We live in a world where the sides are divided by an enormous chasm. Women feel so threatened and insecure that they end up attacking men for the slightest thing; men, on the other hand, distance themselves more and more, seeking any way to avoid having their lives ruined by an accusation of violence based on nothing.

It is a truth that shines through everyday facts: men are targeted not for their actions but for their simple existence. It doesn’t matter who you are or what you do; you will always be guilty, simply because you are a man. We have become the essence of evil, the personification of everything wrong, corrupt, and wicked existing on Earth. According to current rhetoric, if the male part of the world disappeared, this planet would magically transform into an earthly paradise devoid of problems.

But is it really like that? Is man guilty of existing?

Today I want to go point by point through all the "faults" of which men are accused, to coldly analyze how much truth—or how much stupidity—is hidden behind this narrative.

Is man guilty of existing?

Rape Culture.

The first great and extremely heavy accusation weighing on the male universe is that of so-called "rape culture." A strong term, used to describe an environment that men supposedly create systematically to normalize sexual violence or justify it through cultural prejudices (so-called victim blaming). In practice, men are accused of generating a toxic atmosphere aimed at gaining total control over women's bodies, leaving them defenseless.

But I ask myself: in what universe do those who hurl these accusations live? Where, in concrete terms, is this "culture" in our Western world? The truth is that we live in a society that, rightly, punishes and isolates certain behaviors, rather than normalizing them. We have reached such a level of female protection that often a simple and harmless crossing of paths or glances is enough to trigger an accusation of harassment. The question arises spontaneously: How can one even think that a man could rape a woman if we can’t even get close? Let alone create a culture, which requires a systematic repetition of such an act.

The thing I find most unacceptable is the wild generalization. Just because there are individuals who are "pigs" without restraint, it is demanded that the entire male population feel guilty. It is an embarrassing logical error: it’s like saying, "I kick with my left foot; Maradona kicked with his left foot; therefore, I am Maradona." It makes no sense.

Do cases of rape exist in the world? Yes, unfortunately, they exist, and I am certainly not here to deny it. But to claim that ALL men are potential rapists just because some criminals commit foul crimes is pure madness. It seems to me the classic ideological pretext used to fuel a conflict that, evidently, someone has every interest in triggering and keeping alight.

Femicide.

Let's move on to the theme of femicide. The concept, according to today’s news reports, is clear: a man ALWAYS kills a woman out of jealousy, possession, or madness. But let’s stop for a moment to reflect: is femicide a problem? Certainly yes, but not as an "exclusive crime against women." Femicide is not a practice that EVERY MAN perpetrates, so it is not that social plague the world wants to sell. Furthermore, femicide is, first and foremost, a homicide and should be treated as such.

The fact that the victim is a woman does not make the act intrinsically more serious than it would be if the victim were a man. If we accepted this logic, we would be implicitly affirming that a woman's life is worth more than a man's. This, where I come from, is called discrimination; it is the exact opposite of that "inclusive culture" that everyone talks so much about. Inclusivity means treating every life with the same, identical respect and applying justice with the same weight.

Taking the life of another human being is an ignoble crime against nature and, for those who believe, against every religious principle. In the face of death, there are no genders: men and women are equal. Creating a "preferential lane" for the severity of a crime based on the sex of the victim is not justice; it is an ideological stretch that divides instead of protects.

Harassment.

Here we enter extremely slippery ground. The concept of harassment and catcalling makes me reflect not so much on the gravity of the act itself but on the direction the accusation is taking.

In theory, we are talking about the discomfort caused by unsolicited comments or persistent approaches in public spaces. I am extremely happy that attention to these social details is high and that these wrong attitudes are taken seriously and treated with the seriousness they deserve. It is a fact that many women have suffered real harassment: the world of work is the perfect example, with sexual jokes or inappropriate contact from male colleagues or superiors who abuse their power. Similarly, feeling hunted on public transport or in the street is a concrete, daily problem that still affects many women. Fortunately, laws exist to protect women from all this, and it is right that they do.

The problem arises when the law stops being a shield for defense and becomes a weapon for offense. Today, "harassment" risks becoming a purely subjective matter, based on aesthetic preference. If a man approaches a woman in a decisive and "virile" way and is considered handsome and the woman feels attracted, then the approach is passionate and enterprising. If the exact same approach comes from a man she considers ugly or not in line with her tastes, there goes the harassment alarm in the woman's mind, ready to go off at any moment.

Justice, however, cannot be based on the "vibes" of the moment; it must be based on facts. If a behavior is a crime, it is so regardless of who performs it. If it were not a crime, it cannot become one just because the interlocutor is unwelcome.

The paradoxical thing? This insane subjectivity is backfiring on women themselves. Too many men today live in terror of an accusation just for having attempted a polite approach. Consequently, they keep to themselves in clubs or stay at home. Many women complain that men no longer approach in clubs, that no one "makes the first move" anymore. The reason is simple: men have understood that it doesn't matter how polite they are; if they don't instantaneously "match" the woman's desires, they risk social pillory or a report. And when in doubt, men prefer silence.

Gaslighting

Finally, we arrive at Gaslighting. I admit that until recently I didn't even know this term, but once I understood the concept, I was stunned by the inconsistency of the current narrative. Read carefully, because we are bordering on the paradoxical: gaslighting is described as a form of typically male psychological manipulation aimed at making a woman doubt her own perception of reality or her own mental health. In short, the man would be such an expert manipulator as to be able to nullify a woman's will, convincing her she is crazy.

This is news to me. Not only are we serial rapists and harassers by nature, but now we are also refined architects of the psyche capable of rewriting the reality of others. Yet, if we look at daily life, the reality is often the exact opposite.

More and more often, it is women who exercise stifling forms of psychological control: think of those who force their partner to give up their friendships in the name of an absolute "veneration" of the woman, those who use subtle phrases to mold his aesthetics, or those who hold the couple's financial reins with an iron fist. And what about separations? It is a fact that there are mothers who use their children as a weapon, indoctrinating them with hatred toward the father and preventing all contact.

None of this, however, is called gaslighting. This is called "passionate love and the sign of a strong woman!" If a man applied even a tenth of the psychological control that many women put into practice daily, half the male population would end up straight in prison. Do you think it’s not the same thing? Changing a man's lifestyle also means changing a person's reality, and isolating him from the world is altering his perception. It is time to admit that manipulation has no gender: calling one side the "victim" and the other the "tormentor" regardless of the facts is not social analysis; it is pure ideological propaganda.

Double Presence.

Another recurring accusation is that of double presence: the idea that, despite women's entry into the labor market, the management of the home and children still falls disproportionately on them. On this point, women are almost right. Everything, however, depends on the dynamics of the couple.

If both work the same number of hours and he, once home, doesn't lift a finger while she takes care of everything, the criticism is sacrosanct: both contribute to income in the same way and both must contribute to domestic chores in the same way. But here my doubt arises: the numbers say that, often, women work fewer hours than men. It is logical, therefore, that those who spend more time within the domestic walls should take care of domestic chores more. If she earns less but has more free time, it is fair that she contributes more to household well-being. Someone will object: "But a woman has a right to her own personal sphere!" Certainly, but the house doesn't clean itself every single day. In a five-day week, one is dedicated to cleaning, and the other four remain for oneself, plus weekends. It seems like enough time, considering that her man works all day.

Don’t misunderstand me. The rule is reciprocal: if it were the man staying at home, the task (and the free time for himself) would belong to him. Period.

Then we come to the almost comical side of the matter. There are women who, after marriage or cohabitation, although they could work, deliberately choose not to work because their partner earns enough for both. In this case, the division of tasks is elementary: he breaks his back outside to bring in the money, and she takes care of the management of the home and children. It is a pact of mutual aid for the well-being of the couple: one takes care of finances, the other of management.

The problem is that often this pact is not respected. Many use the available time exclusively for themselves, refusing to cook or clean with the excuse, "I am a free and independent woman; I do not stoop to serving a man!" Do you see the paradox? Choosing to be supported, while at the same time shouting for an independence THAT DOES NOT EXIST, and then pretending to live as a single person within the relationship is not right. And the height of it comes if the man dares to protest: in an instant, he is labeled a misogynist, humiliated on social media or, in the worst cases, reported for domestic violence just because he asked for the respect of a fair agreement.

Social Concept.

Finally, we arrive at what is perhaps the greatest problem: the social perception of man. Today we are described as brutal, aggressive beings obsessed with command through the narrative of so-called "toxic masculinity," which claims that this model damages male expressive freedom by repressing vulnerability. This is the most absurd accusation of all, and, let me say, it’s almost laughable.

The truth is that society—and women first and foremost—asks the man to be the one who solves problems. A woman wants a decisive man, capable of taking charge of the situation in difficulties and solving those problems that, often, she herself has magnified starting from trifles. It is clear that the man must assume a position of command to restore order, because the one who generated the chaos cannot be the same one to solve it. Women ask for it themselves, but then use it as an accusation of overbearing behavior.

On "emotional vulnerability," then, we should draw a veil of pity. If men do not show their emotions, it is first and foremost because the emotional man is frightening. Many women demand that their partner be a robot devoid of feelings, since a vulnerable man is perceived as unstable and difficult to manage. Often the woman seeks "drama," but she wants to be the one to provoke it and have control over it, claiming exclusive rights to emotionality while the man must remain the pillar that supports the "weak" being. We see it constantly: if a man shows weakness or cries, she gets scared and runs toward someone who can give back that security she saw crumbling.

Added to this is the true masterpiece of modern times: emotion used as a weapon. Men do not open up because they are not allowed to by the very people who loudly demand it. When, by pure miracle, he decides to open up and she apparently welcomes it, it is like handing her a loaded pistol pointed at her own temple. Every time a man tries to be vulnerable, that trigger is pulled, and that fragility is systematically thrown back in his face at the first argument, used only to win. The consequence is the TOTAL emotional closure of the man, because he feels hurt by the one who should have protected him, feeling guilty or ridiculed. In this context, demanding that a man be emotional is pure hypocrisy; it is not us who are "closed," it is the system of retaliation surrounding us that imposes on us to remain the rock that everyone demands, only to then complain that the rock doesn’t have a heart of flesh.

Small Reflections.

In conclusion, it is time to stop playing this script where the man is the villain by definition and the woman the eternal victim of a system engineered at a drawing board. If we dig beneath the surface of modern labels—from "glass ceilings" to "toxic masculinity"—what remains are just human dynamics as old as time: effort, compromises, personal choices, and, unfortunately, much hypocrisy.

We have transformed merit into discrimination, protection into oppression, and biology into a fault. But reality is not erased with a social media post or a new buzzword: the world doesn't move forward by rhetoric; it moves forward because there is someone who takes the responsibility to make it turn, often in silence and under a rain of unfounded accusations.

If we truly want to talk about equality, let’s start looking at the facts and not the "vibes." Let's start demanding responsibility from everyone, without gender discounts. Because a world without men wouldn't be an earthly paradise; it would simply be a world at a standstill. It is time to stop pointing fingers and start recognizing ourselves for what we are: human beings, with virtues and flaws, but tired of being the scapegoat for an era that has lost its sense of reality.

M.