For centuries, men built and defended Western civilization -- from its farms and cities to its laws, its art, and its moral order. But in just a few generations, that foundation has been shaken. Masculinity, once honored as the engine of strength, protection, and leadership, is now treated as a social problem. The very qualities that sustained families, communities, and nations are being redefined as “toxic.” Today, masculinity itself is treated as something to be “reformed” or “re-educated.”

What happened? How did the very qualities that built the modern world become objects of suspicion and ridicule?

The truth is simpler: Western civilization depends on men and masculinity -- and it cannot survive without them.

Since the mid-20th century, Western culture has undergone an ideological shift that redefined traditional masculinity as something outdated, even dangerous. The cultural shifts of the 1960s promised liberation but gradually replaced personal responsibility and family order with self-gratification and state dependence. Where strong families once formed the backbone of the West, an alliance of ideological radicalism and excessive consumerism has turned both men and women into disconnected individuals -- easier to manipulate, easier to control.

This erosion of masculine identity didn’t happen by accident. It was shaped through decades of social conditioning that cast male authority as oppressive, fatherhood as optional, and discipline as cruelty. In recent years, even government agencies have launched programs to ‘redefine’ masculinity, echoing language once confined to activist circles. The result is a culture where men are encouraged to suppress their natural instincts -- their drive to lead, protect, and provide -- in favor of emotional conformity. The modern man is expected to apologize for being male.

That truth -- the structural bias against authentic masculinity -- became the foundation for my book, The War on Men: How the New Gender Politics Is Undermining Western Civilization. Written not in resentment, but in plain........

© American Thinker