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

When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation

Kevin Frazier warns that one-size-fits-all AI laws risk stifling innovation. Learn the 7 “sins” policymakers must avoid to protect progress.

Getty Images, Aitor Diago

When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation

Imagine it is 2028. A start-up in St. Louis trains an AI model that can spot pancreatic cancer six months earlier than the best radiologists, buying patients precious time that medicine has never been able to give them. But the model never leaves the lab. Why? Because a well-intentioned, technology-neutral state statute drafted in 2025 forces every “automated decision system” to undergo a one-size-fits-all bias audit, to be repeated annually, and to be performed only by outside experts who—three years in—still do not exist in sufficient numbers. While regulators scramble, the company’s venture funding dries up, the founders decamp to Singapore, and thousands of Americans are deprived of an innovation that would have saved their lives.

That grim vignette is fictional—so far. But it is the predictable destination of the seven “deadly sins” that already haunt our AI policy debates. Reactive politicians are at risk of passing laws that fly in the face of what qualifies as good policy for emerging technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
President Donald Trump standing next to a chart in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Donald Trump discusses economic data with Stephen Moore (L), Senior Visiting Fellow in Economics at The Heritage Foundation, in the Oval Office on August 07, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Win McNamee

Investor-in-Chief: Trump’s Business Deals, Loyalty Scorecards, and the Rise of Neo-Socialist Capitalism

For over 100 years, the Republican Party has stood for free-market capitalism and keeping the government’s heavy hand out of the economy. Government intervention in the economy, well, that’s what leaders did in the Soviet Union and communist China, not in the land of Uncle Sam.

And then Donald Trump seized the reins of the Republican Party. Trump has dispensed with numerous federal customs and rules, so it’s not too surprising that he is now turning his administration into the most business-interventionist government ever in American history. Contrary to Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” in the economy, suddenly, the signs of the White House’s “visible hand” are everywhere.

Keep ReadingShow less
Cuando El Idioma Se Convierte En Blanco, La Democracia Pierde Su Voz

Hands holding bars over "Se Habla Español" sign

AI generated

Cuando El Idioma Se Convierte En Blanco, La Democracia Pierde Su Voz

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision from its “shadow docket” that reversed a lower-court injunction and gave federal immigration agents in Los Angeles the green light to resume stops based on four deeply troubling criteria:

  • Apparent race or ethnicity
  • Speaking Spanish or accented English
  • Presence in a particular location
  • Type of work

The case, Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, is still working its way through the courts. But the message from this emergency ruling is unmistakable: the constitutional protections that once shielded immigrant communities from racial profiling are now conditional—and increasingly fragile.

Keep ReadingShow less