American Women Suck

— This content is for informational purposes only and is not intended to provide legal advice. One second, your kid is walking across the store aisle, chasing a snack or just tagging along. The next? They’re on the ground. Crying. Shaken. Maybe even bleeding. A spill that wasn’t cleaned. A loose tile. A cracked sidewalk. Whatever the hazard, your child just suffered what most businesses dismiss as a “minor incident.” But there’s nothing minor about it when it’s your child. In Pahrump, as in the rest of Nevada, families have legal protections when unsafe property conditions lead to injuries. If your child’s fall wasn’t just a clumsy moment—but the result of someone else’s negligence—then it’s time to understand your rights. That’s where a seasoned slip and fall lawyer Pahrump can make all the difference. Kids Fall All the Time… But Not Every Fall Is ‘Just Being a Kid’ Let’s get this out of the way: yes, kids are wobbly. They trip. They run when they shouldn’t. But that doesn’t give businesses a free pass to ignore safety. When a child slips on a wet floor with no sign, tumbles down poorly maintained stairs, or trips over a frayed carpet in a public place—that’s not “kids being kids.” That’s negligence. And under Nevada law, property owners (including stores, parks, schools, and apartment complexes) have a duty of care to keep their premises reasonably safe. When they fail? They can be held accountable. Common Places Kids Get Hurt in Pahrump Pahrump might not be Vegas, but it still has its fair share of high-traffic areas where slip and fall injuries happen regularly. These include: Grocery stores and retail chains Public parks and playgrounds School campuses Apartment complexes Parking lots and sidewalks Fast food restaurants and family diners These spaces are legally required to maintain safe conditions. If they don’t, and your child gets hurt, it’s not just unfortunate—it’s potentially actionable. What to Do After a Slip and Fall Injury Involving a Child When your child is hurt, your first instinct is comfort—not legal strategy. Totally normal. But once the immediate panic fades, here’s what you need to do: Seek medical attention. Even if your child seems “fine,” some injuries—like concussions, internal bruising, or sprains—take time to show up. A medical record will also be vital to your case. Report the incident. If the fall occurred in a store or public place, notify management. Ask for a written report and keep a copy. Take photos. Document the scene. Wet floors, cracked pavement, broken handrails—anything that may have caused the fall. Gather witness info. If someone saw the incident, politely ask for their contact info. Witnesses help validate your story. Call a local expert. Contact a trusted slip and fall attorney Pahrump Nevada who understands both the legal and emotional complexity of cases involving children. Who Pays for the Injury? If a property owner or business failed to take reasonable steps to prevent hazards, they (or their insurance provider) may be liable for damages, including: Medical bills Physical therapy Emotional trauma Pain and suffering Long-term care, if necessary In some cases, compensation may also include future damages—especially if the injury leads to developmental delays, permanent scarring, or mobility issues. Does the Law Treat Kids Differently Than Adults? Actually, yes—and in your favor. Under Nevada law, children are held to a different standard when it comes to fault. A business can’t argue that a child should’ve been “more careful” in the same way they might with an adult. The law recognizes that kids are more vulnerable—and that’s why property owners are expected to be even more vigilant when children are present. Why Local Matters: The Pahrump Legal Advantage Pahrump may be small, but the legal landscape here has its own pace and its own players. A Vegas firm might not understand the nuances of Nye County courts, local businesses, or how to negotiate with insurance adjusters who know the area. That’s why working with a slip and fall lawyer Pahrump—someone who actually lives and works in this community—gives you an edge. They’re not just checking legal boxes; they’re advocating with insight that outsiders don’t have. Final Thought: Your Child Deserves More Than a “Sorry” No one wants to sue over a fall. But when your child gets hurt because someone failed to do their job, saying “sorry” isn’t enough. You deserve answers. Accountability. And support. The right slip and fall attorney Pahrump Nevada will help you understand your rights, build your case, and—most importantly—fight to make sure your child’s future isn’t defined by someone else’s negligence. — This content is brought to you by Chris Reyes iStockPhoto The post What Every Parent in Pahrump Needs to Know About Slip and Fall Accidents with Kids appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

Love is not only dual in nature but can also be confusing and overwhelming. If you are in a serious relationship that you find satisfying yet exhausting, you are not alone. This guide examines how love has this ability to lift us as well as bring us down. We will discuss how in a relationship devotion can be excessive, the unseen issues of loving too much, and how to implement the means towards turning these weaknesses into allies of relationships. … The Dual Nature Of Deep Love A. Identifying The Paradox Of Extreme Emotional Relationships I have discovered that it is wonderful loving so intensely, fire in my hands — the lovely, burning fire. The thing is that it has already occurred on numerous occasions when I became amazed by the fact that the same relationship that uplifts me is capable of depressing me. This is a paradox that I could not solve until I found out that meaningful relationships are not supposed to be easy. B. How Love Transforms From Pure Joy To Complex Emotions That is when I fell in love, the first time. Pure bliss! However, as time progressed, I developed beyond the early butterfly feelings. Today I am in a land where my partner is constantly present in my heart and at times surpasses my feelings. Their hurt is my hurt, and their fight is against my serenity — but I would not give up this soul encounter in exchange. … When Devotion Becomes Overwhelming A. Signs That Your Love Has Become Emotionally Taxing I see that I kept checking yesterday to see whether they are fine. I think I will also change according to my friends — this month I have already cancelled plans thrice just so I can be available. But I feel tired and cannot explain why. I cannot sleep as I reflect on dialogues, trying to see whether I did the right thing. B. The Thin Line Between Caring Deeply And Carrying Too Much Yesterday I found myself solving their work problem instead of finishing my deadline. I care so much it hurts sometimes. I am their emergency when they are in a bad mood and their happiness when they are in a good mood. I even began concealing my own problems so I do not pile on their misery. When did loving them become so heavy? … The Weight Of Responsibility In Love A. How Caring For Someone Creates Natural Burdens I did one of their work problems yesterday instead of completing my deadline. I love to such an extent that it pains sometimes. The fact that they are in a bad mood turns into my emergency; that they are happy turns into my responsibility. I have begun concealing my own problems because I do not want to burden them. When did it get so heavy to love them? B. Balancing Your Partner’s Happiness With Your Own There are occasions when I get too caught up in ensuring that my partner is contented, so much so that I neglect myself. I have gone sleepless planning surprises or problem-solving their issues and still left my needs aside. I am finding out that love is more operable when my cup has been filled, and it is not being selfish but must be done so that I can give the other person love. … Finding Balance In Intense Relationships A. Creating Healthy Boundaries Without Diminishing Connection I already know that boundaries cannot be established by creating walls because boundaries are defined where I stop and my partner starts. Once I began saying to my husband upon arrival home that I needed an hour to decompress after work, our evenings actually became more intimate, as I was much more present. B. Communicating Feelings Without Causing Hurt I find it excellent to sandwich ugly realities with appreciation. He does not hysterically yell at her something like, “You never listen!” I’ll say, “I love our talks. Sometimes I need you to just hear me out before offering solutions. Your advice means so much to me.” … Transforming Burden Into Shared Strength A. Reframing Challenges As Opportunities For Growth I have been finding out that when love hurts the heaviest, there is usually some lesson there that I need to take to my heart. Those moments when I felt crushed under relationship weight? They are in fact invitations to develop. Rather than perceiving the problems as a weight?I would pose myself this question: What strength am I earning with this challenge? B. Emotional Support Techniques With One Another My partner and I work on a very simple system termed by us as the weather reports, that is, a brief inquiry on their emotional status. When one of us feels broken, we do not attempt to repair the other. We just listen. The trick has been that at times being a spaceholder is as effective as fixing solutions. Conclusion To love fully is to love in the sunshine and shadows. Intense bonds are going to bring unspeakable happiness, but they can be overwhelming, as we have discovered. With constant devotion, there is the risk of it being overwhelming and becoming a burden of accountability, and this manifests as conflicting with the causes of selfless care and a sense of self-limits. However, this duality does not make love any less appreciable; on the contrary, this fact indicates its enormous imminence in our lives. The way ahead is the middle way. We can do that by talking freely, setting appropriate boundaries, and being gentle with ourselves, and what used to seem like a burden becomes collective strength. Keep in mind that such complexity of love is its value. Once we can acknowledge these challenges as well as invitations to our possible greatness, which is to say, once we can see the gift in the challenge when we see the challenge as a gift, then we can build alliances that sustain us rather than deplete us and that move our vulnerability not as a liability but as the foundation of something magnificent. … Thank you for reading! If you liked this story, hit the , leave your thoughts, and follow me on Medium for more honest, engaging content every day. Thanks for reading! — This post was previously published on medium.com. Love relationships? We promise to have a good one with your inbox. Subcribe to get 3x weekly dating and relationship advice. Did you know? We have 8 publications on Medium. Join us there! Hello, Love (relationships) Change Becomes You (Advice) A Parent is Born (Parenting) Equality Includes You (Social Justice) Greener Together (Environment) Shelter Me (Wellness) Modern Identities (Gender, etc.) Co-Existence (World) *** – Photo credit: Elham Abdi On Unsplash The post When Love Feels Like Both a Blessing and a Burden appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

— Astrochat.com connects you instantly with verified astrologers who decode your birth chart, tarot spread, or numerology grid in real time. In a single session, you receive actionable advice on relationships, career moves, and life choices at zero cost for the first consultation. Let’s find out more about how it can offer you the desired guidance in life! What Exactly Is Free Chat with an Astrologer Online? Think of it as an on-demand cosmic helpline. You type your question into a chat window – “Should I change jobs?” “Is this relationship long-term?”, and within seconds, an expert responds with insights drawn from Vedic astrology, tarot, or other divination systems. Key perks at a glance: Zero-cost first session: Risk-free exploration. 24/7 access: Ask at 2 a.m. if any worry keeps you up. Secure, anonymous chat: Share only what you’re comfortable with. Love & Relationships: Why Real-Time Guidance Matters When emotions run high, waiting days for an email feels unbearable. That’s not the case with AstroChat.com. Free astro chat online lets you: Identify compatibility hotspots: An astrologer checks and compares birthcharts to reveal chemistry, conflict zones, and communication tips. Time-critical conversations: The astrologer also picks auspicious dates for “the talk,” proposals, or even a peaceful breakup. Handle red-flag transits: If Saturn squares your Moon next month, you’ll be warned about emotional distance and given remedies (e.g., chanting “Om Som Somaya Namah” on Mondays). Well, the result is that you approach love decisions with clarity instead of guesswork. Career & Money: From Cubicle to Corner Office Feeling stuck at work? Free astro chat online can spotlight hidden opportunities: Planetary strengths: A strong Sun in the 10th-house can signal leadership; an astrologer may advise managerial roles. Transit alerts: Jupiter entering your 2nd house could mark a raise window – perfect time to negotiate during appraisals. Remedy road-map: Simple actions (wearing an Emerald for Mercury or placing a Citrine on your desk) can enhance focus and cash flow. Vastu tweaks: Adjust desk direction or add a metal object in the north zone to amplify career growth. Because the guidance is live, you can iterate fast: “I got the interview email – what does the chart say about Friday at 3 p.m.?” Your advisor checks the muhurta and suggests the most auspicious slot. Life Path, Health & Spiritual Growth Beyond love and work, free astro chat online acts as your cosmic GPS: Health signals: An afflicted 6th-house Mars might warn of inflammatory issues; you’ll receive dietary tips and yoga recommendations. Relocation insights: Astro-cartography maps the best cities for success or serenity. Spiritual timing: Know when a Saturn return demands a meditation retreat versus a career sprint. Each chat session ends with tangible to-dos, turning abstract thoughts into daily habits. Why Choose Astrochat.com? Astrochat.com differentiates itself in a crowded universe of apps and portals: 250+ verified experts: Every astrologer passes multiple tests before going live. First chat free: Test everything without spending a rupee. Round-the-clock availability: Problems don’t see hours, and neither does astrochat.com to offer their solutions User ratings & reviews: Choose advisors based on real feedback. Secure platform: Your birth details and chats stay confidential. What Details Should You Keep Ready? Date, time, and place of birth for astrology; specific concerns for tarot or numerology. Your data is safe as Astrochat.com uses end-to-end encryption and never shares personal information. You can ask multiple questions in one free session, as well. Love, career, and health – cover them all within your initial chat window. Final Takeaway Whether you’re going through a messy breakup, eyeing a promotion, or craving a life reboot, free astro chat online turns ancient wisdom into actionable strategies instantly. One zero-cost conversation on Astrochat.com could replace weeks of overthinking and endless browsing on Google. Ready to let the stars talk? Your personal astrologer is just a chat away. — This content is brought to you by Md Badshah Ansari Photo provided by the author. The post How Astrochat.com Can Guide You in Love, Career, and Life appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

Activists have temporarily blocked EU chief’s car outside a weapons factory Right-wing activists heckled European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and briefly blocked her car during a visit to a weapons factory in Bulgaria on Sunday. Members of the Revival and Greatness parties waved the national flag and shouted “Nazi criminal” as they rallied outside the Vazov Machine Engineering Plant (VMZ) in Sopot, the country’s largest state-owned arms producer. “The time of the failed Brussels elite, along with its local servants, is running out,” Revival leader Kostadin Kostadinov declared, adding that the protest showed “Bulgaria is not for sale.” “Ursula von der Leyen, who is under investigation for corruption and conflict of interest at the European level, is deeply disliked in Bulgaria. We do not want her in our country!” he wrote later on Facebook. 🇧🇬 In Sopot werd Ursula von der Leyen ontvangen met kreten van “Nazi!”. Haar bezoek aan een wapenfabriek werd geblokkeerd door aanhangers van partij Revival, ondanks dat de autoriteiten de tijd geheim probeerden te houden. pic.twitter.com/apHOF5dd2T — Symphony (@Symphony_res) September 1, 2025 Germany’s defense company Rheinmetall plans to build a gunpowder plant and a 155mm artillery factory on VMZ grounds. “This is exactly the kind of project we want to see … Up to 1,000 new jobs will come here to Sopot,” von der Leyen told reporters after touring the site with Bulgarian Prime Minister Rosen Zhelyazkov. She also noted that “one third of the weapons used in Ukraine was coming from Bulgaria.” Zhelyazkov said Bulgaria would continue contributing to mine-clearing operations in the Black Sea and provide “airport infrastructure” for EU security needs. View the full article

By Duncan Mboya [NAIROBI, SciDev.Net] Despite Africa’s growing digital footprint, the continent’s science and technology remains underrepresented on Wikipedia, one of the world’s most visited sources of information. While Africa accounts for around 10 per cent of Wikipedia articles, less than one per cent cover science and technology, Anusha Alikhan, chief communications officer at the Wikimedia Foundation, told SciDev.Net. “Only two per cent of Wikipedia editors are from Africa, which complicates the issue, given that the platform receives 50 billion contributions monthly and is read by 15 billion people globally,” said Alikhan. We must become contributors, otherwise the next generation will find us absent from the digital archive of human history. Eugene Agbor Egbe, Cameroonian engineer, Wikipedia editor Between January and June 2025, Sub-Saharan Africa generated 178 million monthly page views on Wikipedia, but this consumption has not translated into African-led content creation, she added. Why it matters Wikipedia has become a global reference point, widely used by students and journalists and increasingly by artificial intelligence (AI) systems training on its vast datasets. For African science, being absent from this repository risks invisibility in emerging technologies such as AI. Keep Science Journalism Alive SciDev.Net provides award-winning science news coverage free of charge. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going. Donate to SciDev.Net today Processing ... Donate now Stripe Payments requires Javascript to be supported by the browser in order to operate. Cameroonian engineer and long-time Wikipedia editor Eugene Agbor Egbe told SciDev.Net: “If our data and contributions are missing, Africa will not only be invisible but also dependent on narratives shaped elsewhere.” The roots of Africa’s underrepresentation lie deep in the continent’s research systems, says Job Mwaura, research associate in cultural anthropology at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Germany. “Western knowledge has dominated Africa through foreign-owned journals that do not favour knowledge from the continent,” he said. Mwaura believes the failure of many governments and universities to fund research adequately has weakened African voices in global knowledge. “South Africa is one of the few countries that consistently supports research,” he added. He says the lack of investment, coupled with earlier scepticism about Wikipedia’s credibility, has discouraged African scientists from contributing. 1,000 engineers trained Egbe, who was recently named Technology Contributor of the Year 2025 by Wikipedia, has been working to change that. He has trained more than 1,000 engineers from five African countries to contribute articles highlighting African innovators and scientific breakthroughs. “I have trained people to write about unsung heroes, groundbreaking research, and innovative projects in Africa’s science and technology sector,” he said. Egbe argues that Africa’s contribution to Wikipedia is not just about representation, but survival in the AI age. “The rise of artificial intelligence depends on large datasets. If Africa is absent, then AI will replicate those absences and Africa will be left behind,” he explained. SciDev.Net team member Davis Weddi reading Wikipedia’s Africa page. Wikipedia has become a global reference point, widely used by students and journalists. Photo Courtesy of Davis Weddi / SciDev.Net Africa’s diversity offers an opportunity to democratise knowledge through local languages. Wikipedia already hosts 18 African-language editions, with Hausa, Igbo, Yoruba, Somali, and Zulu among the largest. Alikhan says African researchers could harness these editions to reach local communities. Wikipedia’s Kiwix software allows offline access in areas without reliable internet, expanding reach to rural communities. “Contrary to what many people think, Wikipedia is a secondary source that references primary materials,” Alikhan said. “Scientists should use it to make their work accessible to both local readers and global audiences.” Wikipedia’s credibility Wikipedia’s credibility has often been questioned, especially by academics concerned about the quality of open-source editing. “Earlier attempts to portray Wikipedia as lacking credibility affected its image, hence leading to low contributions,” acknowledged Mwaura. But he believes the trend has shifted. “Communities and even renowned scientists are now contributing credible, referenced material,” he said. “The platform has become part of the global knowledge infrastructure.” For Egbe, the need for other African scientists to contribute to the platform is urgent. “Africa cannot afford to sit back and consume knowledge created elsewhere,” he said. “We must become contributors, otherwise the next generation will find us absent from the digital archive of human history.” This piece was produced by SciDev.Net’s Sub-Saharan Africa English desk. You might also like [related-articles] This article was originally published on SciDev.Net. Read the original article. — Previously Published on scidev.net with Creative Commons License *** – The world is changing fast. We help you keep up. We’ll send you 1 post, 3x per week. Join The Good Men Project as a Premium Member today. All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS. A complete list of benefits is here. — Photo: unsplash The post African Science and Tech ‘Missing’ from Wikipedia appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

— There are plenty of methods for energy conservation in today’s world. However, it can be challenging to discern what is right from what is wrong at times. If you’re surfing the internet for the right ways to save energy, please be aware of misconceptions. In the worst-case scenario, you follow such tips and end up raising your costs. Ensure you conduct thorough research so that your efforts are not wasted. To help you do exactly that, here are some common home energy myths to watch out for. 1. Energy Efficiency is the same as Energy Conservation Energy efficiency and energy conservation are often used interchangeably. Do they mean the same? No! Energy conservation focuses on implementing methods that eventually lead to less energy. This could include something as simple as turning off lights or unplugging your computer system when not in use. Energy efficiency is tied to technological innovations in home energy management systems, promoting a more sustainable and effective use of energy. For example, you can choose LED bulbs over incandescent ones. Having said that, both energy conservation and energy efficiency aim to reduce consumption. 2. Turning Lights On and Off Consumes More Electricity Are you really saving costs every time you turn on the lights? Switching lights (other than LED ones) on and off frequently reduces their operating life. Eventually, the cost of new bulbs might be higher than the money you save on the electric bills. So if you are confused about when to turn off your lights, better not to make that decision, thinking of increasing your energy bill. That being said, remember to turn your lights off when you leave the room! 3. Leaving Appliances on Sleep Mode is Better If you have read energy-saving appliance hacks, then you are well aware that energy-efficient appliances are home favourites. But what you may not know is that setting them in sleep mode doesn’t save more energy. Myth busted! Most appliances like computers, refrigerators, TVs, AC, and washing machines consume high energy. Gadgets on stand-by use phantom power, aka ghost power. They secretly draw energy. Hence, the only way to prevent this from happening is by switching them off completely. 4. Closing Vents Reduces Energy Usage Closing vents in unoccupied or unused rooms for the purpose of reducing energy usage is common in all households. Sadly, this is a widespread misconception. This is not just a myth, but a damaging one as well. When you close HVAC circulation into rooms, it leads to an inefficient heating and cooling system due to pressure buildup. This, in turn, damages the ducts. Doing this can adversely affect the balance created by the HVAC system based on the size and layout of your building. For efficient airflow throughout your home, make sure that the vents remain clean and open. 5. High Thermostat Level is More EFFECTIVE Never fall for this energy-efficiency myth that thermostats set at high temperatures will warm rooms quickly. This only wastes more energy by making the entire system run for a prolonged period. So always set the temperature at a desired level! If you still feel confused about how to run a thermostat, we recommend installing a setback thermostat. This ensures automatic adjustment of the temperature at pre-set times. 6. Solar Panels are Expensive The cost of solar panels is a hot topic when it comes to buying or building a new home. What most people don’t know is that they are pretty budget-friendly. In the past decade, the prices of solar panels have come down sharply. At the same time, solar power for the home has become a basic necessity. Technological innovations have also helped lower installation costs. To make solar panels more affordable to the public, governments across the world have introduced varying support policies. Solar panels are not an expensive investment. They save energy in the long run. Conclusion Energy efficiency myths like these can lead you on the wrong path. Being aware of them helps you make the right choices. In turn, it will maximise your energy savings. — This content is brought to you by Luke Peters iStockPhoto The post 6 Home Energy Myths Debunked appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

– By Arin Schultz for Naturepedic Does your teen always seem exhausted, irritable, or struggling to stay awake in class? You’re not alone. We’re facing what experts have called a sleep deprivation epidemic among American teens. The numbers are worrisome. According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, the percentage of high schoolers getting inadequate sleep went from 69% in 2009 to 77% in 2021.Quality sleep isn’t just about counting hours. It’s about creating the right environment and habits for quality, restorative rest. Naturepedic explores why teens are so tired and, more importantly, how to help them sleep better. Understanding the Teen Sleep Crisis Before you blame late-night social media sessions or procrastination, let’s understand what’s happening in teenage bodies. During adolescence, your teen’s biology is going through major changes. Their internal clock, or circadian rhythm, naturally shifts later. This makes them feel more alert in the evening and drowsier later in the morning. A “sleep phase delay” means many teens naturally won’t feel tired until around 11 p.m., yet still need eight to 10 hours of sleep for healthy development. The Impact of Sleep Deprivation Among Teens When teens don’t get enough sleep, the consequences go far beyond morning grumpiness. Poor sleep can lead to: Difficulty concentrating and declining grades Increased anxiety and depression Higher risk of drowsy driving Compromised decision-making abilities Weakened immune system These effects underscore the critical need for prioritizing healthy sleep during adolescence to support overall well-being and future success. Why Are Teens Losing Sleep? So what’s keeping teens from getting the sleep they need? Let’s look at three major factors affecting teen sleep today. 1. Too Much Screen Time A 2022 American Academy of Sleep Medicine survey found that about 93% of Gen Z adults admitted to staying up late for social media. The average U.S. teen spends nearly five hours daily on these platforms, according to a 2023 Gallup survey. These numbers paint a concerning picture of just how much screen time is affecting teens’ sleep habits. Unfortunately, screen time leads to poor sleep hygiene. Blue light from screens disrupts natural sleep hormones, making it harder to wind down. 2. Pressure to Succeed Between AP classes, sports, extracurriculars, part-time jobs and college applications, today’s teens are under lots of pressure. In high-achieving students, this may translate into overwhelming stress that follows them to bed. This constant pressure can lead to racing thoughts at bedtime and difficulty falling asleep, creating a frustrating cycle of stress and sleeplessness. 3. Early School Start Time Remember teens’ natural biological sleep patterns? Most high schools start before 8:30 a.m., forcing teens to wake up when their bodies are still in sleep mode. This misalignment between school schedules and natural sleep patterns creates a constant state of jet lag. Building Healthy Sleep Hygiene Habits Between FOMO, academic pressure and their natural tendency to stay up late, establishing good sleep hygiene for teens can feel like an uphill battle. However, small changes can make a big difference, and it all starts with understanding what actually works. Create a Consistent Sleep Schedule Setting a consistent sleep schedule is the foundation for better rest. Think of it as training the body’s internal clock — when you go to bed and wake up at roughly the same time every day (yes, even on weekends!), your body learns to naturally wind down and wake up at the right times. Build a Wind-Down Routine About 30-60 minutes before bed, start dimming the lights and have your teen engage in calming activities. Maybe it’s reading a favorite book, listening to soft music or practicing some gentle stretches. The key is finding what helps them unwind and making it a consistent part of their bedtime routine. Perfect Your Teen’s Sleep Environment Your sleep environment matters more than you might think. A cool, dark, quiet room sets the stage for quality rest. A comfortable mattress and bedding can transform your sleep experience. When your teen isn’t tossing and turning on an uncomfortable mattress, their body can truly relax and restore itself. Exercise Physical activity during the day can significantly improve sleep quality at night. However, timing is important — your teen should try to finish any vigorous exercise at least four hours before bedtime. Morning physical education or afternoon sports can help them regulate their sleep-wake cycle. Mind Their Eating Habits What you eat and drink plays a big role in sleep quality, too. Those afternoon energy drinks might help them power through soccer practice, but they can wreak havoc on sleep quality. Your teen should try to avoid caffeine after 2 p.m. and be mindful of heavy meals close to bedtime. If they’re hungry in the evening, opt for a light, healthy snack instead. Manage Stress Every teen processes stress differently, and that’s perfectly okay. Some might find peace in writing down their thoughts before bed. Others simply need someone to talk to who can help them unpack the day’s challenges. The key is helping your teen find their personal stress-relief strategy before bedtime. Remember, teens are navigating a world that often feels like it’s moving at lightning speed. When to Seek Help for Your Teen While some sleep struggles are normal, watch for signs that professional help might be needed. These may include: Persistent difficulty falling or staying asleep Loud snoring or breathing issues during sleep Significant mood changes or depression Declining grades despite good study habits Creating Change, One Night at a Time Breaking the cycle of teen sleep deprivation starts with understanding the “why” and implementing small, consistent changes.By combining good sleep hygiene with the right sleep environment, you can help adolescents get the rest they need to thrive. This story was produced by Naturepedic and reviewed and distributed by Stacker. — Previously Published on hub.stacker Subscribe to The Good Men Project Newsletter Email Address * Subscribe If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project, please join us as a Premium Member today. All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS. Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here. Photo credit: iStock The post How to Break the Cycle of Chronic Sleep Deprivation in Teens appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

I was scrolling through Facebook the other night, and I saw something that stopped me cold. A woman in a private parenting group posted, “I just couldn’t imagine raising a boy. I terminated my pregnancy. I’ll try again for a girl.” And the comments? Heart emojis. Congratulations. Women cheering her on like she had just won a prize. I just sat there staring at my screen, thinking, What the hell is happening to us? This isn’t the abortion debates we used to know. Remember when the big question was, “At what stage is it morally right to abort?” Those debates were hard enough. But at least the argument was rooted in fear, survival, or unplanned circumstances. Now it’s almost casual. A baby is no longer a baby. It’s an option. A choice in the same way you choose the color of your car. And here’s the part that makes me sick: if that baby is a boy, in some circles, that’s reason enough to get rid of him. It’s called sex-selective abortion. I think it’s cynical. At first, I thought it was a wild conspiracy theory — until I read that Slate article. Parents doing IVF not to fix infertility, not to avoid genetic disorders, but purely because they only want daughters. And it’s not just the articles. It’s the quiet confessions in hidden corners of the internet — Reddit threads, closed Facebook groups, even casual comments under TikToks. “Boys are too hard.” “Girls are sweeter.” “I didn’t want to risk raising another man in this society.” These aren’t isolated incidents. Even biology gets dragged into the conversation. Some scientists argue that female bodies naturally terminate weaker male fetuses. Churches whisper that societies “function better” with fewer men. I can’t help but wonder: are we just dressing up our prejudices in science and spirituality so we can sleep at night? Every time I read those stories, my stomach twists. I think of my nephew, the little boy who brings me flowers from the backyard and tells me I’m his favorite person. I think of my friend’s son, who built her a Lego house because she was sad. I think… how many little boys like them will never get the chance to exist — because someone somewhere decided they weren’t good enough, simply for being who they are? So tell me, are women really declaring war on men? Or have we just found a polite, socially acceptable way to erase them? If you’re sitting there wondering, what the heck is going on — trust me, I’m right there with you. Because for me, it has never been about whether the baby growing inside a woman is a boy or a girl. What matters — what has always mattered — is whether that woman actually wants to be pregnant. Whether she wants to carry that child for nine months, endure the pain of delivery, and face the lifelong commitment that follows. In a world where safe, legal abortion exists, forcing someone to carry a child they do not want is brutality. But no — women are not erasing the male gender. That’s not what this is. Even the 1967 Abortion Act recognized this nuance. Sex selection wasn’t just some radical whim; it was legal in places where being born the “wrong gender” could literally cost you your life. Places where a dowry system could bankrupt a family. Where a father, denied a male heir, might turn his rage on his wife — or worse, on the baby girl she delivered. So when you think about that, no one can say those women were wrong? Faced with violence, poverty, and shame, they weren’t being cruel. They were being rational. I remember when I was pregnant with my daughter. My mom prayed day and night — not for a healthy baby, not for an easy delivery, but for a girl. She was terrified that if my baby was a boy, he’d be branded for life. “An illegitimate son,” she whispered, “will never be accepted here. They’ll call him cursed. They’ll call you cursed.” And she was right. I’d seen it with my own eyes. Boys born outside marriage marked as outcasts — ridiculed, humiliated, treated as if they didn’t even belong to this world. But girls had a chance to escape the shame if they married, to disappear quietly into a new life where no one asked questions. That’s what people don’t understand when they talk about sex-selective abortion like it’s some cold, clinical choice. It’s not. It’s fear. It’s survival. It’s a desperate attempt to shield your child — and yourself — from a world that can be vicious and unforgiving. Sex selection isn’t new, though. For most of human history, parents prayed for sons. In China, during the one-child policy era, baby girls were aborted, abandoned, or killed in the quiet of the night. In some villages, newborn girls were left in baskets by the roadside, tiny pink bundles waiting for someone — anyone — to take pity. In other cultures, even today, infanticide is still a reality, mostly aimed at girls. If we resurrected every human who has ever lived and told them that, in modern America, parents are disappointed about having boys, they’d think we’d lost our minds. But here we are. However, the reason is complicated — tangled up in the very ideals of progress and gender equality that we claim to celebrate, while holding onto some benevolent sexism. You see, when boys are no longer valued as heirs to the family name, or as strong backs for the farm, or as future providers, then… what’s special about them? We praise our daughters openly — “girls can do anything,” “girls run the world” — and yes, that’s a beautiful thing. But when was the last time you heard someone celebrate a boy without apology, without a nervous laugh, without adding “but, you know, not in a toxic way”? Even as an unapologetic liberal, I can admit it. This is creating something dark. Something toxic. We’ve built this quiet narrative that boys are trouble. Or, at the very least, ticking time bombs — susceptible to violence, failure, misogyny. And the numbers? Oh gush, the numbers only feed that fear! Everywhere you look, the crisis of masculinity is being reported. Boys are less likely to finish high school. Less likely to graduate from college. Less likely to marry, to start families, to build stable lives. One study even found that 60% of young men are single, compared to 30% of young women, many of whom are increasingly choosing queer relationships over heterosexual ones. So what do we tell these boys? That they’re unwanted? That their existence is a mistake? Sometimes, that’s exactly what it feels like when I’m scrolling through Twitter or TikTok. I saw a viral post last week, “The world would honestly be a better place with fewer men.” Thousands of likes. Thousands of comments in agreement. I just sat there, staring at my phone, thinking — How did we get here? Because if society has decided that girls are precious, full of potential, and worthy of protection… but boys are expendable? That’s not progress. That’s just a new kind of cruelty, disguised as wokeness. For a lot of people, going through all the trouble to make sure they have a girl feels almost… virtuous. Like they’re doing the world a favor. I’ve seen the conversations. I’ve been in the threads. They say things like, “If everyone had daughters, the world would be safer.” Or, “Oldest children are more successful — if we all had girls first, we could literally squash inequality.” It’s wild. This idea that engineering the perfect family somehow makes you morally superior. And then there’s this other belief — the one that really makes my blood boil. This quiet assumption that girls can do anything, while boys… can’t. Boys, apparently, can’t do their own laundry. Can’t be trusted to call their moms. Can’t express empathy. Can’t even really belong in the family once they hit a certain age. So what’s the safer bet? Raise a daughter. She’s far less likely to grow up and idolize Andrew Tate. Far less likely to commit a mass shooting. And here’s the kicker — when a man works himself to the bone chasing money, we call it toxic, capitalist, greedy. But when a woman does it? She’s a girlboss. She’s celebrated. She’s inspirational. She’s proof of progress in a world where only 23% of technical roles are filled by women. This is why to some parents, a daughter feels like the ultimate win. All the achievements. None of the baggage. But I get it. I do. Who doesn’t want to believe they’re raising someone the world will celebrate instead of scrutinize? Still, I can’t shake this gnawing thought — what are we teaching our sons when the unspoken message is that they’re disposable, dangerous, or destined to disappoint? Even so, I can’t get behind the idea that sex selection is somehow “progressive.” If anything, it’s still sexist at its core. You can’t predict who your child will be. You can’t foresee how they’ll express their gender, or what qualities they’ll grow into as a human being. Yet, sex selection asks you to make an irreversible decision based on… what? Stereotypes. It’s unfair — cruel, even — to bring a child into the world with the expectation that she will fulfill some gendered obligation, however positive it might seem. A daughter to share secrets with. A future best friend. Someone who will call home every Sunday and never forget your birthday. What happens when she doesn’t? When she grows up to be fiercely independent, distant, or uninterested in the roles you quietly assigned her before she ever drew her first breath? Sex selection reinforces the same old trap — the belief that certain traits — nurturing, closeness, empathy — are tied to gender. The same belief that, for generations, limited women, boxed them in, and told them what they could or couldn’t be. And now, selecting for girls flips that prejudice on its head — but doesn’t erase it. It just creates a new wound. It quietly tells boys, you are the problem. You are the risk. You are less worthy of love. If you think you can build a deeper emotional bond with a daughter, fine. But maybe the better question is: why not cultivate that bond with a son? Why not raise boys who are tender, empathetic, present — because you believed in them from the start? Because until we start making that turn, I don’t think we’re moving closer to equality. I think we’re just repainting the walls of the same broken house. — This post was previously published on medium.com. Love relationships? We promise to have a good one with your inbox. Subcribe to get 3x weekly dating and relationship advice. Did you know? We have 8 publications on Medium. Join us there! Hello, Love (relationships) Change Becomes You (Advice) A Parent is Born (Parenting) Equality Includes You (Social Justice) Greener Together (Environment) Shelter Me (Wellness) Modern Identities (Gender, etc.) Co-Existence (World) *** – Photo credit: Vitaly Gariev On Unsplash The post Why Men Think Women Are Openly Declaring War on Them appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

By Alvin Powell | Harvard Staff Writer | Harvard Gazette Financial-incentive programs for prospective parents don’t work as a way to reverse falling birth rates, Harvard health experts said on Tuesday about a policy option that has been in the news in recent months. Instead, they said, a more effective approach would be to target issues that make parenting difficult: the high cost of living, a lack of affordable childcare, and better options for older parents who still want to see their families grow. The discussion, held at The Studio at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, came in the wake of a July report from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention that showed that the U.S. fertility rate was down 22 percent since the last peak in 2007. Ana Langer, professor of the practice of public health, emerita, said the causes of fertility decline are numerous, complex, and difficult to reverse. Surveys investigating why people might not want children cite things such as the cost of living, negative medical experiences from previous pregnancies, and wariness about major global issues such as climate change. In fact, she said, many survey respondents are surprised that declining fertility is even a problem and say they’re more concerned about overpopulation and its impacts on the planet. The landscape is complicated by the fact that U.S. society has changed significantly since the 1960s, when expectations were that virtually everyone wanted to raise a family. Today, she said, people feel free to focus on careers rather than families, and there is far greater acceptance of those who decide never to have children. Margaret Anne McConnell, the Chan School’s Bruce A. Beal, Robert L. Beal and Alexander S. Beal Professor of Global Health Economics, said some of the factors that have contributed to the declining birth rate reflect positive cultural shifts. Fertility rates are falling fastest, for example, in the youngest demographic, girls age 15 to 20. Teen pregnancy has been long considered a societal ill and is associated with difficult pregnancies, poor infant health, interrupted education, and poor job prospects. Other factors include the widespread availability of birth control, which gives women more reproductive choice, as well as the increasing share of women in higher education and the workforce. McConnell said some stop short of having the number of children they desire, due to fertility, medical, and other issues. One way to address declining fertility, she said, would be to find ways to enable those parents to have the number of children they wish. Today people feel free to focus on careers rather than families, and there is far greater acceptance of those who decide never to have children. –Margaret Anne McConnell “Any time we see people being able to make fertility choices that suit their family, I think that’s a success,” McConnell said. “I think people choosing to have children later in life is also a success. …To the extent that we can make it possible for people to reach whatever their desired family size is, I think that that would be a societal priority.” The event, “America’s declining birth rate: A public health perspective,” brought together Langer, McConnell, and Henning Tiemeier, the Chan School’s Sumner and Esther Feldberg Professor of Maternal and Child Health. Addressing the declining birth rate has become a focus of the current administration — President Trump has floated the idea of a $5,000 “baby bonus” and $1,000 “Trump Accounts” that were part of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” approved this summer. Panelists at the virtual event pointed out that a declining birth rate is not just a problem in the U.S. It has been declining in many countries around the world, and for many of the same reasons. As people — particularly women — become better educated and wealthier, they tend to choose smaller families than their parents and grandparents. Tiemeier said that changing societies and cultures have altered the very nature of relationships between men and women. He added sex education to the list of key changes that have fueled the birth-rate decline, particularly for teen pregnancies. The question of whether declining fertility is a problem is too simple for such a complex issue, he said. In a country with a growing population, where women have, on average, three children, the birth rate falling to 2½, slightly over the replacement value, would be beneficial economically, ensuring more workers to support the population as it ages. Countries with a birth rate below 1, whose population is already contracting, risk too few workers to fuel their economy, not to mention the social and societal impacts of a lack of young people. Tiemeier and McConnell said that other countries have tried simply paying people to have more children, and it doesn’t work. Even if the declining birth rate was considered a catastrophe, McConnell said, governments haven’t yet found levers that can bring it back up. That doesn’t mean there aren’t things government can do to help parents navigate a difficult and expensive time in life. Programs to lower the cost of childcare have been instituted in some cities and states, and more can be done. Tiemeier said both Republicans and Democrats are interested in supporting families, though their approaches may be different. So this may be a rare issue on which they could find common ground. Other areas of associatedneed include maternal health — a significant part of the population lives in healthcare “deserts” far from medical care. Programs designed to reach those areas, as well as a national parental-leave policy, would help young families navigate that time. “Any measure that we take will have a modest effect, because there are so many things contributing to this,” Tiemeier said. “To say that we are waiting and looking for a measure that has a big effect is an illusion. There are no big effects in this discussion.” — This story is reprinted with permission from The Harvard Gazette. *** Subscribe to The Good Men Project Newsletter Email Address * If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project, please join us as a Premium Member today. All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS. Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here. — Photo credit: unsplash The post How to Reverse Nation’s Declining Birth Rate appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

Ex-Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis attacked during parliamentary election campaign Former Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis was briefly hospitalized after being hit in the head with a walking stick during a campaign event on Monday. The incident took place in the village of Dobra in the eastern part of the country, where the leader of the right-wing ANO party was meeting supporters ahead of the October parliamentary election. According to ANO spokesman Martin Vodicka, an assailant struck Babis in the head from behind with a “metal object.” ANO MP Zuzana Ozanova, however, told the website iDENS.cz that the politician was hit with a walking stick. Police said the attacker, who has not been identified, was detained at the scene. His motives remain unclear. Babis was taken to a hospital for tests and later discharged. “Thank you all for your support. I hope I’ll be fine. Tomorrow I’ll be waiting for further assessment of the examination results, but for now the doctors have recommended that I rest,” he wrote on X. He canceled a similar trip planned for Tuesday. 🚨 Předseda hnutí ANO Andrej Babiš byl dnes napaden berlí do zad. Stalo se to tak na setkání s voliči v Dobré u Frýdku-Místku. Incident podle na místě řešila policie. Babiše podle informací ošetřují v místní nemocnici. pic.twitter.com/r8ARb50xnh — blesk (@blesk_cz) September 1, 2025 ANO deputy leader Alena Schillerova blamed the attack on “hatred spread by the ruling parties on billboards and social media.” “This is a direct consequence of their campaign based on fear and division,” she wrote on X. Babis, who served as prime minister from 2017 to 2021, has opposed sending weapons to Ukraine and argued that the conflict between Moscow and Kiev should be resolved through diplomacy. He has denied accusations of spreading “Russian narratives.” View the full article

In Aikido practice, we trained with the jo (wooden staff) against the bokuto (wooden sword) attack. As I practiced, Ishibashi Sensei said, “You have to move backwards.” I got it. I had to move backwards to draw the attacker in, invite the attack. Instead, I moved forward with the jo. As I move backward, I strike the attacker 5 times. Sensei demonstrated before I strike that I profile and draw back my jo with my back hand. I wait it out. I strike the attacker as they attack. Draw back and wait. Strike straight to the head. Draw back and wait. Strike down to the head. Draw back and wait. Strike up to the head. Draw back and wait. Strike the leg. Draw back and wait. Strike to the side of the attacker’s head with the jo in my right hand. I practiced that over, and over, and over again. Draw back. Wait it out. Strike. Now I know. Years ago, I would think, “I’m no good! I suck!” I was unkind to myself. I had zero space for failure. Since, I’ve learned to love myself for who I am and forgive myself for who I’m not. I’m good with where I am. I can always be better, the better person, the better man. The late Mizukami Sensei said, “Just train.” It’s not like I have to be somewhere or be someone else. I have nothing to prove. I work on myself, not on others. I always have something to work on, to improve, to refine. Now I know. Billionaire music superstar Taylor Swift made her podcast debut on boyfriend Travis Kelce and his brother Jason Kelce’s New Heights. That New Heights episode had over 20 million views. Taylor Swift literally broke the Internet. Taylor asked Jason, “How is the wax growing in?” Jason lost a bet and had to rock his speedo at a public event. He got the European Bikini Wax for that. Taylor asked, “How are we managing it?” Jason said, “I’m managing it by not managing it.” His hair slowly grew back. Taylor asked, “So are you going to do it again?” Jason admitted, “I don’t think so.” Taylor said, “Because now you know.” She confessed, “I always say that after I make an unfortunate judgement call. Well, now I know.” Although I feared inside that I was not good enough, I said to someone, “I love you.” I entered what I feared most. Didn’t defend against what I feared. No, she didn’t love me. She stayed with me until she could find the man she could love. What we all want in life. Although I have nothing to do with what goes on inside someone else, I have a say with what goes on inside me. My fear was truth. I can be quiet inside. Well, now I knew. In the samurai proverb: Nana korobi ya oki. Fall down 7 times, get up eight. When I fall, when I fail, I get back up. I move forward. Maybe someday, like Travis Kelce, I’ll find my Taylor Swift. I’ll say, “I love you.” Maybe, she loves me. Maybe, she doesn’t. Now I know. When I’m afraid inside, I open up. I let go my fear inside that I’m not good enough over, and over, and over again. I free myself. Let the chips fall where they may. Whether the sword strikes, getting a bikini wax, or saying, “I love you.” Now I know. I can live with that. I can live with myself, too. — Photo by José León on Unsplash The post Now I Know appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

I first reached out to Lindsay Cray for insights on Rochester’s Lower Falls Gorge while working on an article for The Conservationist. What began as a conversation about geology and ecology quickly deepened into something more profound. Cray’s relationship to the gorge, and to the land itself, isn’t just observational. It’s alive. Reciprocal. “If you’re feeling any kind of way,” she told me, “you can go to the gorge and let it hold you. That water is ancient. It carries big energy—the kind that can transform the heaviness we all carry sometimes. The gorge isn’t just a landscape; it’s a living force.” Cray, a Licensed Mental Health Counselor and Certified Clinical Adventure Therapist, helps others tune into that force, not as a romantic escape from life’s challenges but as a partner in healing. For decades she has worked at the intersection of mental health, community building, and ecological restoration, weaving them into a single philosophy: reconnection. “People need to reconnect—with the land, with themselves, and with each other.” But Cray’s insights run deeper than any credential. They reflect an understanding that what she teaches, agency, balance, relationality, is ancient wisdom practiced by Indigenous cultures for centuries. Quoting her colleague, author and Two-Spirit advocate Shawn Kalanv (Raven), she reflects: “Long before Western intellectuals coined ‘humanism,’ Indigenous nations were embodying it. Women chose whether to be warriors or wives. They selected partners, evaluated cohabitation, and could end a marriage simply by placing a man’s belongings outside. That’s agency. That’s balance. That’s leadership.” “These weren’t radical ideas,” she says, echoing Kalanv’s words. “They were ways of being. Colonial systems erased that wisdom and then repackaged it as progress. Even now, modern humanist movements rarely acknowledge the Indigenous roots of relational, communal, and egalitarian values. If we want to lead with integrity, we have to tell the whole truth.” Cray honors those truths in her work, both subtly and directly. At retreats like Wild Woman (coming September 2025), participants engage in immersive experiences that blend traditional ecological knowledge, feminine psychotherapy, and ecopsychology. “It’s about reconnecting with the wild within you—the part of you that remembers your worth.” Her passion for environmental education is not about transferring knowledge so much as sparking transformation. “I love blowing people’s minds,” she says with a smile. “Watching them try new things and realize what they’re capable of, that’s why I teach.” At wilderness survival classes she once taught across Rochester—from RIT to Rochester Brainery—students learned to build fires, find food, and navigate home. But they also learned resilience, mindfulness, and patience through their relationship with the land. “By the end, people are lit up with excitement. They’ve discovered not just survival skills but something about themselves.” These moments, she explains, are less about survival than stepping beyond comfort zones and growing. “Nature is the perfect partner for that. It asks us to show up, to stay present, and it rewards us with perspective.” Cray’s understanding of healing has been shaped as much by her travels as her practice. “It’s hard to pick a favorite place,” she admits. “I lived in Puerto Rico for six years, and it felt like home. I learned the language, met people who became family. The island is called the Island of Enchantment for a reason.” Her global journeys only deepened her sense of wonder. “In Colombia, I met some of the kindest people you’ll ever find. Spain—it’s the culture and architecture. Italy has this raw passion. Australia has a wildness that’s electric. Every place is unique.” Before returning to Rochester, she and her husband, Nick Brown, spent a year in California’s Central Valley working for a land trust. She served as education and volunteer director; he stewarded 15,000 acres. Together they launched programs, most notably one for adjudicated youth that paired hands-on environmental work with deep inquiry. “That program is still going,” she says. “Leaving was hard, but my husband’s health couldn’t handle the pollution. We realized once we got back to Rochester, no one would hire us to do this kind of work. So we decided to create it ourselves.” Thus, Earthworks Institute was born—a first-of-its-kind nonprofit in Rochester, built on outdoor experiential learning. Over two decades, Cray has pioneered progressive nature-based therapies, including Trybe Ecotherapy in 2020, a county-funded pilot that helps military veterans heal trauma by restoring balance across cognitive, emotional, and physical states. Her early career included a National Science Foundation fellowship and participation in the 2009 UN Climate Conference. Today, as a consultant and counselor, she bridges disciplines, psychotherapy, environmental education, and nonprofit leadership, to help individuals and communities heal. Born and raised in Rochester, Cray remembers roaming woods off Empire Boulevard as a child. Coming back years later, she sees both progress and loss. “We sit on the southern shores of Lake Ontario—one of the world’s largest freshwater bodies. There’s huge potential for eco-tourism here. But fences and signs won’t protect these places. If we want to preserve them, we need people to feel a sense of stewardship, not just management.” Fluent in Spanish, trained as a Wilderness First Responder, and experienced in grant writing and nonprofit leadership, Cray moves fluidly across worlds. Her vision is ambitious but clear: a Rochester where neighborhoods see the land as part of their identity. “Healing ourselves and healing the earth aren’t two separate tasks,” she says. “They’re the same work.” — Subscribe to The Good Men Project Newsletter Email Address * Subscribe If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project, please join us as a Premium Member today. All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS. Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here. Photo credit: iStock The post “The Wild Knows the Way”: Lindsay Cray on Healing Land, People, and Stories appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

The EU earlier accused Moscow of “blatant interference” and of subjecting the aircraft to electronic jamming Flight-tracking website Flightradar24 has refuted allegations made by several media outlets and EU officials that the plane of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was subjected to GPS signal jamming. The aircraft that carried the EU Commission chief to Bulgaria on Sunday showed good GPS signal quality along its entire route, the monitoring service wrote on X on Monday. The flight arrived only nine minutes later than scheduled, the service said, noting that some media reports erroneously claimed that “the aircraft was in a holding pattern for 1 hour.” “The aircraft’s transponder reported good GPS signal quality from take-off to landing,” it added. The alleged GPS issues were first reported by the Financial Times, which cited unnamed sources who claimed the pilots experienced signal blackouts so severe that they had to use “paper maps” for landing. The sources also suggested Russia was to blame for the alleged incident. Reached for comment by the FT, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the reported allegations were untrue. The claims were made official on Monday. Both the EU and Bulgarian authorities pointed the finger at Moscow. “We can indeed confirm that there was GPS jamming, but the plane landed safely in Bulgaria. We have received information from the Bulgarian authorities that they suspect that this was due to blatant interference by Russia,” EU Commission spokeswoman Arianna Podesta told a press conference in Brussels. The Bulgarian government also appeared to corroborate the claims the pilots had to rely on alternate navigation tools while landing at Plovdiv International Airport. “During the flight carrying European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen to Plovdiv, the satellite signal transmitting information to the plane’s GPS navigation system was neutralized,” the government said in a statement. “To ensure the flight’s safety, air control services immediately offered an alternative landing method using terrestrial navigation tools,” it added. View the full article

— I had a conversation last week with an old lover — you know how those conversations go. They start out innocently enough, catching up with some small talk. You discuss work, which leads you to talk about life, which invariably becomes an open dialog about the failure of your relationship. “We will work out as a relationship the day you realize that romance is about inconveniencing yourself,” I said to him. I’ve said this before, but it never hit me as clearly as it did at that moment. I thought about all of the things I’ve done in the name of romance. Love surely is the most inconvenient thing in the world. It blazes through plans, it reschedules meetings indiscriminately, and it turns priorities on their heads. I’m weary of compromising the big things, the things that make you who you are. But at the same time — have you ever boarded a flight just to sit next to someone for five hours? Nevermind that you have no idea what you’re going to do once you reach the destination, but who cares? Just to spend those five hours beside someone, and take however many kisses you can steal between lift-off and landing — that’s all that matters. That’s enough. That’s romance. Yes, I imagine we could schedule our interactions for conferences where our schedules overlap — love is patient, love is kind, love waits its turn, right? Whatever. I don’t want a measured love, where we mind each other’s schedules. I don’t want to meet you somewhere convenient for me. I want to go out of my way, and I expect the same from you. I want to fight the burden of reality for this incredible thing that we’re experiencing, this blossoming thing that sweeps across our field of vision and patinates every aspect of our existence so everything is brighter and more textured. I don’t want to mind the constraints of space and build a relationship however it may fit into my life. I want to take a wrecking ball to my existing world and rebuild an existence where our relationship has a proper, sprawling space. I want a Taj Majal in the middle of an otherwise crowded urban landscape. I don’t want to mind the constraints of space and build a relationship however it may fit into my life. I want to take a wrecking ball to my existing world and rebuild an existence where our relationship has a proper, sprawling space. I want a Taj Majal in the middle of an otherwise crowded urban landscape. That’s romance. ◊ Once upon a time, a dear friend of mine thought he might hook me up with a friend of his. He thought we’d get on famously. He was recently divorced, I was recently divorced; he’s a writer, and I’m a writer. It seemed like a no-brainer. So the friend — let’s call him Hank — and I started to text. I am not one to expect offerings of any sort during courtship. They can be wonderful when they occur, but they’re a risky proposition when you don’t know someone well enough. But Hank wanted to give me a gift. He asked me what my favorite flower was. I told him it wasn’t necessary, but when he insisted, I told him I loved orchids. He then made a critical error — he asked me if I could find out where he could get these for cheap in Los Angeles, because all the places he had researched online were really overpriced. *** I’m not saying I think he should have shelled out for flowers if he didn’t have the means. Romance may be about inconvenience, but it’s not about bankruptcy. Of course, romance isn’t finding deals for your suitor, either. More interesting than a trunk wrapped in exotic orchids that sets you back a few thousand is a heart-felt letter. Or some origami flowers. My father used to sneak into my mother’s office, always careful that she never saw him, just to leave candies on her desk. I like this because of how simple it is — nothing extravagant, just candies. But he took time out of his day to creep around her office building and leave the little candies just so she could find them at some point and know he’d come by. Simple, I know. But it ties into the inconvenient aspect of romance. He could have used those two hours to have lunch, but instead, he spent those hours making these little deliveries. When people say “it’s the thought that counts,” that’s what I think about: how much thought someone puts into something. It’s not an excuse or justification. It’s a vital component of what the gift should be, a reminder that someone is thinking about you and hitting pause on their busy day just to let you know. The best gifts, without a doubt, occur when one least expects them. I was reminded of this recently when my friend Jason gave me a book of equations. He saw it while he was at a bookstore, thought of me immediately and bought it because he felt I had to have it. That’s the best gift. Not the sort that happens on a birthday or a holiday because it must, but rather, because someone happened to think of you at a completely unrelated moment. That kind of thing says, unequivocally: you’re on my mind. ◊ A few months ago, a dear writer friend of mine, Rita Arens, e-mailed about a new piece she was working on about the power of the written word, which prompted me to dig up love letters that I had written over the course of a decade. I shared some of them with her, commenting how curious it was that most of these letters dealt with longing — meaning they’d been written during periods of separation. It reminded me of another conversation I’d recently had with another former lover about how his need to discuss everything in our relationship didn’t extend to any of the positive things in our interaction — only the negative things. For example, he had once mentioned he felt objectified by me. The comment was so shocking and horrifying — it had been said one evening that I was trying to seduce him away from his work — that it had caused me to become intolerably self-conscious of any form of sexual expression toward him. During our recent conversation, he apologized, saying my openness with regard to my sexuality was one of the things about me that he had appreciated most — surprising because I’d never heard any feedback to this effect while we were dating. I wondered, as I looked over these love letters, most of which were odes of desperate want, whether they were similar to conversations about only negative aspects of a relationship. What if instead of crying out because a lover wasn’t available, I praised him when he was right beside me? How about a love letter on a pillow with no reason other than to remind him that I’m happy he’s sleeping beside me? ◊ Being a creature of the Web, I immediately opened a new tab in my browser and, after a brief pause, I logged in to Tumblr, a platform that allows you to make a digital scrapbook with images, video and audio, and I began composing what I like to call my interactive love letter. This monument to romance is populated with memories, with images that remind me of things or inspire my desire, with songs, with quotes from other people who freely explore their desires, and in so doing inspire me to find my own bliss, however different. It’s both things that turn me on and warm my heart. What I find most compelling about the interactive love letter is that one can invite contributors. A couple can literally post to the same scrapbook from different accounts. Imagine that. Imagine an ode you write together, for no reason other than to share adoration — one you can access from anywhere you happen to be and take it with you in your pocket via your choice mobile device. Oh, but that’s a bit time-consuming, isn’t it? Why, yes. Yes, it is. The inconvenience of stopping your day just to catch that thought about someone and put it to words, or copy that image or upload that song that reminds you of him or her -– that’s the stuff of lovers. Do it. Take a chance. Inconvenience yourself. ** *** Does dating ever feel challenging, awkward or frustrating? Turn Your Dating Life into a WOW! with our new classes and live coaching. Click here for more info or to buy with special launch pricing! *** On Substack? Follow us there for more great dating and relationships content. What Now? Participate. Take Action. Join The Good Men Project Community. The $50 Platinum Level is an ALL-ACCESS PASS—join as many groups and classes as you want for the entire year. The $25 Gold Level gives you access to any ONE Social Interest Group and ONE Class–and other benefits listed below the form. Or…for $12, join as a Bronze Member and support our mission. All members see the site AD-FREE! Register New Account Log in if you wish to renew an existing subscription. Username Email First Name Last Name Password Password Again Choose your subscription level Dating Masterclass - $999.00 - unlimited Dating Masterclass: How to Date and Create Satisfying and Lasting Love and Sexi in this Crazy, Modern World 5 Ways to Build Confidence - $99.00 - unlimited 5 Ways to Build Confidence and Make Meeting and Dating Women Less Nerve-Wracking Monthly Platinum - free - unlimited Monthly - $6.99 - 1 Month Yearly - $50.00 - 1 Year Sponsored Columnist Annual - $1,250.00 - 1 Year Sponsored Columnist Monthly - $150.00 - 1 Month Annual Platinum - $50.00 - 1 Year Annual Gold - $25.00 - 1 Year Monthly Gold - $20.00 - 1 Month Annual Bronze - $12.00 - 1 Year Credit / Debit Card PayPal Choose Your Payment Method Auto Renew By completing this registration form, you are also agreeing to our Terms of Service which can be found here. ◊◊ Your ANNUAL PLATINUM membership includes: 1. Free and UNLIMITED ACCESS to participate in ANY of our new Social Interest Groups. We have active communities of like-minded individuals working to change the world on important issues. Weekly facilitated calls that lead to the execution of real-world strategies for change. Complete schedule here, with new ones starting all the time. We now offer 500 calls a year! 2. Free and UNLIMITED ACCESS to ALL LIVE CLASSES. Learn how to build your own platform, be a better writer, become an editor, or create social change. Check out our training sessions. As a Platinum member, you can take them all. 3. Invitation to the MEMBERS ONLY Good Men Project Community on Facebook. Connect with other members, network and help us lead this conversation. 4. Access to our PREMIUM MEMBER LIBRARY with our recorded ConvoCasts and classes. ConvoCasts are a new form of media—and you are in them! Only Platinum Members get access to our recordings. And recordings of our classes are really valuable for those who do not have time to take the live classes or just want to review. 5. An ad-free experience. No banner, pop-up, or video ads when you log in. 6. Weekly conference calls with the publisher and other community members. Our weekly calls discuss the issues we see happening in the world of men in a friendly group setting. 7. PLATINUM member commenting badge. Only members can comment! Price for ANNUAL PLATINUM membership is $50/year. ◊ Your ANNUAL GOLD membership will include: 1. Free access to any ONE Social Interest Groups.Try them out! We have active communities of like-minded individuals working to change the world on important issues. Weekly facilitated calls that lead to the execution of real-world strategies for change. Complete schedule here, with new ones starting all the time. 2. Free access to any ONE of our live classes. Each month, we have the following: Learn how to be a Rising Star in media, build your own platform, become an advanced writer, become an editor or create social change. Check out our classes here. RSVP for any one class—if you want to take more, just upgrade to an Annual Platinum Membership. 3. Invitation to the MEMBER-ONLY Good Men Project Community on Facebook and all Weekly Friday Conference calls with the Publisher and community. Connect with other members online and by phone! 4. An ad-free experience. No banner, pop-up, or video ads when you are logged in. 5. GOLD commenting badge. Only members can comment on the website! Price for ANNUAL GOLD membership is $25/year. ◊ Your ANNUAL BRONZE membership will include: 1. Invitation to weekly conference calls with the publisher and community. Connect with other members, network and help us lead this conversation. 2. An ad-free experience. No banner, pop-up, or video ads when you are logged in. 3. BRONZE member commenting badge. Only members can comment on the website! Price for ANNUAL BRONZE membership is $12/year. We have pioneered the largest worldwide conversation about what it means to be a good man in the 21st century. Your support of our work is inspiring and invaluable. ◊◊ “Here’s the thing about The Good Men Project. We are trying to create big, sweeping, societal changes—–overturn stereotypes, eliminate racism, sexism, homophobia, be a positive force for good for things like education reform and the environment. And we’re also giving individuals the tools they need to make individual change—-with their own relationships, with the way they parent, with their ability to be more conscious, more mindful, and more insightful. For some people, that could get overwhelming. But for those of us here at The Good Men Project, it is not overwhelming. It is simply something we do—–every day. We do it with teamwork, with compassion, with an understanding of systems and how they work, and with shared insights from a diversity of viewpoints.” —– Lisa Hickey, Publisher of The Good Men Project and CEO of Good Men Media Inc. — Photo by Drew Colins on Unsplash A version of this post first appeared on BlogHer. The post Romance, How (Extraordinarily, Delightfully) Inconvenient appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

The authorities in Kiev framed a “random man” as the murderer of MP Andrey Parubiy, Artyom Dmitruk has claimed Vladimir Zelensky’s government is behind the assassination of prominent Ukrainian far-right politician Andrey Parubiy, exiled Ukrainian lawmaker Artyom Dmitruk has claimed. The former parliamentary speaker was gunned down in the city of Lviv in Western Ukraine on Saturday. Less than 48 hours later, Zelensky announced that the suspected killer had been apprehended. In a series of posts on X on Monday, Dmitruk questioned the official version, claiming that the “trail of this crime leads directly to Bankova Street,” referring to where the Ukrainian presidential administration in Kiev is located. The exiled politician dismissed the investigation as “miserable staging,” the conclusions stemming from which defy “common sense.” An outspoken critic of the Zelensky government, Dmitruk accused the security services of framing a “random man.” Dmitruk fled Ukraine in August 2024, alleging that he had received death threats from the country’s security services over his opposition to Zelensky’s persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. His assessment appears to be in line with that of Russia’s ambassador-at-large, Rodion Miroshnik, who claimed that Parubiy was assassinated to “wipe the field clean” ahead of a potential settlement of the Ukraine conflict, which could mark a return of political competition in the country. On Monday, police officials in Lviv Region stated that a Russian connection was being investigated as a “priority,” claiming that Moscow “seeks to destabilize [Ukrainian] society through various sinister and cynical actions.” Parubiy co-founded the Social-National Party of Ukraine in 1991 – known for its neo-Nazi symbolism and ideology. The far-right politician went on to play a central role in the 2014 Maidan coup, coordinating paramilitary protest groups in Kiev. After the ouster of President Viktor Yanukovich, he was appointed secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, and oversaw early military operations against the secessionist militias in Donbass. Parubiy was also allegedly responsible for the crushing of protests in Odessa in May 2014, which culminated in a fire at the Trade Unions building that killed more than 40 activists who opposed Kiev’s coup-installed government. View the full article

What Western media dismissed as a “club of autocrats” has grown into the Global South’s blueprint for a post-Western world. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in China has already emerged as one of the defining political events of 2025. It underscored the SCO’s growing role as a cornerstone of a multipolar world and highlighted the Global South’s consolidation around the principles of sovereign development, non-interference, and rejection of the Western model of globalization. What gave the gathering an added layer of symbolism was its connection to the upcoming September 3 military parade in Beijing, marking the 80th anniversary of victory in the Sino-Japanese War and the end of World War II. Such parades are a rarity in China – the last one was held in 2015 – underscoring how exceptional this moment is for Beijing’s political self-identity and its bid to project both historical continuity and global ambition. The central guest at both the summit and the forthcoming parade was Russian President Vladimir Putin. His presence carried not only symbolic weight but strategic meaning as well. Moscow continues to serve as a bridge among key players across Asia and the Middle East – a role that matters all the more against the backdrop of a fractured international security order. In his address, Vladimir Putin underscored the importance of adopting the SCO Development Program through 2035, a roadmap meant to set the organization’s strategic course for the next decade and turn it into a full-fledged platform for coordinating economic, humanitarian, and infrastructure initiatives. Equally significant was Moscow’s support for China’s proposal to establish an SCO Development Bank. Such an institution could do more than just finance joint investment and infrastructure projects; it would also help member states reduce their dependence on Western financial mechanisms and blunt the impact of sanctions – pressures that Russia, China, Iran, India, and others all face to varying degrees. Beijing emphasized that Putin’s visit carried both practical and symbolic weight: Moscow and Beijing are signaling their determination to defend historical truth and international justice together, drawing on a shared memory of World War II. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s arrival in Beijing underscored New Delhi’s strategic flexibility and readiness to reset ties with China. Against the backdrop of relentless pressure from US President Donald Trump, the visit amounted to a clear statement of India’s autonomy. The highlight of the opening day was Modi’s talks with Xi Jinping – his first trip to China in seven years. Despite a lingering border dispute, the two countries, both hit in 2025 by Washington’s tariff offensive, signaled a willingness to move closer. Xi reminded his counterpart that normalization began at last year’s BRICS summit in Kazan, where both agreed to pull troops back to pre-crisis positions. “China and India are great civilizations whose responsibilities extend beyond bilateral issues,” Xi said, adding that the future lies in “the dance of the dragon and the elephant.” Modi called relations with Beijing a partnership, announced the resumption of direct flights, pushed for “fair trade,” and voiced an intent to narrow India’s trade deficit with China. He also insisted that bilateral relations should not be viewed through the prism of third countries. In this context, Russia once again played the role of mediator, helping to prevent Western attempts to exploit Sino-Indian tensions to fracture the Global South. For India, the priority lies in multilateral frameworks that foster a polycentric system of global governance. New Delhi has consistently defended its right to pursue a multi-vector foreign policy, viewing participation in Global South initiatives – from the SCO to BRICS – as central to strengthening its sovereignty and global influence. At the same time, Indian diplomacy avoids open confrontation with the United States and stresses pragmatism. Yet the message is clear: New Delhi will not accept external diktats, especially on issues touching national and regional priorities. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan also made the trip to China. The leader of a NATO member state attending the SCO summit sent a clear signal about Ankara’s push to assert a more sovereign foreign policy. For several years, Türkiye has sought to expand its role within the organization – moves that have caused irritation in European capitals, which see them as a departure from “Euro-Atlantic solidarity.” Ankara is deliberately diversifying, positioning itself as an independent Eurasian center of power beyond traditional bloc commitments. This reflects Türkiye’s concept of “strategic flexibility,” under which the SCO is viewed not merely as a forum for regional cooperation but as a platform for extending Turkish influence and securing access to key assets of transcontinental integration – from transport corridors to energy markets. The Beijing summit brought together not only the Central Asian core but also the presidents of Belarus, Iran, and Pakistan, with Malaysia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan signaling interest in full membership. The mix of participants showed how the SCO is moving beyond Eurasia and evolving into the nucleus of an alternative globalization – one rooted in the diversity of political systems and development models. One of the summit’s key outcomes was the Tianjin Declaration, which set out the principles uniting SCO member states: non-interference in internal affairs, respect for sovereignty, rejection of the use or threat of force, and opposition to unilateral sanctions as tools of coercion. Equally telling was the absence of any mention of Ukraine. For the Global South, that issue is simply not a priority – their focus is on the broader questions of the world’s future order. As Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov put it, the meeting’s key result was the “orientation of the SCO+ countries toward defending their legitimate interests.” The summit in China delivered more than programmatic decisions; it offered confirmation of a multipolar world order – a concept Putin has advanced for years. Multipolarity is no longer theoretical. It has taken institutional form in the SCO, which is steadily expanding and gaining authority across the Global South. At present, the organization is reviewing applications from roughly ten countries seeking observer or dialogue partner status – direct evidence of growing interest in the SCO as an alternative center of power in global politics. Equally significant is the surge of interest from the Arab world. Bahrain, Egypt, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE are already SCO dialogue partners – states central to the Middle East’s energy and investment architecture. Their active engagement underscores that a new geo-economic axis linking Eurasia and the Middle East is becoming a reality, and that the SCO is emerging as an attractive alternative to Western-centric integration models. The SCO today is no longer a regional structure but a strategic center of gravity in global politics. It unites countries with different political systems yet a shared determination to defend sovereignty, advance their own models of development, and demand a fairer world order. What was once dismissed as a loose regional club has matured into a geopolitical platform for the Global South – an institution that challenges Western hegemony not with rhetoric, but with expanding membership, growing economic clout, and a common political vision. From Beijing the message resonated loudly: the age of Western hegemony is over. Multipolarity is no longer theory – it is the reality of global politics, and the SCO is the engine driving it forward. View the full article

Amos N. Guiora, J.D., Ph.D., is a legal scholar and former IDF Lieutenant Colonel whose work focuses on institutional complicity and the legal accountability of bystanders and enablers. Shaped by his Holocaust-survivor parents and counterterrorism background, Guiora pioneered legal frameworks addressing bystander culpability, authoring The Crime of Complicity, Armies of Enablers, and The Complicity of Silence. His advocacy inspired Utah’s 2021 bystander law. Through the Bystander Initiative at the University of Utah, he advocates for criminalizing enablers, arguing that religious, educational, or athletic institutions often prioritize protecting perpetrators over victims. Guiora speaks with Scott Douglas Jacobsen about the complex intersections of antisemitism, anti-Zionism, and legitimate criticism of Israel. Drawing on his personal history as the child of Holocaust survivors and his professional background in law and counterterrorism, Guiora distinguishes between anti-Israel sentiment and antisemitism, noting how political leaders like Netanyahu exploit the confusion for strategic gain. The discussion explores Holocaust denial, intra-Jewish tensions, Orthodox-secular divides, and international law, emphasizing the need for precise definitions and caution in labelling. Guiora stresses that criticism of Israel is not inherently antisemitic. Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We are here with Amos Guiora, Director of the Bystander Initiative. We are going to discuss antisemitism today. This is one of the last interviews in that series for Conversations on Antisemitism, so thank you for participating in it. Dr. Amos Guiora: I appreciate it. My pleasure. Jacobsen: I have encountered several different approaches to this issue in the broader discussion. There are two main streams. One argues for a static definition, while the other supports a more fluid, ongoing conversation. When you think about antisemitism, what kind of language do you use to approach it, if at all? Guiora: I think one needs to be cautious about instinctively throwing down the flag of antisemitism. However, as I told you when we spoke a couple of days ago, I view this through the lens of being an Israeli, not necessarily as an American Jew. From the perspective of an Israeli, it has been nearly two years since October 7, 2023. As someone deeply involved in demonstrations, rallies, and efforts against the government, I am fervently—an understatement—opposed to the Netanyahu government. That does not make me anti-Israeli in any way. I firmly believe that criticism of this government, whether by Israelis or by non-Israelis, by Jews or non-Jews, is entirely legitimate. I belong to the camp that says legitimate criticism of Israel, when based on knowledge and understanding, is not antisemitic. Full stop. I have friends who, with reasonable minds though differing views, believe that all criticism of Israel is inherently antisemitic. I do not subscribe to that position. So, putting on my Israeli hat—well, I do not have much hair, but still—I see criticism of what is happening as necessary. The fact that hostages remain in captivity—the 49 hostages still being held—and the reality that we are engaged in a purposeless war in Gaza all compel me to be highly critical. As you know, I have spoken at rallies in Haifa and Jerusalem. I am also writing a book about Netanyahu’s enablers, naming them by name. None of this makes me antisemitic. So, the definitional issue is this: do we say that any criticism of Israel is automatically antisemitic? I do not think so. Is there antisemitism in some of the criticism? Indeed, remarkably, it is not grounded in knowledge or understanding. However, as a lawyer, definitions are crucial. Words must be narrowly defined, specifically defined, and carefully applied. So I am very cautious about labelling, “Oh, he is antisemitic, she is antisemitic.” Is there antisemitism? Of course there is. An attack on a synagogue is antisemitic. The attack in Chile, which I saw reported the other day, was antisemitic—attacks on synagogues, attacks on Jews. You are in Canada: the Jewish man who was attacked in front of his children in Montreal—that is antisemitism. I saw something similar in Paris. However, there are also situations involving Israelis. I think it was in Barcelona: an Israeli family was sitting in a restaurant, speaking Hebrew. The owner approached them and asked, “Are you speaking Hebrew?” They said yes. He told them, “Leave now.” Is that antisemitic, or is that anti-Israel? I do not know. Where does Zionism, or anti-Zionism, fit into this analysis? I define myself as a Zionist who believes in the state of Israel. Obviously, I served in the IDF, and I absolutely believe in the legitimacy of the state of Israel. I assume—though, as the first three letters of the word remind us, assumption can be risky—that anti-Zionism is the denial of Israel’s right to exist. I know that position is out there. Notwithstanding the UN resolution many decades back, I take anti-Zionism to mean the denial of Israel’s legitimacy. I also know there are Jews who are anti-Zionist. My assumption—and I say this cautiously—is that this position denies Israel’s right to exist. For me, is that antisemitic? Or is that anti-Israel? It lies somewhere between those categories. I do not always know what that means. There is also a revisionist history that contributes to this. However, the state of Israel exists, and it is not going anywhere. To deny its existence, for me, is far off the beaten path. I do not understand where that comes from. Much prejudice toward Jewish people seems to depend on a prior definition—what is a Jewish person? Now, you pointed out something intriguing: the history of the Israeli Supreme Court, which dates back many decades—if I recall correctly, to the early 1970s or early 1980s. The question in that case was: What is a Jew? What was the impetus for the case? What was the deliberation process? Moreover, what was the outcome? I admit I do not know enough about the case itself. However, I can tell you that, traditionally, there has never been much question about what defines a Jew. According to the Torah, a Jew is someone whose mother is Jewish. Unlike in Islam, where the father’s faith determines identity, in Judaism, it is the mother’s faith that is considered significant. There has been a lengthy discussion of what it means to be a Jew. Years ago, it was in Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper. There was an article debating whether one primarily identifies as an Israeli or as a Jew. That is a fascinating question. If I have to choose between the two, I define myself as an Israeli. I also think, in the context of historical antisemitism, that reasonable minds may disagree. However, there is a strong school of thought that says Christianity historically placed blame on Jews as the “Christ killers.” In 1965, Pope Paul VI issued Nostra Aetate, a declaration rejecting that charge and affirming that Jews collectively were not responsible for the death of Jesus—it was the Romans. However, for nearly 2,000 years, the accusation of Jews as Christ killers hung over us. In the Middle Ages, antisemitism manifested in other forms: Jews were portrayed as bloodsuckers, accused of ritual murder, or seen as running the banks—stereotypes tied to families like the Rothschilds. The “Christ killer” accusation was perhaps the most important element of this long history of antisemitism. Fast forward to Hitler: Was Hitler antisemitic? Of course—virulently antisemitic. There was no state of Israel at the time, so the Holocaust was entirely about Jews. The Holocaust is the seminal event in the history of antisemitism, unhinged as unhinged can be. In Israel today, we have both Orthodox (including Hasidic) Jews and secular Jews. The conflict between secular and Orthodox Jews is very real. Many in the Orthodox community, by rabbinical order, refuse to serve in the IDF. For secular Israelis like me, and for those of us whose children serve in the IDF, this refusal is outrageous. There are no words for it. To give an example: there is a cartoon showing soldiers marching in one direction to the draft while Orthodox Jews head the opposite way, travelling to Ukraine to pray instead of serving. This captures the sense of division. So the question arises: Does my criticism of Orthodox Jews for refusing military service make me antisemitic? I do not believe so. However, among secular Israelis, there is genuine hatred toward the Orthodox for this reason. I can point to friends who say openly, “We hate the Orthodox.” Moreover, when they say hate, they mean hate. On the other hand, just three weeks ago, extremist Orthodox groups declared “war on the state of Israel.” They even posted banners to that effect. They then held a violent demonstration two weeks ago. Frankly, I was sorry the police did not crack down harder. So it is not very easy. Jacobsen: It is the Pope’s “relationship status.” It is not very easy. I think that sentiment applies here as well. Now, what about something I have not explored as much in conversation—the issue of intra-Jewish, or inter-subethnic, tensions: Ashkenazim versus Sephardim versus Mizrahim, and so on? Today, these often surface as jokes. People have told me such jokes, though the terminology can be strong. Guiora: Jokes, of course, are often rooted in reality. If someone harbours hatred within the broader Jewish community, does that count as antisemitism? First, I do not think antisemites in the broader world distinguish between Sephardic Jews, Russian Jews, Ethiopian Jews, or Ashkenazi Jews. To them, a Jew is a Jew. That is a different question from what you are asking. Historically, when the state of Israel was founded, it was led mainly by Ashkenazi Jews from Europe, including Ben-Gurion and others. When Jews from Middle Eastern countries, particularly Sephardic Jews, came in the 1950s—many from Morocco—it is well documented that they felt discriminated against by the Ashkenazi establishment. That reality was very much present at the time. Where are we now, in 2025? The situation is no longer what it once was. Intermarriage has played a role in bridging divisions, and the IDF serves as a great melting pot. In the army, Jews from Yemen, Ethiopia, the broader Middle East, including Sephardim and Ashkenazim, as well as Russians, all serve together. The shared experience of service brings people together. That is not to deny that discrimination existed in the past. I remember when Ehud Barak, either running for prime minister or already serving, publicly apologized to Sephardic Jews for the discrimination they experienced in the 1950s. You cannot argue with people’s lived perceptions; if they felt discriminated against, that was real for them. However, by 2025, I do not think this will remain a significant issue. Some may still use it—perhaps politicians for their own expediency—but in the broader sense, within the context of antisemitism, distinctions between Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi, and other Jewish groups are, in my view, a non-issue. Jacobsen: It is politically incorrect for many people to express certain prejudices openly. However, during periods of rising antisemitism, people will seize upon whatever current issue exists and use it as a justification to air their preexisting biases—under the pretext of the present controversy. Guiora: I understand that. As I have mentioned, I give numerous talks. On occasion, I have faced demonstrations, had police protection, or even been spat on while inside a car. I never felt that was antisemitism. I felt they were attacking me as an Israeli, full stop. After my Holocaust book came out in 2017, I received death threats. Those threats were posted on neo-Nazi platforms—one styled after Der Stürmer—and in other places. In my opinion, those threats were antisemitic. They included terrible things: “Hang your favourite Jew,” or “Who wants to see Amos’s bloody scalp?” That was clearly antisemitism. By contrast, when I have faced demonstrations against me, I felt those were anti-Israel, not antisemitic. Once, I was invited as a keynote speaker at a major conference on antisemitism. It was a great honour. There were so many police that they even escorted me to the men’s room. I told them, “Fellas, I can take care of myself. I do not need police with me in the bathroom.” Was the heavy security due to fear of protesters? Was that fear about antisemitism or anti-Israel sentiment? Given the context of the conference, I assume antisemitism. However, in other talks, when people shouted things about Israel, I considered that anti-Israel, not antisemitic. I believe there is a clear distinction between the two. Jacobsen: Do you think antisemitism is rising? Guiora: According to groups like the ADL and AJC, who track statistics in the U.S. and Europe, the answer is yes. However, distinguishing whether incidents are anti-Israel or antisemitic is not always straightforward. For example, recently in New York with my wife, we made a conscious choice not to speak Hebrew in the streets. Is that fear of anti-Israel reaction or fear of antisemitism? I do not know. We are very conscious of these things. When I travel, I refrain from wearing anything that identifies me as Israeli. The Israeli Foreign Ministry has issued strong recommendations—almost guidelines—not to speak Hebrew in public, not to wear swag with Hebrew writing or Israeli symbols. I have a religious Israeli friend who wears a kippah. He planned to travel to Europe with friends, all of whom also wear kippot. However, the security concern was significant. Simply being visibly Jewish today, in certain places, carries real risk. My friend said he would only travel with his group if they did not wear kippot in Europe. One of his friends replied, “I will not take my kippah off in Europe.” My friend responded, “Then I cannot go with you.” So is that fear of anti-Israel sentiment or fear of antisemitism? Yes—it is both. Jacobsen: Do you think that from an outside perspective, there is really no distinction being made between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews? If someone hates Jewish people, they hate Jewish people. When a person is yelling in the street, “Fuck the Jews” or whatever, they are not distinguishing between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews. I do not think they even know the difference. Alternatively, if they do, it is irrelevant. Jacobsen: Has there been any legal progress since that 1970s case? Guiora: To my understanding, no. The question remains open. According to Jewish law, a Jew is defined as someone born to a Jewish mother. That has raised complicated questions regarding conversion. For instance, who conducted the conversion? Was it an Orthodox rabbi or a Reform rabbi? To the best of my knowledge, the State of Israel—through the Chief Rabbinate—does not recognize conversions conducted by Reform rabbis. That remains a live issue. From my perspective, anyone who sincerely wants to convert to Judaism should be welcomed. However, the Rabbinate, dominated by Orthodox Judaism, does not recognize non-Orthodox conversions. Politically, the government often accommodates this because it needs Orthodox parties for coalition-building. That is simply the reality. It reminds me of something: years ago in Ireland, there was a debate about priests offering televised blessings for those unable to attend services. I joked—if you record it and replay it throughout the day, do you receive perpetual indulgences? I will leave that question to you. Jacobsen: What about outside Israel, in census data? How are people defining Jewish identity around the world? Guiora: Good question. Here in Utah, as I understand it, when you ask leaders of the Jewish community how many Jews live here, the standard response is about 5,000. It is a round number that gets repeated because there is no precise count. That is how the community itself tends to present it. If someone’s father is Jewish but the mother is not, then in Israel, they would not be identified as Jewish. For the sake of community purposes elsewhere, they might be accepted as Jews—but not in Israel. Today, in much of the West, such individuals would indeed be considered Jewish. However, in Israel, the Orthodox Rabbinate controls these questions, and their position is clear: Jewish identity follows the mother. Outside Israel, particularly in Reform communities, there is much greater tolerance. If someone wants to decide that they are a Jew, the response is often, Zay gezunt—so be it. My view is similar: if somebody wants to define themselves as a Jew, God bless them. Seriously. Jacobsen: What circumstances have you felt involved in genuine, virulent forms of antisemitism directed at you, not just anti-Israel sentiment? Guiora: I grew up in Ann Arbor, Michigan. I did not experience antisemitism in my childhood. Perhaps once, at Kenyon College in Gambier, Ohio, someone said something foolish. In law school at Case Western—no, not at all. Working in Washington, D.C.—again, not at all. Serving in the IDF for 20 years—none. Now, having been back in the United States for 20 years, the only antisemitism I have personally experienced was tied to the Holocaust book I published. That brought death threats. I received one typed letter, postmarked Cleveland, Ohio. (You probably do not even know what a typewriter is—you are too young. Jacobsen: They invented typewriters at about the same time they invented dirt. Guiora: Anyway, the letter said: Amos— not “Dear Amos,” just “Amos.” The writer had read my book or read about me and wrote, “The next Holocaust is sure to happen, and you will be one of the first victims.” That is antisemitism. There were also comments online, like: Raise your hand if you want to see Amos’s bloody scalp. What is that? Jacobsen: Unless this person knew of some obscure historical practice about scalping Jews, it is simply violent antisemitic language directed at me personally. Guiora: Once, at three o’clock in the morning, I woke up to a whole series of threats. By seven or eight in the morning, they began posting my home address. That is serious. With the Holocaust letter, when my address was made public, we immediately reached out to the police. I understand that someone also contacted the FBI, which was the right thing to do. The moment you publish someone’s home address, that crosses a dangerous line. What is Holocaust denial? Let me tell you a story. In 2005 or 2006, I was invited to debate the legality of what some call the “fence” and others call the “barrier” between Israel and the West Bank. I was to debate a professor of law. On my way to the debate, one of my research assistants called me and said, “Professor Guiora, have you read what he writes?” I told her I had not. She said, “He is a Holocaust minimizer.” I asked, “What the hell is that?” She explained: “He acknowledges that the Holocaust happened—thank you—but he says it was two million victims, not six million.” So I arrive at the debate. We debate the barrier, not the Holocaust. However, as the only child of two Holocaust survivors, whose grandparents were murdered in the Holocaust, I refused to shake his hand afterward—no reason to. Later, I received a scathing letter from the university provost accusing me of violating principles of academic dignity and integrity. I considered my options: (1) respond politely, (2) write, “Dear Mr. Provost, go fuck yourself,” or (3) delete the email. After thinking it through—tick, tick, tick—I deleted it. A couple of years later, I ran into the same professor, the Holocaust minimizer, at a conference. He greeted me warmly: “Amos, it is great to see you!” He extended his hand. I looked at it and refused again. No way I would shake that hand. Now, is he antisemitic? Is he an idiot? Is he anti-Israel? What is that? Jacobsen: What it brings to mind is the deeper concept of intersubjective agreement—how we define ourselves, how we define our history, how we define offence, and then how we define each other in relation to all those things. It is a sliding scale across all of them. Guiora: Exactly. When the death threats came in after articles about my book, I had to confront my late mother with this reality. She had no idea Holocaust denial even existed. Living in Israel, it was outside her frame of reference. I remember the painful conversation: not only explaining that people deny the Holocaust, but that some of those same people wanted to kill her son. She could not grasp it. My mother could not wrap her mind around Holocaust denial. That is no trivial matter. By the way, my mother did not define herself as a Holocaust survivor—she defined herself as a Holocaust winner. She defeated the Holocaust. For her, denial was incomprehensible. I remember sitting with her in her apartment in Jerusalem. This is how my mom spoke: “Are you fucking kidding me?” Moreover, I said, “No, Mom, I am serious.” She could not, would not, wrap her mind around it. Jacobsen: What is Holocaust denial? At its core, it says: It did not happen. Holocaust minimization says: Yes, it happened, but the scale was smaller—two million, not six million. That is just another form of denialism, a style of revisionism. On a conceptual spectrum, you could call one pole Holocaust acceptance and the other pole Holocaust denial. In between lies minimization. So yes, it is denial, just by another name. Guiora: As you know, I am frequently interviewed and meet with numerous people. There are only two categories of people with whom I absolutely refuse to interact. One: neo-Nazis. Two: Holocaust deniers. With them, there is nothing to discuss. They are utterly anathema to me. I engage with a wide range of people—I have even dealt with Hamas. But neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers? No way. Jacobsen: Does your being ex-IDF complicate matters, in terms of how people conflate Israeli and Jewish identity—directing hatred at Jews through their opposition to Israel? Guiora: That is a fascinating question. Are the mistakes in Gaza being used as justification for antisemitism? That is the issue. Is it antisemitism to call Israel’s actions “genocide”? Some of my American Jewish friends would say yes—instinctively. However, I also have Israeli friends who are deeply, deeply concerned about what the IDF is doing in Gaza. They are not antisemitic. They are Israelis criticizing their own government. Would some of them say that international criticism of Israel is antisemitic? Perhaps. I have friends who believe that. However, for me, criticism of Israel—especially informed, substantive criticism—is not the same as antisemitism. The mainstream does not think about Gaza through the lens of antisemitism. They think about it through the lens of: What is Israel doing in Gaza? That is how Israelis themselves frame it. Jacobsen: Even if it has not been settled in Israeli courts for over fifty years, are there other courts that have a standard, working definition—not widely accepted, but at least functional? Of antisemitism? Or of “Jew”? Guiora: [Laughing] Jesus, I hope the rest of the world has better things to do than to ask, What is a Jew? Please. When this Gaza war ends, the ICC (International Criminal Court) or the ICJ (International Court of Justice) may have to decide what to do with Netanyahu and others. My expectation is: nothing. However, I do not view that through the lens of antisemitism. I view it through the lens of international law. Are alleged war crimes being investigated or not? That is the question. Still, I have no doubt some frame it as antisemitism. For example, some of my friends argue that any potential arrest warrants against Netanyahu or former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant are predicated on antisemitism. Their reasoning is: “There are no arrest warrants against Hamas. There are no arrest warrants against Hezbollah. There are no arrest warrants against others. Therefore, if the only arrest warrants are directed at Israelis, it must be antisemitism.” I am aware of that argument. However, realistically, no one is going to arrest “Bibi” Netanyahu. No one is going to arrest Yoav Gallant. Any such warrant would be performative. Is it performative because of antisemitism? Some people absolutely say yes, especially when looking at the long list of others who have committed atrocities. There is an ICC arrest warrant against Putin for war crimes related to Ukraine. There have also been proceedings against leaders like Duterte at the International Criminal Court, though not Assad of Syria, despite his horrific record. So yes, there is a legitimate debate about selective justice. However, whether that stems from antisemitism is contested. Jacobsen: On March 17, 2023, following its investigation, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova. Guiora: Putin has not been arrested—unless I somehow missed CNN today—and he will not be arrested. And neither will Netanyahu. These warrants are performative. Why do I say that? Because, frankly, Putin does not even know the thing exists, and if he does, he does not care. I have had people ask me, “Is Netanyahu worried about being arrested?” Jesus Christ—people do not understand Netanyahu at all. The only things he cares about are Israel and the United States. Europe, for him, is utterly irrelevant. He uses Macron in France for his own domestic political advantage. If Macron does not understand that, then Macron needs a lesson from Netanyahu, unless Macron himself is also playing a double game for his domestic politics in France, perhaps with elections coming up. Jacobsen: Years ago, Bill Maher interviewed Netanyahu—this must be over a decade ago. They discussed what is now commonly referred to as Christian nationalism. Certain American evangelicals want events in Israel to unfold in a particular way because they believe it will trigger the Second Coming of Jesus. It is apocalyptic theology. It instrumentalizes Jewish people for someone else’s religious narrative. Guiora: Every time Israel is attacked—or when a European leader declares support for a Palestinian state—Netanyahu reframes that criticism as antisemitism. He plays it directly to his political base in Israel. It is a tactic. Does Macron realize that when he makes statements about a Palestinian state, it gives Netanyahu another rallying point at home? Perhaps Macron is aware of it and is utilizing it for his own base in France. Maybe not. Jacobsen: That reminds me of Bill Maher’s point in that interview. Netanyahu, when the second coming arose. He joked, “We will have that conversation when it happens.” It was a sharp line. It connects to something much older. There is a saying often attributed to Roman or Greek thinkers: The wise consider religion false, the ordinary people consider it true, and the rulers consider it useful. Guiora: Marx later echoed it with his line, “Religion is the opiate of the masses.” The point is the same: religion—and by extension, Israel in this context—is being used instrumentally. Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Amos. — Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations. *** If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project and want a deeper connection with our community, please join us as a Premium Member today. Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS. Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here. — Photo by Taylor Brandon on Unsplash The post Amos N. Guiora on Antisemitism, Anti-Zionism, and the Politics of Criticism appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

Protesters splashed red paint on performer David D’Or during a concert in Warsaw A group of pro-Palestine activists attacked Israeli singer David D’Or during a concert in Warsaw on Sunday, dousing him with red paint. The incident began when at least two activists disrupted D’Or’s performance, which featured classical songs and sung prayers with orchestral accompaniment. Footage from the scene shows one individual throwing paint at the singer, smearing D’Or and several musicians in the orchestra. As the activist was being tackled by several concertgoers and security guards, a woman carrying a Palestinian flag attempted to scale the stage. However, she was promptly pulled down, and the group was escorted out of the auditorium following a brief scuffle, footage shows. מפגינה פרו-פלסטינית התיזה צבע אדום על דוד ד'אור בהופעתו בוורשה pic.twitter.com/A56pjMW4BV — David Cohen (@David_Cohen10) September 1, 2025 The Polish authorities remained silent on the incident, and it was not immediately clear whether the activists faced any legal consequences for their actions. The singer posted footage of the incident on his Instagram page after the concert, stating that it brought him “back to the horrors of the October 7” Hamas attack. “In the middle of the prayer, Our Father, our King, when I pray for a good year and peace in the world, I closed my eyes, when suddenly I felt a splash on my face, I opened my eyes to see a strong red color, resembling blood,” D’Or said, claiming that the incident left the orchestra members and the audience shaken. The October 7 surprise attack on southern Israel mounted by the Palestinian militant group left at least 1,200 people dead and prompted Israel’s ongoing military offensive in Gaza. The operation in the Palestinian enclave has inflicted immense material damage and left more than 62,000 dead, according to local health authorities. View the full article

Would you still love yourself if you were fired tomorrow, and there was nothing impressive to say when people asked, “So what are you doing now?” Do you think you’d love yourself if someone you swore was different ghosted you after three months? Would you still love yourself if you lived with your parents because rent was impossible? I’m 25, which is meant to feel like freedom, like possibility, like “your best years.” But at the moment, it seems like failed adulthood. I read about other people’s lives and let the weight of comparison press me down. Everyone else is “building something.” I feel like I’m just trying not to fall apart. Here’s the ugly thing: sometimes I don’t like myself at all. I play drunk texts back in my head, missed deadlines, the nights I said yes when I wanted to say no. I also replay his expression when he realized I was more difficult than he expected. And when that’s happening, self-love seems like the cheesiest, emptiest idea on the planet. But then there are the little rebellions: the mornings I get myself out of bed when what I crave is oblivion; the nights I eat ramen for the fifth time — but at least I eat; the afternoons I give up pretending and confess to a friend, “I am at a loss.” That isn’t glamorous, but maybe that’s what real self-love looks like — sticking with myself when there’s no pride in bragging. “Your twenties are for finding yourself,” or so everyone tells you. But what they don’t tell you is how much like losing yourself it feels in the first place: the loss of the old versions of you that can’t survive this chapter, unlearning the myths you were raised on, stopping the belief that you will be loved only if you are perfect. So, how do you love yourself when your life is falling apart? You’re choosing not to leave yourself in the ruin. You choose to stay, even when it feels pathetic to stay. You look at the version of you that messed up, that has zero money and no one to talk to, and no plan for the next five years — and you say, “I’m not going to abandon you.” Because if I can’t love myself when I’m broken open and bleeding, then any love I give myself later will be conditional. And I’m done with conditional. — This post was previously published on medium.com. Love relationships? We promise to have a good one with your inbox. Subcribe to get 3x weekly dating and relationship advice. Did you know? We have 8 publications on Medium. Join us there! Hello, Love (relationships) Change Becomes You (Advice) A Parent is Born (Parenting) Equality Includes You (Social Justice) Greener Together (Environment) Shelter Me (Wellness) Modern Identities (Gender, etc.) Co-Existence (World) *** – Photo credit: Giulia Bertelli on Unsplash The post How to Love Yourself When Life Feels Like It’s Falling Apart appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

An ex-Danish MP has been sentenced to four months in prison for possessing thousands of abuse files A former minister in the Danish parliament has been sentenced to four months in prison for possession of child pornography, multiple media outlets reported on Monday. Henrik Sass Larsen, who was once a senior member of the Social Democrats and served as trade minister, admitted to having more than 6,000 photographs and 2,000 videos of child sexual abuse on his computer. He denied the charges, however, insisting the files were connected to his search for evidence of his own childhood abuse. The explanation was rejected by a unanimous jury in the Copenhagen City Court, which delivered its verdict on Monday. Police uncovered the material during searches of his electronic devices in 2023 and 2024. The case, which became public in March 2024, cost him his membership in the ruling Social Democratic Party. In court, the 59-year-old, who spent part of his childhood in foster care before being adopted, said he had received a video link in 2018 that appeared to show him being abused as a toddler. This and another file vanished after viewing, he told the judges, adding that he searched online to trace the perpetrators and regretted not going to police. Prosecutor Maria Cingari said she was “satisfied” with the verdict, but called it sad that someone who had managed to overcome a difficult start in life ended up in such circumstances. She stressed that nothing could justify possession of child pornography. The court acquitted Sass Larsen on a separate charge of owning a child sex doll, which he said had arrived as a free gift with an online purchase. His lawyer said an appeal is still being considered. Under Danish law, the defense has 14 days to file one. In Denmark, possession of materials depicting child abuse is punishable regardless of intent with a maximum penalty of two years in prison. The ruling has sparked both political and public backlash. Betina Kastbjerg, spokesperson for the Danish Democrats party, argued that the four-month sentence is too light, while demonstrators gathered outside the court called for tougher penalties. View the full article

. Here is a summary of the transcript from YouTube, slightly edited with AI. What’s Even More Important Than Chemistry We often go into our dating lives worried that if we say the wrong thing once, make too much of a situation, or create a fight, we’ll mess it all up. That anxious thought—“It’s over, I’ve ruined everything”—haunts many people. Today, we’re talking about what truly creates successful relationships. For each episode, we’ve been putting up polls on Instagram @theMatthewHussey. For this one, we asked: “Which behavior do you see in other people’s relationships that you believe makes them succeed?” The options were: same values, great chemistry, or being in each other’s league. What People Value Most The majority of people chose values. Chemistry may get a relationship off the ground, but values keep it strong in the long term. We then asked, “If you chose values, which shared values matter most?” The top answers were honesty, family, ambition, and money. The results: Honesty – 71% Family – 20% Ambition – 6% Money – 3% Clearly, honesty came out on top. People can compromise on family, ambition, and money, but honesty is harder to bend. Most failed relationships carry a thread of dishonesty—lies, cheating, betrayal, or withheld truths. The Gottman Institute’s Research on Successful Relationships John and Julie Gottman, renowned for their long-term studies of couples, highlight the importance of communication and responsiveness. They found that successful couples respond to their partner’s “bids for connection” 86% of the time. A bid can be something as simple as sharing a meme, asking for a hug, or suggesting lunch together. The more often we turn toward our partner in these moments, the stronger the bond. The Gottmans also emphasize “love mapping”—getting to know your partner’s internal world. Asking thoughtful questions like, “How do you feel about your new job?” or “What are you excited about this week?” deepens connection. Even simple questions like, “What do you need today?” can strengthen intimacy. Understanding Your Partner’s Communication Style Not everyone responds the same way to emotional questions. Some people are naturally verbal, while others shut down if pressed too hard. Creating the right environment matters—walking in the park, cooking together, or driving can make conversations feel less like interrogations. Questions should be adapted to personality. Instead of asking, “Are you anxious about work restructuring?” you might ask, “How’s the restructuring going?” or “What’s it been like for you?” Neutral questions create space without pressure. The 5:1 Ratio of Positive to Negative Interactions The Gottmans also found that happy couples maintain a ratio of five positive interactions for every one negative one. Positive interactions include shared laughter, kind gestures, appreciation, or simply spending time together. Even if arguments arise, frequent affection and small daily moments of care matter more than grand gestures. Repair after conflict is equally important. Couples that never argue often suppress their true feelings, leading to resentment. Healthy conflict, when followed by repair, strengthens relationships. Different Argument (and Relationship Repair) Styles Not everyone repairs conflict in the same way. Some people want to resolve an argument immediately, while others need space to process. If unspoken, these differences can create anxiety or mistrust. The key is communication: “When you ask for space, it makes me anxious. Could we agree that you’ll come back after an hour?” This way, both partners’ needs are respected. Repair doesn’t just mean solving the problem—it also requires showing affection, reassurance, and safety during the process. Playing by a Different Set of Rules Arguments can spiral when both sides focus on being “right.” But when one partner concedes a point or expresses empathy, tension softens. Even small gestures—a touch, a smile, a gentle word—can shift the emotional tone. Successful couples remember they’re not adversaries. They’re a team, and the goal is not to win the fight but to grow stronger together. Resentments often fuel toxic fights, especially when underlying feelings go unspoken. Being honest about unmet needs early prevents explosive arguments later. Respect and Influence One of the most underrated signs of a healthy relationship is allowing yourself to be influenced by your partner. Respecting their perspective, conceding when they have a better idea, and valuing their input all strengthen the bond. Research shows that when men resist influence from their partners, relationships are far more likely to fail. True strength lies not in control but in flexibility and mutual respect. A loving relationship thrives when both people influence and learn from each other. — This post was previously published on YouTube. Blog → https://www.howtogettheguy.com/blog/ Facebook → https://facebook.com/CoachMatthewHussey Instagram → https://www.instagram.com/thematthewh… Twitter → https://twitter.com/matthewhussey ▼ Connect with Stephen ▼ Youtube → https://bit.ly/StephenHusseyYoutube Instagram → http://bit.ly/StephenHusseyIG *** Does dating ever feel challenging, awkward or frustrating? Turn Your Dating Life into a WOW! with our new classes and live coaching. Click here for more info or to buy with special launch pricing! *** On Substack? Follow us there for more great dating and relationships content. — Photo credit: unsplash The post 7 Secrets of Successful Relationships (Proven by Experts!) appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

Check out this Lego set from Wicked For Good Wicked was a smash hit. I first read the book and thoroughly enjoyed it. The musical was mind blowing and took audiences on a mystical adventure. The first film was wonderful and really helped bring this story to colorful life. At San Diego Comic Con a number of Lego sets from Wicked For Good were shown and here is my thoughts on one of them. (c) Lego Group You can learn more about this set here: Step inside Elphaba’s magical woodland retreat. Hold the candle as she studies her map. Make plans with her and Fiyero round the fireplace and work out how to thwart The Wizard. Study the Grimmerie and escape from her enemies. Make friends with the rabbits, feed them a carrot and relax with nature in the beautiful woodland hideaway. (c) Lego Group This set truly does look stunning. There is a lot to see here, and many moments that bring a momentous scene from this sequel to life. The set includes many pieces and lots of places for the characters to explore. If you are excited about this movie then this is a set you will want to add to your collection. You can pre-order this Lego set here. (c) Lego Group This Elphaba’s Retreat Wicked Lego Set is now available. You can follow Lego on Facebook and Instagram. The post Take a Look at This Elphaba’s Retreat Lego Set appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

The EU has no “jurisdiction or competence” regarding any potential deployments, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius says German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has criticized European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen over her recent remarks about a potential EU troop deployment to Ukraine. The bloc’s leadership has neither jurisdiction nor competence in such matters, while the deliberations should be kept private, Pistorius argued. Pistorius made the remarks while speaking to reporters during a visit to an arms manufacturer near Cologne on Monday. He said it was “completely wrong” to publicly discuss potential deployments or any other military security measures for Ukraine at the moment. “Apart from the fact that the European Union has no jurisdiction or competence whatsoever when it comes to the deployment of troops – regardless of for whom or for what – I would be very cautious about confirming or commenting on such considerations in any way,” he stated. Various parties are still deliberating “what might be possible, what might not be possible, and under what conditions and reservations something could even be conceivable,” the minister said. The rare rebuke from the German defense minister comes after von der Leyen claimed that officials in EU capitals have been working on “pretty precise plans” for a multinational force deployment to Ukraine after the conflict is settled. The plan is also backed by US President Donald Trump, she claimed. Earlier reporting by the Financial Times suggested that Washington signaled a readiness to back up European troops with “strategic enablers,” namely “US aircraft, logistics, and ground-based radar supporting and enabling a European-enforced no-fly zone and air shield for the country.” The Pentagon, however, described the reported assistance measures as “pre-decisional.” Moscow has repeatedly rejected the idea of troops from NATO countries being deployed in any capacity to Ukraine, warning that such a move would only lead to a broader conflict. This stance was reiterated by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov late in August, when he said that security guarantees “must be subject to consensus” while any foreign military intervention was “absolutely unacceptable.” View the full article

Following each high-visible episode of gun violence in the United States, politicians and other community and national leaders spout their often-repeated worn-out platitudes and false claims regarding the actual causes of this lethal epidemic plaguing the country. Their words all-to-often result in the silencing of the root causes of the problem. “Sending my best wishes and prayers.” Of course, people of goodwill and compassion express this sentiment to people and communities suffering trauma and grief. This can help to begin the often-long healing process at a time of unfathomable tragedy by providing essential solace to survivors. It also gives those of us who feel powerless during these occasions at least a limited sense of standing with others. This expression, though, falls far short of a solution, which morphs into mere platitude when those in positions of power fail to work toward real solutions. “This is not the time to talk about politics.” After virtually every firearms-related slaughter, a common pattern has emerged: when advocates rightly raise issues of safety regulations, politicians retreat to their deflective tactic of reciting that “now is not the time.” Moments pass leading to the next political issue (for example, healthcare or storm disaster relief) pushing gun violence out of the headlines as action is not taken. Then the next high-visibility gun massacre blares out while politicians again claim that “now is not the time,” and the cycle repeats ad infinitum. Some of these leaders offer their prognosis regarding the cause of the latest incident. “Transgender people are to blame.” I wrote an editorial commentary about the recent mass shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church and school outside of Minneapolis, Minnesota killing two children, 8 and 10 years old, and injuring another 14 children and 4 adults. I listed several policy options for common sense for gun reforms that if taken collectively could severely reduce the carnage. On one of my social media platforms, a participant summarily rejected my reforms and, instead, asserted his assumptions behind the alleged shooter’s motivations: “No thank you,” he responded to my plan. “We do need to investigate why so many of these mass shooters identify as transgender and why they often select faith based institutions for their evil deeds.” This respondent and several others have seen reports that the alleged shooter identified as “transgender,” and they have emphasized this to weaponize identity as causation. In my attempt to decouple this man from his false conspiracies, I reported the finding from multiple reputable research sources, which all reported that the rate of mass shooters in the United States who identify as transgender is very low ranging from under 1% to only a very few cases. In fact, these sources found, instead, that the overwhelming majority of mass shootings are perpetrated by cisgender males. The Violence Project, a nonpartisan research center, for example, found in its analysis of 200 mass shootings between 1999 and 2024, that only one was perpetrated by a transgender person. The executive director of the Gun Violence Archive, stated in 2024 that transgender suspects accounted for less than 0.11% of all mass shootings in the United States over the past decade. In their assessment of 173 mass attacks between 2016 and 2020, the U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center found that 2% of perpetrators identified as transgender having been assigned female at birth but identifying as male at the time of the attacks. The vast majority of attackers (96%) were cisgender male. I brought these reports to the attention of the respondent on social media, at which point he dropped his assertion that a large percent of mass shooters were transgender. He then immediately turned his blame to the alleged perpetrator’s history of rampant antisemitism, and he gave me a stern warning: “I think you [should] take a second look Warren,” he wrote. “And no Jew in their right mind should endorse gun control. As a community, we need to be armed and ready to defend ourselves.” And here is the real problem! Once we present a valid research-based explanation to disprove their morally misguided and false explanations for the vast number of incidents of gun violence in the United States, they will either dismiss our research or they will immediately find another reason to justify their failure to go to the root causes for the horrific tragedies that hit our communities everyday of every year: easy access to firearms. “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” Actually, people with guns kill people more often and at significantly higher rates than people who don’t have guns. Let’s take a comparative example. Before and up to 1996, Australia had relatively high rates of murder, but an incident at Port Arthur, Tasmania, April 28, 1996, was the proverbial straw that broke the poor camel’s back. On that date, a man opened fire on a group of tourists killing 35 and wounding another 23. The massacre was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history. Taking decisive action, newly-elected conservative Prime Minister, John Howard, negotiated a bipartisan deal between the national, state, and local governments in enacting comprehensive gun safety measures, which included a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, and laws prohibiting private firearms sales, mandatory registration by owners of all weapons, and the requirement that all potential buyers of guns at the time of purchase give a “genuine reason” other than general or overarching self-defense without documentation of necessity. By 1996, polls showed overwhelming public support of approximately 90% for the new measures. And though firearms-related injuries and death have not totally come to an end, according to the Washington Post,homicides by firearms fell by 59% between 1995 and 2006 with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides, and a 65% reduction in gun-related suicides. Other studies found significant drops in robberies involving firearms, and contrary to fears by some, no increase in the overall number of home invasions. In the decade preceding the Port Arthur massacre, Australia recorded 11 mass shootings. No mass shootings have occurred for over two decades after the measures went into effect. “It’s a mental health issue.” When politicians assert a cause of gun violence, they invariably lay blame on people with mental illness. Some people talk of “delusional killers” or “mentally ill criminals” for the violence. While some leaders have called for a “national registry” of all persons diagnosed with mental illness, such a proposal has faced overwhelming criticism by mental health advocates over concerns about stigmatization and discrimination. Politicians are merely scapegoating an entire group of people rather than acknowledging the real causes. And while these same politicians call for increased support systems for people with mental health issues, this Republican-dominated Congress has acted to reduce support systems. On the issue of keeping guns out of the hands of people with emotional and mental health problems, in December 2016, the Obama administration released policy guidelines mandating that people receiving Social Security payments for severe mental illnesses and those found incapable of managing their finances undergo FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Checks if they request to purchase a weapon. Congress, however, overturned the policy, mostly on party lines. President Trump signed the measure into law one month after taking office during his first term, even though following every mass shooting, he refers to these instances as a “mental health problem” as he did again after 17 students and their teachers were killed in Parkland, Florida. In fact, however, reports show clearly that mass shootings by people with serious mental illness represent less than 1% of all yearly gun-related homicides. In addition, Columbia University’s Paul Applebaum and Duke’s Jeffrey Swanson found that “only 3-5% of violent acts are attributable to serious mental illness, and most do not involve guns.” “Fatherlessness in homes of boys and young men” Another explanation has gained attention on the political right: fatherless homes. Susan L. M. Goldberg of PJMedia, for example, argues: “Issue number one that no one in the mainstream media or government wants to acknowledge: fatherlessness. Specifically, the impact of fatherlessness on the boys who grew up to become school shooters.” Goldberg refers to Warren Farrell and John Grey’s book The Boy Crisis. She wrote: “Minimal or no father involvement, whether due to divorce, death, or imprisonment, is common to Adam Lanza, Elliott Rodgers, Dylan Roof and Stephen Paddock….In the case of 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz, he was adopted at birth. His adoptive dad died when Nikolas was much younger, and doubtless the challenges of this fatherlessness was compounded by the death of his adoptive mom three and a half months ago.” By implication, the right is implying that women-headed households are inferior to those that are male-headed, and, ironically, that a family headed by two fathers in partnership is the best – though they have heartedly disputed this. Hypermasculinity Combined with Widescale Availability of Firearms In the over 50,000 shooting incidents in the United States, including approximately 372 categorized as “mass shootings” of four or more victims, men, mostly cisgender white men committed the overwhelming majority. And murder is primarily a male act in 90% of the cases when the gender of the perpetrator is known. In mass shootings, 98%+ are enacted by males. But regulations on firearms challenge the promises of a patriarchal system based on notions of hyper-masculinity with the elements taken to the extreme of control, domination over others and the environment, competitiveness, autonomy, rugged individualism, strength, toughness, forcefulness, and decisiveness, and, of course, never having to ask for help or assistance. Concepts of cooperation and community responsibility are pushed to the sidelines or often discarded. This connected to the easy legal access to firearms presents a recipe for disaster playing itself out so many times in the United States that it has become routine. Why do politicians and many residents of the U.S. continue to deny, deflect, diffuse, dispose, and dispense with raising issues revolving around the massive and virtually unrestricted availability of firearms, some reaching military-grade capability, as the prime reason for the epidemic of gun violence in the United States? But to paraphrase the great political strategist James Carvill: “It’s the guns stupid!” — Subscribe to The Good Men Project Newsletter Email Address * Subscribe If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project, please join us as a Premium Member today. All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS. Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here. Photo credit: iStock The post Gun Rights Advocates Attempt to Silence the Causes of Gun Violence appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

The victory over Japan remains one of the most overlooked yet decisive chapters of the war On September 3, China will celebrate Victory Day – the anniversary of Japan’s capitulation in 1945. This year marks the 80th anniversary of that historic moment. The country is commemorating the milestone with a series of events, culminating in President Xi Jinping’s speech at Tiananmen Square, followed by a military parade in the heart of Beijing. For China, the Second World War holds as much significance as it does for Europe or Russia. Yet in the West, the Asian battlefield is poorly understood and often overlooked. While everyone knows about Pearl Harbor, the Normandy landings, the Battle of Stalingrad, Auschwitz, or the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, far fewer have heard of the Mukden incident, the Marco Polo Bridge incident, the Nanjing Massacre, or Unit 731. And yet it was the Chinese people who paid one of the heaviest prices of the war. Just as the world has rightly learned about the horrors of the Holocaust, it must also confront the reality of Japan’s war crimes – and how, after 1945, the United States and its allies shielded many Japanese perpetrators, even exploiting the results of their atrocities for Cold War objectives. The Second World War exists in multiple national narratives. Europeans date the war’s outbreak to September 1, 1939, with Hitler’s invasion of Poland. For the Soviet Union, the Great Patriotic War began on June 22, 1941, with Nazi Germany’s massive assault. For the US, the war only truly started with Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor on December 8, 1941. Yet these narratives together form a larger picture of aggressors and victims, crimes and just struggles. In recent years, however, this collective memory has faced systematic attempts at reinterpretation, aimed at relativizing the crimes of Nazi Germany, militarist Japan, and their allies. In this revisionist history, the Soviet Union is portrayed as an aggressor, the liberation of Europe by the Red Army is reframed as occupation, while the decisive role in defeating the Axis is attributed primarily to the US and Britain. Rooted in a Eurocentric reading of history, this narrative marginalizes the stories of others. To counter such historical revisionism and nihilism, a truly global perspective on our shared past is essential. For China, the war started on September 18, 1931, when Japan invaded Manchuria and created the puppet state of Manchukuo. This marked the beginning of the “War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression.” Despite being economically, technologically, and militarily weaker, China resisted Japan for over 14 years. The Communist Party of China took the lead in confronting the invaders, declaring war on Japan as early as April 1932, in contrast to Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang government, which leaned toward appeasement and often treated the communists as a greater threat than the Japanese occupiers. By late 1936, the communists and the Kuomintang had agreed to form a “United Front,” mobilizing nationwide resistance. This became crucial after the Marco Polo Bridge Incident of July 7, 1937, which triggered a full-scale Japanese invasion. The brutal Nanjing Massacre followed, during which Japanese forces slaughtered at least 300,000 civilians and prisoners of war in just six weeks. Japan’s expansion was driven by a racist ideology of superiority and the ambition to dominate all of Asia – strikingly similar to Hitler’s quest for Lebensraum and a European empire. After Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, Mao Zedong called for an international united front against fascism, a strategy that soon bore fruit. In January 1942, China joined Britain, the US, and the Soviet Union in signing the Declaration of the United Nations, soon endorsed by 22 other countries. This laid the foundation for coordinated global action against the Axis powers. China became a vital contributor: its battlefield tied down much of Japan’s military capacity, preventing Tokyo from invading the USSR, India, or Australia. Chinese forces are estimated to have killed over 1.5 million Japanese soldiers, while nearly 1.3 million surrendered to China after Japan’s capitulation. From 1931 to 1945, China destroyed more than two-thirds of Japan’s ground forces. But the price was staggering: more than 35 million Chinese dead – exceeding the Soviet Union’s 27 million, and dwarfing US losses of around 500,000. The scale of Japanese war crimes in China and across Asia is comparable to the Holocaust – yet far less acknowledged in the West. The Nanjing Massacre remains one of the darkest chapters of the 20th century. At the same time, Japan’s Unit 731 carried out horrific biological and chemical warfare experiments on tens of thousands of prisoners, including civilians. Victims were vivisected without anesthesia, deliberately infected with plague and cholera, or used for frostbite and weapons testing. The war did not end in 1945 with complete justice. In Europe, many German scientists and officers who had served the Nazi regime were quietly absorbed into Western structures. Under Operation Paperclip, hundreds of Nazi engineers and doctors, some implicated in war crimes, were brought to the US to work on rocketry, medicine, and intelligence. Their expertise was valued more than the lives destroyed by their experiments and ideology. In Asia, a similar pattern emerged. Leaders of Japan’s Unit 731, responsible for some of the most gruesome human experiments in history, were granted immunity by the US in exchange for their research data, which Washington considered useful for biological weapons development. The atrocities committed against Chinese, Korean, and Soviet prisoners were buried under Cold War secrecy, while war criminals went on to live freely, some even prospering in postwar Japan. These choices reveal a troubling double standard: while Germany and Japan were defeated militarily, their crimes were selectively forgotten when they became convenient allies against the Soviet Union and, later, China. This history carries a clear warning for the present. Just as Cold War politics led the West to cover up and even profit from fascist crimes, today’s elites in Washington, London, and Brussels are engaged in rewriting history to serve new confrontations. By downplaying the sacrifices of China and the Soviet Union and magnifying their own role, they prepare Western societies for a new round of hostility. Historical memory becomes a battlefield in itself, where uncomfortable truths are erased, and narratives are crafted to justify military build-ups and geopolitical confrontation. Unlike Western liberal elites, who have provoked new conflicts such as the war in Ukraine and revived militarism while attempting to rewrite history, China has taken a different path. It promotes peace, favors diplomacy over confrontation, and seeks to build international cooperation instead of division. One way it does so is by cultivating shared historical memory of the “World Anti-Fascist War,” as China refers to World War II. This year, Xi Jinping’s participation in Moscow’s Victory Day celebrations, Vladimir Putin’s planned presence in Beijing this September, and the joint Sino-Russian statement of May 8 all underscore that China and the Soviet Union bore the greatest sacrifices in defeating fascism and militarism. Both warned against revising the memory and outcomes of the war and reaffirmed their commitment to the UN-based international system. There was a time when even Western leaders acknowledged these facts. In April 1942, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt stated: “We remember that the Chinese people were the first to stand up and fight against the aggressors in this war; and in the future a still unconquerable China will play its proper role in maintaining peace and prosperity, not only in eastern Asia but in the whole world.” His words now sound prophetic. China does not commemorate its victory only to honor the past. It does so to remind the world that peace is never guaranteed – and that history must not be rewritten to serve temporary political interests. View the full article