Where all the men have gone – and how to bring them back

A concerted effort is needed to undo the harms wrought by feminism on men, particularly the damage caused by the promotion of the concept of ‘toxic masculinity.’

In a recent “New York Times” article titled, “Men, Where Have You Gone? Please Come Back,” Rachel Drucker laments what she calls “a collective shift” in men, a “slow vanishing of presence.” So many single men, she writes, aren’t “sitting across from someone on a Saturday night, trying to connect.” Instead, they “have retreated from intimacy, hiding behind firewalls, filters and curated personas, dabbling and scrolling.” She adds, “We miss you.”

Drucker – a single, 54-year-old Chicagoan – hints that pornography is at least partly to blame. She mentions that she herself spent years working as the custodian of records for Playboy and its affiliated hardcore properties, working closely with marketing teams to understand “what cues tempt the average 18-to-36-year-old cis heterosexual man. What drew him in. What kept him coming back.” She learned that it wasn’t intimacy or mutuality, but “access to simulation.”

Now many men, she believes, have “quietly withdrawn from intimacy and vulnerability” into “indifference.” The sexes have moved, she observes, into an era when traditional courting has devolved into “directionless orbiting,” “men circling intimacy but never entering it… ‘seeing where it goes’ without ever going anywhere.” She even mourns the “unscripted contact” of one-night stands.

“You can still come back,” she pleads with men. “We’re still here, those of us who are willing to cocreate something true… And we haven’t stopped hoping.”

The male retreat from the courting dance of days past is a tragedy but so is Drucker’s obliviousness to the reasons for it. Yes, pornography is a huge factor; the ubiquitous availability of the most explicit imagery imaginable (and even unimaginable) to anyone with an internet connection is a terrible scourge in our society – and not only for males, but for girls as well, in a variety of ways.

But the broader explanation for the intimacy wasteland Drucker describes is more than a half century of radical feminism and its ruthless war on masculinity, femininity, and the nuclear family. She is finally noticing, but apparently not understanding, the blasted landscape left by the Sexual Revolution’s tornado of destruction since the 1960s and ‘70s that pushed aside old-fashioned courtship and sex roles in its self-indulgent wake.

If men have retreated from those traditional roles and social practices, it is because the culture has been weaponized against men – disrespecting, devaluing, and even demonizing generations of them as “toxic.” Feminist thought leaders, with the complicity of many opportunistic male feminists, railed against the chimeras of “patriarchy” and “rape culture.”  They demanded that men deconstruct their masculine nature to be more like, well, stereotypical women: vulnerable, emotional, and deferential to the opposite sex. They marginalized men as literally unnecessary, celebrating females as capable, courageous, girlbosses who can and should do everything men can do. Anything less is seen as diminishing female capabilities and value. Meanwhile men are failing by almost every social metric, from education to the workplace.

Another factor is that the notorious and often cruel bias of family law against husbands and fathers has driven many men to see marriage as grossly inequitable and undesirable. Boys and young men have watched their fathers destroyed in family court, reduced to the indentured slavery of permanent alimony. They are now rethinking what they see as a no-win conventional lifestyle of marriage and family. Why volunteer to doom yourself, they ask themselves, to a system designed to bleed men dry of their money, health, and ambitions?

In recent years a backlash has begun swinging hard against the ravages of feminism, unfortunately driving millions of young men into the embrace of such online influencers as former kickboxer Andrew Tate. Tate flaunts a cartoonish vision of masculinity centered on flashy materialism and the violent domination and sexual exploitation of women. This backlash also includes an entire subculture called MGTOWs – Men Going Their Own Way – by swearing off long-term relationships with women, whom they see as nothing more than greedy vampires who drain one husband, then trade up to a wealthier one.

In sum, feminism promised to liberate women from what Karl Marx called the “slavery” of motherhood and marriage by pushing them into competition with men, and the Sexual Revolution granted them the freedom to indulge their sexual appetites as promiscuously as any man. The consequence has been a family-destroying disordering of society at home, in the workplace, and between the sexes. So now, women like Drucker, who worked in the porn industry and who confesses to many relationships including one-night stands, are left wondering why so many men have chosen to disengage, to guard themselves emotionally, financially, and physically behind a variety of walls.

If women want men to return so that both can get off the sterile treadmill of dating apps and one-night stands, resuming the imperfect but genuine human dynamic of romance, it will happen only if the failed social experiments of the past are rolled back. This will require a concerted, grass-roots, long march through the institutions of the culture – from education to the news media to the entertainment industry – to undo the ruinous narratives that have brought us to this point.

We must stop smearing traditional masculinity as toxic and oppressive, and quit devaluing traditional femininity as demeaning and imprisoning. We must cease pitting the sexes against each other and reclaim a culture that honors and celebrates their complementary nature. The decades-long push to eradicate any differences between masculinity and femininity, to blur even their very definitions, has wrought nothing but misery, confusion, and resentment, and must be abandoned.

Sometimes societal progress can be made only by acknowledging we have taken a clearly destructive path, retracing our steps to where we first lost our way. It’s the only hope for men and women to – as Drucker put it with such yearning – cocreate something true.

By Mark Tapson

The above article first appeared in Intellectual Takeout (Bloomington, Minnesota), and is reproduced by permission.

New UN treaty allows for virtual child p*rn

By Stefano Gennarini, J.D.

A new UN treaty to combat cybercrimes would allow predators and tech giants to profit from the sexual exploitation of children, including through images created using AI.

These new threats are emerging while the United Nations launches a new treaty to address cybercrime, but the new treaty only addresses some of the threats from sexual exploitation.

While the new treaty calls for criminalizing non-consensual sharing of intimate pictures, it still allows for a broad swath of sexualized content involving children. For instance, while the treaty criminalizes what is newly called “child sexual abuse material,” this term refers narrowly to images of real children. The new term allows for child porn created through Artificial Intelligence. As is now widely known, AI images are shockingly real.

Such images, soon to be allowed by UN treaty, would still be in violation of U.S. federal law. Specifically, in several sections, the new UN treaty allows countries to de-criminalize virtual child pornography in all circumstances as well as private sexting by minors, even to adults.

The General Assembly adopted the treaty on December 24, 2024.  Now countries must sign and ratify it before it goes into force. A signing ceremony for the new treaty will take place at a Summit in July in Hanoi. The treaty will enter into force after forty countries ratify it.

Supporters of the treaty argue that legalizing sexting is compassionate because adolescents have a right to sexual expression. Some argue that letting pedophiles satisfy their sexual preferences with virtual material would make it less likely that they would prey on real children. And they say that dropping the term “child pornography” is necessary to avoid re-victimizing those who have been exploited. They call all this part of a “trauma-informed” and “harm-reduction” approach, based on new theories in behavioral therapy.

Regardless of the merits of such arguments, they would appear to conflict with the priority of law enforcement of preventing abusers from harming future victims. There is no evidence that such new approaches make law enforcement more effective. Until recently, U.S. Justice Department experts argued against it.

Moreover, there is evidence that allowing sexual predators to engage with virtual pornography leads to more child sexual abuse, not less. And anti-trafficking advocates are all too familiar with how underage girls are lured into pornography and eventually the sex industry through sexting.

A recent investigation of the Wall Street Journal uncovered how Meta chat bots pose a danger to children and how executives at the company deliberately allowed the chat bots to engage children sexually and to pose as children willing to engage in sexual acts. The investigation found that sexual predators and tech giants have a common interest in ensuring that children can be sexualized online.

Meta programmers were being pushed by the Meta executive suite not to impose excessive limits on sexual content, including involving children as users and objects, because of the high engagement it generates and the profits this would generate. As a result, existing firewalls to protect children were ineffective by design. Chat bots lured children into sexual conversations that eventually lead to progressively more explicit and degrading sexual content. And chat bots also posed as children who are willing to entertain lewd and even violent sexual behavior from their adult and child users.

Congress has known for over thirty years of the importance to prosecute all forms of pseudo-child pornography, including virtual child pornography and sexting, because it places children at risk. The recent Wall Street Journal investigation would appear to confirm these findings.

SOURCE: C-FAM

Don’t buy your kids a smartphone for Christmas

Over and over and over again, we see that a child can easily access pornography on his or her smartphone and we see them getting addicted at increasingly young ages.

Dear parents, this Christmas, please do not buy your kids porn!

Now, what do I mean by that? I mean that, every Christmas, many, many parents buy their children a smartphone or an iPad for Christmas.

Your kids, if you have kids of that age, have probably been begging for one. Almost every kid wants a smartphone or wants an iPad, not because they want to call people or text people, but because they want access to the internet.

Let me just give you a couple of reasons why this is a terrible idea.

For the last 13 years I’ve speaking on the issue of pornography to young students right across Canada and the United States, and even at times in Europe. And what I have found is that, over and over and over again, we see that kids are accessing pornography on their smartphones and getting addicted at increasingly young ages.

In Christian schools the average age of first exposure to pornography is going down every year. I’ve spoken to about 3,000 students this year alone, and the average age of first exposure to pornography is Grade 6 (age 11–12). The average age of first exposure to pornography in Canada is age nine. It used to be far higher for Christian communities, but increasingly that’s going down.

I’ve spoken in schools where it’s common practice for parents to get kids their first smartphone when they’re heading into Grade 9 (age 14–15) or 10 (age 15–16). And, when I speak to the grade before they get their smartphone, I find that the problem with pornography is far less than the grade immediately afterwards. And the factor is always the same.

The pornography companies recognise this and they’ve actually re-digitised all of their content to make sure it’s easy to view on a phone and easy to look at.

And one of the things I want everybody to keep in mind is that these devices again are not simply just phones. They are access to everything; they are access to the entirety of the internet.

This would be the equivalent of, in 1985, if you had a house filled with unlocked closets and each of those closets were packed with pornography. That’s the equivalent today of having a home filled with unlocked devices that do not have filters, that are not locked down. And you’re just hoping that at no point is your child, in a moment of curiosity or temptation or even by accident, going to go onto a porn site or stumble across a porn site — or, increasingly, as kids send each other clips or send each other images — that they’re not going to fall into temptation or fall into sin in that way.

When you give your kid a smartphone, you are relinquishing control of what they see, and even though some smartphones can be locked entirely down, very, very few parents know as much about this technology as their kids do. And I have gotten more calls than I can count in the last two years alone from parents who found that their kids, with all this time on their hands, managed to get around all the blocks and all of the filters and access porn anyway.

I’ve also heard from many parents who even said that their kid got addicted to porn as young as 11, 12 or 13 years old because they found an old smartphone in a junk drawer or somewhere in the house that nobody was using; and that they could take it, connect to the internet and then look at pornography that way.

Kids will say they need a phone because they want to be able to keep in touch with their parents, or because they want to be able to call their friends. I don’t have any opinion on kids getting a phone that’s used to text or to call.

My issue is with giving kids access to the internet, because over the last 13 years I’ve seen the massive amount of damage that this has done to kids in our Christian communities. I’ve talked to kids who are 15 years old and got addicted to pornography at age 5. I’ve spoken to Grade 11 classes (age 16–17) where every single girl in that grade struggled with porn at some point in the previous six months.

I remember vividly one kid putting up his hand in the middle of a presentation and he said: “If these smartphones are so dangerous, why do parents keep on giving them to us?”

I think that’s a great question, and I think it’s a question we should all consider when we’re deciding this Advent Season what to get our kids for Christmas.

One of my friends put it really well. One parent asked him: “When do you give your child a smartphone?” His answer, I think, was perfect. He said: “Whenever you want their childhood to end.”


By Jonathon van Maren. This article first appeared at The Bridgehead.