it is okay to be relationally aggressive, in fact it is what rich, attractive, and popular girls do. There are no calls of concern from parents or teachers to stop this. I hope you are getting a picture of how dangerous this is for men and boys.

The trend for girls to be more relationally aggressive than boys continues into adolescence and beyond. There is some evidence that men start using more relational aggression as they get older but I think the accepted idea is that women are more likely to use relational aggression. It does make one wonder why.


Why Relational Aggression?

The evolutionary psychologists have some ideas about that. They say that men for eons have had to aggressively compete with other men in order to seek reproductive access, in other words, get the girl. In doing this they would form hierarchies not unlike other primate males who physically compete for alpha status. The higher your status in the hierarchy the more likely you get the top female. Men became accustomed to competing with their fellows and taking their place within a hierarchy of winners and losers and all those in between. Women on the other hand didn’t have the same need to aggressively compete for a mate. She was a chooser not a competer. Instead women needed a community to aid her while she was dependent due to being pregnant and raising children.   This pushed women to not compete, but to strive to be an accepted part of the group. If a woman tried to elevate herself above the others in her group she was seen as an outlier, someone who was betraying the group by trying to make themselves appear above the others and this was discouraged or even punished. So the idea was to only be aggressive if it was stealth and could be easily denied. This insured their place in the group.

Present day psychologists see this tendency in the workforce where if a woman appears to be succeeding and doing better than the other women at the office she is often subject to relationally aggressive attacks by the other females. Gossip, finger pointing, rumours, lies etc. This hides their aggressiveness since open aggression would be seen as counter to the group cohesiveness. Making the attacks quiet keeps the group stable. She doesn’t sacrifice her group inclusion.

Researchers have found that Women’s in-group preference, that is an automatic preference for their own gender is over four times as important as a male’s in-group preference is for him. Women depend on other women and are reluctant to risk exclusion.

Another example of women being dependent upon the group is the recent understanding of how women heal from loss and stress. Shelly Taylor’s research found that women, when stressed, move towards interaction and other people. Women depend on others, mostly other women, to aid in their healing unlike men who tend to heal through action, or inaction on their own. This makes a women’s group of friends important to her for her own healing and offers us more reasons why she would not want to appear overtly aggressive and risk being excluded.

This actually explains something I saw in a research study years ago. The study had men and women playing a computer war game. The subjects were to decide how much to bomb the opponents. Under most conditions the women bombed far less than the men, but in one condition they bombed as much or more than the men. That was when others could not see how much the women were bombing!   As long as no one could see, it was bombs away! The researchers were puzzled but Again, this seems to show the female preference for relational aggression that can be hidden and easily denied.


Men’s Issues

So how does relational aggression play out in men’s issues? Simple. It is embedded in just about all of it. Think about divorce and parental alienation. What an alienating mother does to the child is all relational aggression. She is telling lies to the child about the father, she is attempting to use those lies to hurt the father. This is relational aggression.  And it is obviously lethal.

Think about false accusations. Falsely accusing a man of rape is straight up relational aggression. It is lying with the intent to cause pain.

Both cases, the Parental Alienation and the false accusation show us something important. The lies that are used are very difficult to disprove and are very easily denied. If the father or the falsely accused man challenges the woman it is simple for her to deny and blow it off. If it ever gets to the point of her needing to admit she did this she can then say, “I didn’t mean to hurt anyone.” It is nearly impossible to disprove a false accusation. And keep in mind in both of these instances it is likely the authorities will get involved and become a tag team with 3rd party abuse.

Think of domestic violence. The feminists have maintained for decades that domestic violence is all about violent men beating innocent women. But is that really the truth? There are likely a small minority of couples where the husband is a sociopath and the feminist version is close to being correct but I think those situations are very rare. Research has shown us that most domestic violence is reciprocal. That is, both parties are involved in the altercations. So how did they get to the point where the man would hit her? It doesn’t take much creativity to realize that she likely used relational aggression of some sort that lit his fuse and eventually moved into their violent interchange. It’s a very good guess that she is using her relational aggression skills to create as much pain in him as she can and then he blows his top and the feminist oligarchy comes in and ignores her part in igniting the fuse and only focuses on his overt violence. Then the entire 3rd party abuse Duluth treatment regime takes over and officially sees him as the problem and her as the victim. That is insane.

It wasn’t always like that. When I worked at a mental health center in the 1970’s we were trying to help female victims of DV. At that time the feminists did not have a stranglehold over the services like they do now. There were competing voices. One of those competing voices was those doing family therapy. They believed that in the majority of cases (excluding the sociopaths) that what was needed was to help the couple with conflict resolution. This of course really pissed off the feminists since it negated their idea of bad man victim woman. A huge fight ensued between the two groups and as you can imagine the feminists won. Who knows what sorts of relational aggression they used to get their way. They needed to be sure that their basic assumption of men bad women victim was not tarnished or given a secondary place.   Thus the feminists submarined any kind of attention that might have been paid to the woman’s side of the problem. Only men were the bad guys.


Feminism is Relational Aggression, They are the mean girls.

Where did that come from? Think back to the hostility attribution bias. Remember that? When you wrongly assume intent? The whole of feminism has a massive hostility attribution bias in their assumptions that men are the root of their problem. They blame men. Individuals misinterpret single interactions while groups like feminism misinterpret huge swaths of reality. The feminists have misinterpreted men’s providing and protecting of women for ages as being the oppression of women. That’s hostility attribution bias on steroids. Somehow they have convinced nearly everyone that this falsehood is the truth. Of course it is not and it is merely a mistaken assumption but in this case it is a deadly one.

Feminists start by swallowing a huge hostility attribution bias but they go much farther. In so many ways feminists act like mean girls. Don’t disagree with a mean girl, if you do you will pay a huge price. Same thing with feminism. Try disagreeing with a feminist and see what happens. Mean girls. Feminists bully by relational aggression. They have been telling lies and spreading rumors about men for decades and everyone assumes they are being honest. That’s Relational aggression. They threaten their own members with exclusion if they don’t follow the exact party line much like the mean girls do. They bully. They use the same exclusionary threats with legislators when they demand their bills are passed or else they will exclude them and label them as misogynists. Our cowardly legislators have been unable to rise above the bullying and the open blackmailing and this has left us with laws that are written by bullies with a huge bias.

Mean girls know they lie, and so do feminists. But they also lie about lying. Take false accusations as an example. The false accusation itself is purely relational aggression. It is a lie told that is meant to hurt. But the mean girl feminists add on to that. They lie that women never lie. This entire idea of forcing everyone to always believe the woman no matter what, is actually a relational aggression since it is simply a lie on top of another lie. I mean really. Could these people really believe that women never lie? They don’t, but they are willing to lie in order to get their way, just like the mean girls.

In the end it is all about power and control. The two very things they accuse domestic violence abusers of doing. Mean girls demand power and control and so do feminists. I think it is time we started to call feminists mean girls, and point out their relational aggressiveness every time we see it.

We need to do the same thing with the women in our lives whether it is our spouses, sisters, mothers or whoever. We need to keep our eyes peeled for hostile attribution bias and for relational aggression and call them out when we see them. Most importantly we need to maintain our cool and calmness as we confront. Speak the truth and don’t back down. Remember the relational violence is intended to get you upset and pissed off. Don’t let it. Your upset WILL be used against you. Calmness will help you turn the tables. If you disallow them to piss you off it will likely backfire and instead they will be the ones to blow.

So guys I hope you are seeing that relational aggression leaves men in a very vulnerable state. Women are literally encouraged to practice this stuff at your expense and the expense of your children. Use caution and keep in mind that men are good, as are you.

If you like this sort of content please consider supporting this channel on Patreon.
























Boys                 Girls

Physical Aggression               15.6%                 .4%


Relational Aggression               2%                 17.4%


TOTALS                                     17.6%               17.8%


The Manmade Plague of Fatherlessness


One of the most damaging things that has ever impacted our culture is fatherlessness.

Back in 1965 Departent of Labor Secretary Moynihan did a report on the inner city and his report showed that it was not race or poverty that had deteriorated the inner city African American community, it was the absence of dads.   We knew at that point, in 1965, that not having dads in the home was seriously injuring our families and our children.

But what did we do? Our politicians both from the left and the right marched ahead and did more and more to remove dads from homes. We went from Father knows best to father is a pest. Government slowly took on the role of substitute father. Welfare demanded no dad at home in order to get that welfare check. No fault divorce was instituted and then we created bogus expensive echo chambers called family courts that routinely removed men from their homes after they had depleted whatever income and savings the men might have had. We glorified single motherhood which was actually the root of our problem while we demonized males as being the source of all of our difficulties. It is hard to imagine a more sinister plot to ruin our country. Now we spend billions upon billions of dollars failing to fix the symptoms of fatherlessness while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the real problem, the chronic absence of dads in the home.

We are at the point now where nearly 40% of all school age children in the United States are not living with their father.

The research tells us plenty about this mess. Here’s a list of problems that are related to fatherlessness:

  • Suicide
  • Rape
  • Job Failure
  • Delinqueincy
  • Low empathy
  • Anxiety
  • Bullying
  • Drug abuse
  • Prison
  • Smoking
  • High school failyure
  • Depression
  • Alcohol abuse
  • Being bullied

The research could not be more clear about the connection of these things to fatherlessness. In fact the research goes a step farther. The work of Sara McClanahan literally shows that some of these results of fatherlessness are causative. That is huge. Never have I heard social science research claim something is causative, they always frame it in terms of correlation not causation. But the results of fatherlessness are now being understood to be causative.


McClanahan points out that the evidence is strongest for outcomes such a s High School graduation, Children’s social emotional adjustment, and later adult mental health but there is plenty of data supporting all of the others.

Let’s take just one. Low empathy.

A longitudinal study found that the strongest indicator of empathy was father presence in the home. So often we assume that mom is the empathic one and would be the one to teach the children about empathy but the research shows something very different. In fact it showed that the importance of father presence was so critical it was three times as important to the child’s later empathy than the top three factors from mom combined.

Why would dads be connected to empathy? I am sure you are wondering this as did the researchers. Most are thinking now that it is the dad who sets the limits and does not back down or waver. Think about it, the child says I want my ice cream and dad says, nope, not till you eat your broccoli. The child says, no, I want ice cream now, dad says nope, broccoli first or no ice cream. This goes on for a while until the child realizes that dad will not back down and so they eat the broccoli and then get the ice cream. What happened? One element in this is that the child had to see the world through the father’s eyes. They couldn’t simply see their world through their own desires, they had to see them through dad. It turns out this act is practice at seeing the world through the eyes of another and this is actually the critical rudiment of empathy. The capacity to see the world through another’s eyes. If we can’t see the world through another’s eyes we will likely stay  in our narcissistic and self centered world. Dad’s limit setting is essential for the maturity of the child.

This is a stunning finding and if true you would expect to see a diminishing of empathy among our young people that would correspond to the increasing lack of dads in the home. Guess what? That is just what we see. A study showed that empathy was down 40% in 2010 college students compared to those in the 1970’s.  This 40% drop was from negative responses to questions like this one  “I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective.”  Wow.

Could  this drop in empathy be related to fewer dads at home? My guess would be yes.

So dads set limits, what else do they do? They roughhouse!

Guess what is being found about rough housing with kids? Research shows that roughhousing helps the kids be more socially adept and fosters their resilience. It teaches them the difference between play and actual aggression. When dad roughhouses they learn that being rough can be fun. They also learn the limits in this fun as dads tell them when they’ve gone too far.

And what about dads throwing their kids up in the air? Ever seen that? The dad throws them up and the kids scream with delight while mom frets and complains! The kids love it and dad knows exactly what he is doing. Guess what, they have found? Children who are tossed in the air are better able to take risks as adults. Again, this is a behavior that dads do automatically, both they and the kids love it and it has huge positive impact on their later development.

It’s hard to imagine how many other things dads do with kids that have been shamed that are actually helpful to their children? I am sure there is more to learn about this.

It seems very clear that dads are a crucial part of a child’s life. It’s also clear that certain groups have been trying to minimize this for decades. Politicians, feminists and lawyers come to mind. I think these groups owe dads and men an apology. It’s time we all worked together to be sure that dads and moms both have time with their children. .     Also know that there are some excellent organizations that are fighting hard to make this happen. Leading Women for Shared Parenting and the National Parents Organizations are two doing this important work. Check them out and support them!

My thanks to Warren Farrell who has been sharing chapters of his yet to be published book on boys. Some of this was used for this video.   It’s due out in March. We are all in for a treat!

Let’s not forget, men are good, as are you.


The Everyday Hatred of Men: Part one, Patriarchy

(this is the script for the first video in a youtube series that I just completed on the Everyday Hatred of Men.  The series examines Patriarchy, Toxic Masculinity, Hegemonic Masculinity and then concludes with some ideas about why the hatred is allowed to stand. I will be publishing these here in order.  If you want to skip ahead and see the entire series you can see them here. TG)


Rarely in nature do things go just one way. We live in a world that is filled with complexity and subtlety. And yet, when it comes to men we see three popular theories that are horribly one sided and hateful. The feminist Patriarchy theory, the academic hegemonic masculinity theory and the media’s whipping boy toxic masculinity.

Were going to have a look at all three. Let’s start with patriarchy.

Feminists have developed a clever system that they can call on to assign blame for most any problem they might have or see. They call it patriarchy. Basically it holds men as evil and accountable for the ills of the earth and women as its victim.

Here’s one of the only definitions I could find:

Patriarchy is the term used to describe the society in which we live today, characterized by current and historic unequal power relations between women and men whereby women are systematically disadvantaged and oppressed.

Uh huh, right, I believe the idea of women being oppressed in the us was the biggest lie of the 20th century. But let’s move on.

Listen to what Andrea Dworkin a feminist icon had to say about it:

Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.

Every son is the inevitable rapist. Every son means all men. Got it. Now let’s hear from Mary Daly, another well known radical feminist

Almost everything has been stolen from us by the patriarchy. Our creativity has been stolen, our creative energies, our religion. I want it back.

So patriarchy is a narcissists dream, something to point all the blame at others and at the same time holding you as an innocent victim. Pretty snazzy way to blame men while being blameless.

You would think that after many years of making such ground shaking claims that these folks would have research to back them up. Nope, not that I can find. What I saw repeatedly when asked to prove the existence of patriarchy was the pointing towards the fact that more men are the ones in the positions of power.

Okay, gotta agree that men are dominant in positions of power but just how did that happen? These folks would have you believe that eons of evolution of our sex roles have been created just to disadvantage and oppress women! This is an extraordinarily ego centric and self centered claim. It actually reminds me of a 5 year old girl who’s birthday party and pony ride was rained out and she blames it all on her brother. It’s all Jimmy’s fault! He ruined my birthday. It’s all about me! Jimmy hurt me jimmy had a pony ride! She just doesn’t have the psychological maturity to see the actual factors that are involved and needs someone to blame.

When one does look for research about how and why our sex roles have differentiated as they have you get a very different picture. Let’s look at just one tiny aspect, that of testosterone. Scientists are now claiming that the major role of testosterone is to increase one’s striving for status. That’s right, trying hard to win, wanting to be at the top, competing competing competing. Since men have 10 to 20 times more testosterone doesn’t it start to make sense why there are more male CEO’s? The men are pushed by their biology to succeed. To hear more about testosterone and other factors that push men to the top you can see my recent video on that topic.

So wait a minute. Patriarchy is likely at least partially due to biology. Uh Oh. Feminists don’t believe in biology! They think that all of our differences are due to socialization, and that means that even patriarchy is due to socialization! They are what is termed cultural determinists. That means that they see the world only through the lens of how our culture constructs it. Biology be damned! Genetics be damned! Brain and hormones be damned!

So its not hard to imagine feminists getting confused about what is caused by biology and what isn’t. I can guess they might get upset about women not being as tall as men. Patriarchy! Start support groups, get legislation to make women taller, shame tall men. Get the idea? This may be a silly example but it is not far from their myopic gestalt challenged cries of patriarchy

The most perplexing part of this is how intelligent people have failed to call the feminist’s cards. Very few are willing to in argue the ridiculousness of patriarchy theory. When something is this one sided and wrong the most likely problem is likely a bully. I think that is happening here. No one is willing to tell the empress she has no clothes. Academia is petrified to cross the women’s studies gulag. Academia is filled with cowards.

There are some who are willing to question this. Most are men and as usual the men have both clarity and a sense of humor. Let’s take a couple of examples: Here’s one from Milo:

You see, feminists don’t really like to define the Patriarchy. They prefer to keep it nebulous and amorphous so they can conveniently blame it for everything that goes wrong in their lives. Not being paid enough? Patriarchy! Not getting a promotion? Patriarchy! Too many catcalls? Patriarchy! Too few catcalls? Patriarchy!

And then an urban dictionary poster named shikaku says patriarchy is:

The bogeyman that feminists blame for women’s problems or under-achievements because their big-girl pants apparently don’t fit. shikaku

And here’s one from Fidelbogen. He says patriarchy is:

A rhetorical device which props up feminist ideology by making it easy to impose a state of collective guilt upon half the human race, namely the male half.

Bravo gentlemen, thanks for stepping forward with the courage to challenge patriarchy.

So the term patriarchy has become a weapon used against men.

At the same time it is a shield to protect women from accountability. I can hear the feminists saying “but but but patriarchy hurts men too.” Yeah, right, that is like saying men are assholes and that hurts men too. Give it a rest. Hate is hate. Blaming a birth group for the worlds problems is hateful. We need to call it out wherever we see it.

Part two will look into Toxic Masculinity



tp see parts 1-4 you can access the menaregood youtube playlist here.

Domestic Violence Double Standards: Men Get Shackles, Women Get Chuckles

Ray Rice got a raw deal.  

We are living in a world of huge double standards when it comes to domestic violence and our men are on the bad end of the deal.  When a man commits domestic violence  he is punished very harshly.  But when a woman commits domestic violence she gets cheers, chuckles or is all too often ignored.

Just look at what happened to Ray Rice.

The video of the incident showed Rice’s girlfriend (and soon to be wife) hitting him twice, once before getting on the elevator and once on the elevator.  Then it shows her moving aggressively towards him in what appears to be an attempt to strike him a third time. (please note this not a defenseless woman cowering in the corner) Rice responds by hitting her in the face and she hits her head on a handrail which then knocks her out.  The eventual response to this incident?  Ban Ray Rice from his lucrative association with the NFL, and be fired from his team, the Baltimore Ravens.  These two things obviously shame him, put a big DV on his forehead, cut off his income, his prestige, and his association with his friends and teammates.  A very harsh and far too stringent response in my opinion.  But wait.  What would happen if we reversed the roles here?

Let’s see.

Imagine this: Ray Rice hits his girlfriend before getting on the elevator and then again on the elevator.  Then moves aggressively towards her in what appears to be a third attempt to hit her.  As he moves in to hit her she hits him in the face and he hits his head on a handrail knocking him out. What is the response to this?  My guess is she would get accolades and be seen as a hero, a woman who successfully protected herself from an abuser.  She would likely be on talk shows and be held up as a role model for all women.  Rice would likely be arrested for domestic violence while she is seen as a hero.

Do you see the problem here?   For the same behavior she is a hero and he is shamed and banished.

So Ray Rice was not guilty of beating up on a completely defenseless woman.  No.  As we previously described this was not some cowering woman in the corner covering her face with her arms and hoping not to be hit, this was an aggressive woman who had already struck him twice and was moving in for the  third blow.  This is very different from a defenseless women.  Yes, Ray needs to take responsibility for hitting her but doesn’t she need to take responsibility for hitting him? Isn’t she clearly guilty of domestic violence?  I read quite a few articles on this incident and I simply don’t remember ever seeing her violence addressed. No one ever mentioned it.  Just another example of the huge double standard we face.  It is so powerful that the media simply ignores the violence of women.  The youtube with this article shows numerous women who were violent in relationship and what was the response?  Laughter and very little.

I think the NFL really blew it on this one.  

The punishment he received was far from helpful.  What sort of help might he get from being banished from his profession?  What sort of help might it give his wife?  None. The sad fact is that the NFL acted like a cowardly white knight who was more than willing to throw Mr Rice under the team bus in order to appear that they didn’t hate women and had uber concern about the issue of domestic violence.  It just seems like one big disgusting play for image by the NFL.  A play that ignores the humanity of both Rice and his wife.

What happens to the man on the street who hits a woman?  Is he tossed out of his job as punishment?  No.  Is he banned from working in his profession?  Highly unlikely.  Is he offered some form of counseling or educational opportunity that might help him deal with his mess?  Yes, usually, and in severe cases people go to jail but apparently the Ray Rice situation found that he was best served by this former alternative but the NFL stepped in and amped up the ante to an extremely humiliating degree.  

Does the fact that she didn’t hit as hard matter?  Not really.  If a 5’ 7” 150 lb man came to me in therapy and said that he had hit a pro football player twice in an elevator and was moving towards him again to land a third blow and he got knocked out what would I tell him?  Would I tell him that he should have the pro football player arrested and that he was a victim?  Or should I tell him that his behavior was a part of this equation.  Duh.  Why doesn’t Mrs Rice get the same treatment?  Because we are living in a gynocentric world that holds men accountable and fails to do the same for women.

If we are going to let women off and not hold them accountable for domestic violence than we need to do the same with men.  If we are truly equal it is the only fair thing to do.

Choose the Best Soundbites


Below is a list of nearly 70 soundbites that were suggested on a recent menaregood youtube.  I wanted to open this list up to a vote and get everyone’s opinion about which ones might be the most useful for our purposes.  You can vote for up to 25 soundbites.

What makes a good soundbite?  It tells a story in very few words.  The fewer the better.  It is catchy and easy to remember and will leave an impression on those who hear it.  A very good soundbite will help people see their own double standards.

I will paste in the original youtube at the end of the poll for those who may not have seen it.



[yop_poll id=”3″]