People often say that our legal system, colleges, and workplaces are meant to be fair places where facts matter and everyone is treated equally. However, in recent decades, this idea has faded. There has been a major cultural and institutional change, shifting the focus from logic and fairness to emotional safety, HR policies, and the belief that female perspectives are always better. This has not led to equality. Instead, men are often seen mainly as sources of money or as easy targets, while their basic rights are sometimes ignored to support a certain ideology.

Nowhere is this more starkly visible than in family courts and reproductive law. The case of Millender v. Millender (2026), as reported in the New York Times, May 29, 2026, serves as a watershed moment, exposing this systemic rot. When a lower-court female judge granted a woman custody of frozen embryos based entirely on situational empathy regarding her biological clock, the court ignored the ex-husband’s explicit legal right not to be forced into parenthood. Judge Ciccotto’s lower-court ruling prioritized subjective emotional empathy (“I know how important this was. Believe me, I know”) over rigid legal consistency. By centering the ruling on the woman’s emotional distress regarding her biological clock, the court abandoned the objective standard of mutual consent.

Even worse, the woman and her legal team intentionally exploited the slow-moving legal bureaucracy. They rushed the implantation within a narrow window before the appellate court could intervene and pause the ruling (within seven days, the appellate court would rule in favor of the male), effectively outrunning the law. Instead of facing institutional reprimand for subverting an active legal dispute, Millender’s actions were celebrated. She hosted a “pre-transfer party” toast to her “tribe” and the “awesome strength of women”. When the woman returned to court already pregnant, the female judge openly congratulated her from the bench, demonstrating how ideological alignment and communal validation can displace judicial neutrality.

It was a cold, calculated move celebrated as an act of “female empowerment” by the court itself. This is exactly what happens in daily divorce and custody battles. The system claims to be neutral, but it defaults straight back to old assumptions that mothers are naturally better caretakers. Fathers are immediately sidelined, turned into walking wallets, and forced to pay into strict financial systems that treat their hard work as a resource for the state to redistribute. This is the same abuse of the system used by females to obtain Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO). Courts prioritize absolute safetyism, and the father is immediately removed from the home and stripped of access to his children. By the time a formal hearing occurs months later, a “status quo” in which the mother is the primary caregiver has been established, and courts are highly hesitant to disrupt it.

The exact same double standard has taken over the educational and career pipeline. Affirmative action programs were supposed to be temporary fixes to level the playing field. Yet, long after women became the heavy majority on college campuses — now taking home around 60% of all degrees — the quotas, preferences, and special tracks for women haven’t slowed down. They have been permanently baked into the system. In this environment, a young guy applying to school or a job isn’t judged on his merit, grades, or drive. He is objectified as a member of an “oppressor class” whose spot needs to be handed over to meet a diversity checklist. It is no wonder young men are walking away from higher education in record numbers; the system has openly told them that the deck is stacked against them.

One of the most serious changes has been in how institutions handle abuse, harassment, and campus misconduct. Many organizations now follow a “believe all women” approach, which can remove the presumption of innocence. The “Mattress Girl” case at Columbia University is a well-known example. Emma Sulkowicz carried a mattress around campus to protest a male student, even though Columbia, the police, and a state court had investigated and found no evidence of assault. Instead of protecting the student from public accusations, the university allowed the protest to continue, including during graduation.

The image above illustrates this situation: a male employee sits alone in a corporate boardroom, surrounded by a panel of female HR directors and executives. There is no open discussion. Instead, the process is one-sided, with decisions already made and paperwork completed. The man’s career ends in accordance with guidelines that prioritize protecting the organization and supporting complaints, sometimes without clear evidence.

Today, when someone is accused, HR departments and Title IX offices often do not act as neutral investigators. Staff may focus on protecting the institution’s reputation and supporting the accuser’s feelings, sometimes regardless of the facts. The definitions of “harassment” and “consent” have become so broad that it can be difficult for a man to defend himself. Men may not be allowed to cross-examine, see evidence, or have a fair chance to respond. This has changed the system, making it possible for actions such as social exclusion, HR complaints, and reputational damage to be supported by schools and companies.

Unless institutions focus again on clear rules of evidence and due process instead of subjective feelings, equal protection will remain out of reach. At present, many systems seem designed to protect organizations and leave men at a disadvantage.

Written by Scott Kimball