u/Specific_Detective41

Aba and Preach react to a random podcast on IG. The guy admits that the left offers nothing to men.

Here both Aba and Preach state how for 7 years they have been talking about the exact same thing. They highlight how the RP (filled with scammers and grifters) has attempted to fill the void left behind due to the left's inability to relate to men. Also how misandry often and still goes unchecked.

Overall, these were fair takes. I think both of them were in favour of the Theroux documentary. Whereas I still feel that RP / Tate is now used as a boogeyman to disregard any honest discourse about boys/men. I didn't agree with the talking points of the guy they were reacting to when he brought up positive masculinity. They also bring up the cringiness of male feminists and generally how ridiculous they are.

What are your thoughts?

Harries et al. (2025) investigated the effects of female perpetrated IPV amongst Australian men. Additionally they focused on how men's overall well-being and career prospects were affected by domestic violence. This study was a qualitative analysis.

"Abstract

Purpose

In Australia, 1.5 million men have reported being victims of IPV since the age of 15, yet their experiences are sometimes dismissed or not reported due to social stigma. The outcomes for these men are not well understood. This study aimed to investigate men’s experiences of IPV and how these experiences impacted them in the workplace.

Methods

Using a qualitative design, we interviewed 12 Australian men and asked them to tell their story in relation to their self-reported past or present IPV experience.

Results

Overall, we found that men reported a wide range of abuse experiences, including physical, emotional, and sexual. Men’s personal and working lives were directly impacted by societal perceptions of males as victims, as well as through the negative impact of direct and indirect abuse on their health and wellbeing. Men reported disruptions to their capacity to work, finances, and career progression, as well as using the workplace to cope with abuse. Many men were also hesitant to align their experiences with ‘victimization’, despite reporting clear instances of abuse.

Conclusions

There is a need for increased education and awareness surrounding male IPV victimization, to counter existing prejudices that may exacerbate negative outcomes and obstruct help-seeking. Organizational support and associated policies for IPV should be specific, well publicized, and non-gender preferential. Doing so could help to reduce spillover by helping men to access support sooner".

Direct quotations from some participants from the study:

• "She once abused me in a public place. My solicitors got CCTV footage. Nobody cared. [P5]"
• I"’ve copped people saying ‘you’re a male, you’ve obviously wanted it’ and that’s something that’s hurt just as much as the actual incident. [P6]"
• "There’s no shelter for men, only park benches... You can google some of the women’s domestic violence shelters and there’s probably about 30 in [large Australian city] alone, but from what I’ve seen a lot of men are copping it though, and nowhere to go. [P8]"
• "I spoke to one [psychologist] and she stood up in front of me… and shouted at me “Men can't be victims of abuse, only women are.” She'd basically made assumptions about it and she's saying, “men like you try and manipulate the situation... You're the abusers”. [P7]"
• "I tried to contact [a men’s helpline]. I was told I should just leave because I was the one who was causing violence. [P4]"
• "The police laugh at me when I try and put in statements of what's actually going on in the relationship, how I'm being treated and how I was being punched. You know they'd turn around and laugh at me and that's soul destroying. [P2]"
• "So the physical violence wasn't great. The emotional and psychological [abuse]… it was torture, it was horrible… the point of not being recognised by anyone as being a victim or being affected in any way. [P2]"
• "I think she’d worked out early in the piece that I was never going to hit her back. So if anyone tells you of domestic violence being bad in a physical sense it’s not that, it’s emotional abuse, it’s way worse. It’s about that control. [P8]"
• "My former partner contacted senior people at the company that I worked at, told them that I was gay, had abandoned the family and that I had mental health issues. [P5]"
• "She accused me of having an affair with a colleague at work which was really ironic. there was no truth at all, but she wouldn’t accept that. [P11]"
• "If I don't do what she says, she will withhold access to [the children]. I have been threatened with her saying things like, “I'll just accuse you of domestic violence. Who do you think they're going to believe?” [P3]"
• "I was very isolated, I’d sleep in my car, I even slept in the flower bed sometimes... you’re just humiliated… there’s just nowhere to go. Unless you’re rich and you can book yourself into a hotel and have a bit of a sanctuary for the night, but I wasn’t. [P8]"
• "We've got a brand-new domestic violence policy that deals with women and members of the LGBTIQ community. There's no policy resources for men…. There was a mention of men in the previous policy and now it's gone. [P3]"
• "I'd work longer hours; I'd work weekends because I just didn't want to go home. Just even on the bus or in the car on the way home, just the anxiety about what's going to happen when I get there? One way to deal with that was working 60 hours a week, sometimes, or longer, which is not good in the long run [P3]"
• "She also knew that the damage to my career had been done when I left the job before to go to [overseas] for her. So this would be job number two that would be damaged as part of that. [P7]"
• "She had to try and break down this [relationship with] a partner of mine in this business, and that made that business relationship very shaky after that. [P12]"
• "I’ve been through a lot of jobs. I’ve been unemployed. Part of the problem was trying to get access to the kids. I’ve left two jobs because there was no flexibility from that perspective… It was hell. That impacts on the finances. You’re not earning a lot of money, you’re running around, and buying things for the kids. [P8]"
• "Oh yeah, I'm scarred from [the abuse]. There's no doubt about that. And because of that, I was scarred financially, pretty bad. [P12]"
• "Because I've been a little bit stressed at the moment and a relapse into not focusing on work, my supervisor has basically forced me onto working shorter hours, which means I get paid less. It's about $400 a fortnight less, which that's a reasonable chunk. [P3]"

Spencer et al. (2025) compared both male and female repeat sex offenders, derived from police reports / data in England and Wales. The abstract is provided below:

"ABSTRACT

Understanding differences between male and female sex offence suspects is vital for developing appropriate prevention, assessment, and treatment guidance. Previous comparisons have used clinical, prison, or arrest data, or small samples. Larger studies have been based in the United States. This study analysed a large sample of sex offences recorded by three police forces in England and Wales to compare characteristics of male/female sex offence suspects reported once – “only-once suspects” –, or multiple times – “repeat suspects”. Suspects were more likely to be male and a greater proportion of repeat suspects were male. However, when separated into only-once versus repeats, male/female suspects did not significantly differ in either their number of sex offence reports, or their number of victims. Nonetheless, females were significantly less likely to be charged, suggesting authorities are less confident in taking forward these cases. Implications of findings and how male/female sex offence suspects are policed are discussed.

PRACTICE IMPACT STATEMENT

Repeat male and female sex offence suspects were associated with the same number of victims and crimes. However, female suspects were charged to a lesser extent suggesting there is a gap in sex offender punishment and more needs to be done to increase professional awareness of the risks posed by females who sexually offend".

A study conducted by Lysova and Dim (2025) investigated the experiences and coping strategies that male victims of domestic violence use in order to deal with domestic violence. The study was conducted in Canada. Full summary is below:

"Abstract

Despite evidence of male victimization in intimate relationships, Canada, like many other countries, lacks institutional support for men who experience abuse. As a result, male survivors may feel compelled to cope with IPV on their own.

Purpose

This study examined the coping strategies male victims use to prevent or minimize violence and mitigate the effects of abuse already perpetrated.

Methods

A mixed-method design was employed to explore coping strategies among Canadian men who have experienced intimate partner violence (IPV). Quantitative data on help-seeking strategies used by male and female victims of IPV were drawn from the 2014 Canadian General Social Survey on Victimization, followed by a qualitative analysis of interviews with 16 male survivors.

Results

Male IPV victims in Canada were significantly less likely than female victims to seek formal or informal support while in abusive relationships. Qualitative findings suggested this reluctance was driven by avoidant coping strategies, such as denial of abuse and withdrawal (Theme 1), as well as escaping abuse through work and productivity (Theme 2). Less prevalent but noteworthy themes included attempts to help abusive partners and save the relationships (Theme 3) and the pursuit of well-being after the abusive relationship ended (Theme 4).

Conclusions

This study highlights male victims’ reliance on avoidant coping strategies while in abusive relationships, which can hinder effective responses to abuse. It underscores the importance of developing gender-inclusive support systems for all victims of partner abuse and calls for reshaping societal perceptions of masculinity to create a judgment-free environment where male victims feel empowered to seek help".

I recently finished an audiobook, Notes on Being a Man by Scott Galloway. I wanted to see what he was going to say about the issues facing boys/men after seeing his face everywhere (in podcasts) last year.

Overview

The audiobook is approximately 9 hours long and what he says is unremarkable. His first opening statements / few hours of the audiobook, he highlights issues such as male loneliness, boys/men lack purpose and meaning. Even though he admits that women might have stereotypical male coded ways of handling stress or that you have men who display female coded coping strategies or show their sensitive side, he still justifies gender norms such as men being providers and protectors for women and children. He also admits that the book is an autobiography based on his anecdotal experiences. That already discredits whatever he has to add on the issue of men's rights.

Just to be clear, this guy is a grifter and I don't think that he should be regarded as a men's rights advocate. Galloway also contradicts himself on many occasions throughout this audiobook.

The first opening statements, Galloway romanticises WW2, as if WW2 was some Captain America movie or Saving Private Ryan etc. He blatantly ignores male disposability or the fact that many WW2 veterans returned with PTSD, disabilities had survivors guilt and so on. WW2 also ripped apart families because spouses and children of dead soldiers had to live without a spouse / father. The effects of WW2 was also traumatic for the families affected and in no way should war be romanticised nor should society glamourise male disposability.

Lack of academic discourse

Galloway cites Richard Reeves, with regards to the education gap, says Reeves is his "yoda". Regardless, he never expands on his work nor does he critique it, all what Galloway does is regurgitate Reeve's research on the education gap facing boys in US schools. He also references Johnathan Haidt's research on social media addiction, however he does not expand much if at all on his work.

Early years - present

Galloway says he was born at the right time in the USA being GenX, even though he grew up poor, after his mother divorced his father. He claims that he was a mediocre kid in primary and high school, he didn't get good grades, he wasn't an oddball but neither was he popular in high school. At the beginning of the audiobook, he rambles about how this friend / peer of his was so handsome or popular and how he was average and didn't have much going on. Give me a break, at least he wasn't bullied and had a decent childhood, not everyone has that privilege to get along with people in high school or have people leave you alone.

He attributes a lot of his successes in life on luck and kindness. Due to these factors, he was able to get into UCLA and still secured a job at an investment banking firm. He didn't like the field, so he went to grad-school and started up several consulting firms (via trial and error), until he had a successful career into his late 30s onwards.

Outdated advice and contradictions

My impression of him is that I find him to be superficial and the type of man who chases after money and status. Galloway often brags about how much money he earns, his lavish lifestyle, the fact that he can travel extensively around the globe and the fact that he has a personal trainer. I don't know how this relates to the average boy/man who decides to listen to his audiobook or decides to read his book.

The ethos of the book is that men need to procreate, provide and protect women and children. He uses evopsych tropes in order to further justify his points. He ignores nuance, cultural differences and circumstances, despite admitting to the fact that childless people or couples who adopt can also live purposeful lives.

He says that men need to provide for women and children. However, he often complains that he hardly has time left to spend with his sons because he's constantly working and travelling. In his mid 20s, burnout costed him his own health, as he ended up in ICU. A distraught social worker told him that he should have not been admitted in the first place because he is too young to be that ill. It doesn't seem to me that he learnt from that experience.

He says verbatim “[outside of work, I barely remember my twenties and thirties. Work cost me my hair, probably, my first marriage, and arguably my sanity. But for me, it was worth it. I found it’s what’s required if you expect to be in the top 10 percent economically, much less the top 1 percent….You may feel differently-tens of millions of people do and they are no doubt, happier and, well, more balanced than me. Your call. If you prioritize things besides money recognize this also means making certain compromises e.g., not living in New York or San Francisco or London, owning a less nice car, traveling only occasionally, waiting in longer lines at Disneyland.”

I think that the above says everything about the type of person he is.

Galloway's take on male loneliness and men's lifestyle choices

Galloway highlights social media addiction, the fact that men spend more time online and have less social support networks than women. He states that third spaces should be utilised, one of the few things I agreed on. The other statement I agreed with in the audiobook is that children should not be coddled and learn from their mistakes. I feel that it should not only be boys / men who ought to be problem-solvers. His solutions to deal with male loneliness is workout, go to gym be attractive / appealing to women, earn lots of money, deal with porn addiction and use third spaces to approach women. If you are in college, join a frat group.

Somewhere in the audiobook he states that men need to join yoga classes in order to hit on women, which is just awful dating advice. Galloway fails to address the complexities of loneliness as a whole.

With regards to porn addiction he admits that men who watch porn and who are not addicts are not problematic consumers of pornography. So his statements in that regard is a nothing burger. Nowhere in the audiobook does he ever go into detail why men become porn addicts in the first place, given that the majority of porn addicts become addicts in the first place because they were exposed to porn as minors. Neither should pornography addiction be gendered when there is an increase in women consuming porn or for the very least emerging research highlighting porn addiction in women.

Galloway also brings up videogames, has a typical outdated approach and seems to think that gamers are a problem, without understanding the gaming subculture. I am so tired of progressive types demonising gamers, I also noticed that there is a resurgence of demonising gamers in recent years because they are boys/men.

Galloway admits that he has struggled with body dysmorphia throughout most of his life, however he never addresses the fact that men ought to have realistic goals to order to stay in shape. His advice is very shallow. Apart from stating the obvious health reasons, he glamourises muscularity, and men having to go to gym in order to be physically appealing to women. This part of the audiobook was typical self-improvement slop and says nothing about improving overall wellbeing.

Final remarks

Overall, I found this audiobook to be a waste of time. I found it to be far too Americanised, contradictory, lacking in research and much needed nuance. Galloway says absolutely nothing about male victims of domestic violence, parental alienation, the draft, MGM, rampant misandry in society, and various other issues that often gets discussed on this subreddit. I would go far to say that Notes on Being a Man is bells hooks for men.

Edit: typos

The Washington Times has acknowledged misandry and requests people to write to the editor should they experience any misandry in their publications.

​

I don't agree with the section on God, however it's progress that they at least recognise misandry and are willing to take the necessary steps not to normalise it.

This article reviews an indie biopic film about Valerie Solana's who wrote the SCUM manifesto and her work can be seen as a prelude to TERF ideology. The 1996 film is restored in 4K resolution and will at cinemas in the US, UK and Australia.

​ She was also known to be mentally unstable and shot Andy Warhol for no reason.

​

The writer excuses her behaviour and frames her as being misunderstood. It goes to show how misandry is normalised and condoned in mainstream media and society. Then feminists like to say things such as misandry doesn't kill, yet you have examples like Solonas.

From James Nuzzo's substack:

"The current data brief summarises results from a survey study conducted by the Australian Institute of Criminology in 2022 on the prevalence of abuse and harassment on dating apps and dating websites. The survey asked about abuse and harassment that occurred (a) on dating apps and websites (i.e., “online”) and (b) in-person after connecting via a dating app or website. The survey also asked about experiencing “unmatching” after being abused or harassed. Here, unmatching refers to whether the perpetrator deleted their account, blocked the victim’s account, or unmatched from the victim’s account after abusing or harassing the victim".

Key Points

"The prevalence of experiencing online or in-person abuse or harassment by someone met through a dating app or dating website was often higher among gay and bisexual men and women compared to heterosexual men and women.

In comparing heterosexual men and heterosexual women, some sex differences existed, depending on the specific type of online, in-person, or unmatching behaviours.

A total of 61.5% of heterosexual men and 79.1% of heterosexual women reported experiencing at least one type of online abuse perpetrated by someone they met on a dating app or dating website.

A greater proportion of heterosexual women than heterosexual men reported experiencing online sexual harassment and online abusive language, whereas no sex differences were observed in experiencing online image-based abuse or online stalking.

A total of 26.6% of heterosexual men and 35.4% of heterosexual women reported experiencing at least one type of in-person abuse perpetrated by someone they met on a dating app or dating website.

A greater proportion of heterosexual women than heterosexual men reported experiencing in-person sexual assault or coercion, whereas no sex differences were observed in experiencing in-person reproductive or sexual health-related abuse, in-person image-based abuse, or in-person stalking.

A slightly greater proportion of heterosexual men (39.2%) than heterosexual women (35.7%) reported that a person unmatched them after abusing them online.

A greater proportion of heterosexual men (54.0%) than heterosexual women (42.0%) reported that a person unmatched them after abusing them in-person".

Additonal commentary by Nuzzo highlights that this study's findings also claim that both homosexual and bisexual men and women report the highest incidences of online harrassment / abuse from dating apps. Men and women are almost equally both victims and perpetrators of online abuse and harassment on social media platforms, including dating apps. Nuzzo notes that feminist orgs such as UN Women and feminist synchopaths such as Movember only focus on women as victims whilst ignoring women as perpetrators of online abuse and also ignoring online harassment targeted at men.

Source: Australian Institute of Criminology. Sexual harassment, aggression and violence among mobile dating app and website users in Australia. 2022.

To those familiar with mens rights discourse we already know that women abuse to similar rates to men. This substack article gives a full breakdown of the origins of women are 6 times more likely to die at the hands of men, men are more violent BS and other misconceptions about men in relation to domestic violence.

From the article " The U.S. Department of Justice found the following breakdown of victims of intimate partner homicide in 2021: female victims 61% (1,690) / male victims 39% (1,078). That is a ratio of 1.6 to 1.1

[source: Female Murder Victims and Victim-Offender Relationship, 2021]

The United Nations found the following breakdown of victims of intimate partner homicides across 78 countries in 2022: female victims 66% / male victims 34%. That is a ratio of 2 to 1.

[source: Gender-related Killings of Women and Girls, 2022]"'

The author of the article makes this additional point

"The U.S. Department of Justice found the following breakdown of victims of intimate partner homicide in 1998: female victims 72% (1,320) / male victims 28% (513). That is a 2.6 to 1 ratio.

[source: Intimate Partner Violence Against Women Declined from 1993 Through 1998]"'

In the origins of the statistics that are often cited by feminists lies here according to Ann Silvers page 65 of her book:

"The widely circulated idea that six times more women are killed by their partners traces back to an article by Heidi Stöckl et al., “The global prevalence of intimate partner homicide: A systematic review,” published by The Lancet in 2013. Sponsorship from the World Health Organization gave the research additional weight. In the summary of their article the authors say: “Data were obtained for 66 countries. Overall 13.5% of homicides were committed by an intimate partner, and this proportion was six times higher for female homicides than for male homicides (38.6% vs 6.3%).

The author of the substack notes the following:

"To be clear, what Stöckl’s data showed was female victims of homicide were six times as likely as male victims of homicide to have been killed by an intimate partner.

It did not show that females were six times as likely as males to be killed by an intimate partner, nor that six times as many females are killed by an intimate partner.

The latter assertion exaggerates the safety risk to women of coupling with men and it downplays the safety risk to men of coupling with women, as do many false or misleading factoids about intimate partner violence that have been propagated for decades".

The facts matter and oftentimes propaganda of this nature has lead to the issues of violence against men being downplayed or minimised. What is also left out or understudied are murders by proxy. The author notes from his own research that women will hire someone to kill their male partner or spouse.

Secondly it is fear mongering narratives that assumes that women have to perceive all men as violent/ abusive by nature. That women have to be scared of men at all times and assume the worst.

Enough is enough.