The Culture of Malicious Legislating
The Death Instinct in Policy
 |
When a group of legislatures in Washington State decided to forgo a hearing about a commission on the status of boys and men (HB 1266 and SB 5446) in February and made the same decision in years past, it became clear that there was something much more ill-natured at work.
After-all, a hearing is only one step in the process of adding a new law or changing an existing law. Hearings allow legislators to sit back and listen to expert testimony, ask questions, and hear public statements about those impacted by a potential bill. The process also allows voters to see how a policymaker votes—something many policymakers fear when it comes to the political backlash that happens when it comes to supporting boys and supporting men.
Even though there are more than 50 organizations locally and nationally that support the commission and two-dozen representatives in the house and senate sponsoring the commission on boys and men from both sides of the aisle, those in charge of allowing the bill to move from its committee to a hearing on the floor remain unmoved. Even as males account for the overwhelming majority of suicide and overdose deaths in every county in the state, there is no sense of urgency or compassion. According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, males account for 69% to 100% of the combined suicide and overdose deaths in every county. Statewide, males account for 74% of those deaths.
WA State Percent of Male Suicide and Overdose Deaths
The combined percent of male suicide and unintentional overdose deaths in each country in Washington State from 2018 to 2023.
Washington’s legislature is not unique in the practice of malicious legislating when it comes to male outcomes. Legislators will often use colloquial, progressive terms like historically privileged, patriarchy, and toxic masculinity to intentionally dismiss a cultural issue that impacts males—doing so under the cloak of selective empathy: selective empathy being a type of empathy that can only exist for certain classes of people. This malicious legislative approach appeases particular groups who abuse the notion of equality when it comes to males.
The same is seen in states like California, where a lawsuit has been filed by the National Coalition for Men for violating the equal protections clause with policies that discriminate against the state’s boys and its men. By funding a California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls and not a commission on the status of boys and men, state policymakers use selective empathy to discriminate against boys and against men. The issue is not about having a Commission on the Status of Women and Girls. The issue is about the exclusion of a commission on the status of boys and of men by using the argument of “historically privileged” to pit groups of people against one another and direct funding based on sex more than need and equality.
Read the rest of this compelling article here: The Culture of Malicious Legislating and please consider supporting Mr. Kullman’s work be joining his substack as a paid subscriber: Upgrade to paid.
Establishing Commissions on the Status of Men and Boys nationwide is long overdue. The need for them is clear, especially considering that the majority of states have Commissions on the Status of Women and Girls. Allowing one but not the other is gender-based discrimination.