Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

It’s so easy to be angry with men

It’s so easy to be angry with men
Getty Images

Molineaux is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and president/CEO of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Last week, a friend of my partner’s killed himself. The friend was part of a national community of disc golfers with hundreds or thousands of friends around the nation. He was the second in six weeks to be suddenly gone, having slipped away before anyone realized he was at risk.


Since 2020, there has been a noticeable increase of mass shootings. I don’t know their individual stories, but the shooters largely fit into a profile of lashing out while battling internal demons and/or indoctrination by an extreme ideology. And of course, they are 99.9% men.

Over the past weekend I participated in a meditation retreat where we were talking about archetypes and archetypal patterns. The topic of the patriarchy came up, and a woman noted that the shadow aspect of the patriarchy is worthlessness. And “it” clicked.

That “it” is an examination of how men - in general - are trapped in a system that promises a male-dominated society, where men are privileged, hold power and are in exchange, responsible for societal welfare. There is no release valve.

The reality that we are shifting away from patriarchy to something not yet defined, is resulting in a crisis of meaning and purpose for men, in general. How can they be responsible for societal welfare? What is the purpose of men in our new society?

I love men. Yet I find them as a generalized group, perplexing. Most men will tell me they are simple. They want to make people in their lives happy (or if ambitious, society at large). They like to compete. They always tell me they are really big jerks (using stronger language). That has not been what I’ve experienced with men in my life.

The men in my life have filled many roles. First was my protective father; I wish everyone had such a dad. Then came a step-father, boyfriends, lovers, husbands and work colleagues. Some have protected me when I needed it. Others have been emotionally distant or empty, leaving my needs unfulfilled until I became self-sufficient. Others challenged my thinking, my sense of self. Yet others were abusive; emotionally and physically. Through it all, I never stopped to consider how they felt about their life, their sense of purpose. I only reacted in my own self-interest. From all of them, I learned. A lot.

In general, men have become the go-to scapegoat and held responsible for the social systems in which we find ourselves. Yet none of the men I know set up the system. They have suffered, too. Our society doesn’t grant permission for men to suffer because the patriarchy promises them the “privilege” to which others aspire.

This is wrong of us who are not men. Anyone can suffer. Any. One. Of. Us.

For too long now – centuries – we’ve seen the shadow side of patriarchy (worthlessness, acted out at self and others) as the word itself has become synonymous with abusive power. We’ve seen the perversion within many faith traditions as too many people tell stories of abuse at the hands of spiritual leaders. Hierarchy - sacred order - has become synonymous with abusive power, too. And matriarchy has been relegated as a primitive form of culture, unable to compete with the demands of modern life.

Our democratic republic, for all its flaws, was a new order in the eighteenth century. How might we update our governance to be a new order for the 21st century? That’s what we need.

What my heart cries out for – longs and yearns for – is a new order. A humanistic sacred order, that allows for the dignity of all people and prevents harm by those granted power to govern.

Read More

How To End Gerrymandering: Reformers Debate Retaliation, Representation, and Redistricting Reform

Given the profound implications for democratic integrity in the U.S., The Fulcrum is hosting a curated roundtable to explore the strategic, moral, and civic dimensions of partisan redistricting.

Getty Images, Israel Sebastian

How To End Gerrymandering: Reformers Debate Retaliation, Representation, and Redistricting Reform

tAcross the democracy reform movement, a growing debate has emerged over how, if at all, reformers should respond to the escalating gerrymandering battles unfolding in states like Texas, California, and beyond.

Last week, Fix.us convened a provocative discussion thread featuring academics and practitioners, surfacing a wide spectrum of views on this contentious issue.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Other America and Politics of Spectacle

America is two very different countries for its diverse population - one that thrives in abundance and another that stumbles from crisis to crisis.

Getty Images, Bloomberg Creative

The Other America and Politics of Spectacle

In 2024, Americans were promised a year of renewal. The election was meant to usher in stability after years of tumult, a chance to repair what had been so badly frayed. Instead, the campaign season laid bare a more uncomfortable truth: the United States is not simply divided by partisan politics. It is, in practice, two very different countries—one that thrives in abundance and another that stumbles from crisis to crisis, hoping not to slip further behind.

The numbers are stark. More than 40 million Americans lived in poverty last year. Nearly 14 million children went hungry. Homelessness surged to almost 772,000 people—an 18 percent rise, the sharpest increase ever recorded. Meanwhile, credit card debt soared past $1.14 trillion, with delinquency rates at their highest in a decade. For families who once defined the middle class, the American Dream now resembles an eviction notice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Who Asked for This? Trump’s Militarization of Cities Nobody Wanted
A U.S. military uniform close up.
Getty Images, roibu

Who Asked for This? Trump’s Militarization of Cities Nobody Wanted

Nobody asked for soldiers on their streets. Yet President Trump sent 2,000 National Guard troops into Washington, D.C.—and now he’s threatening the same in Chicago and New York. The problem isn’t whether crime is up or down (it’s down). The problem is that governors didn’t request it, mayors didn’t sign off, and residents certainly didn’t take to the streets begging for troops. Yet here we are, watching as the president becomes “mayor-in-chief,” turning American cities into props for his reality-TV spectacle of power, complete with all the theatrics that blur politics with entertainment.

Federal Power Without Local Consent

D.C. has always been uniquely vulnerable because of the Home Rule Act. The president can activate its National Guard without consulting the mayor. That’s troubling enough, but now Trump is floating deployments in Illinois and New York—states where he has no such authority. The principle at stake isn’t whether troops can reduce crime; it’s whether the federal government can unilaterally occupy a city whose leaders and citizens told it to stay away.

Keep ReadingShow less