Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less