u/TheTinMenBlog

The lived experiences of men and women are wildly different, and often the inversion of one another.

A man who hasn’t heard a kind word about him in months is unlikely to understand what it’s like to have ‘compliments’ shouted at them by strangers, from car windows.

A woman who feels like the spotlight of society is burning down upon her shoulders is unlikely to understand what it’s like to walk through the world like a ghost.

Someone who is treated as precious, infantilised at all times, wrapped in cotton wool and coddled, will struggle to see what it’s like to be disposable.

It’s like someone in the desert, dying of dehydration, trying to understand someone drowning in the middle of the ocean, gasping for air.

It is only through listening to the lived experiences of the opposite sex that we can ever hope to understand them…

So, men, what’s a struggle you have that most women don’t understand?

The online world falls over itself to tell men to talk and “ask for help”. 

But have such people ever taken the time to look around to see that, for many men, whether they ask or not – there is no help for them?

Many such men are in France.

Abused men that is, for whom there is still no dedicated support line to help them.

And so, a man in France, who is the victim of abuse: how can we tell that man to “ask for help”, when there is none out there for him?

Thankfully, some politicians are pushing for change. In July 2025, Maud Petit MP formally asked the government to create a men’s equivalent of 3919, France’s national helpline for abused women.

After several months of silence, in March 2026, the Minister for Equality, Aurore Bergé, finally responded.

And the answer she gave, sadly, won’t shock you…

Let’s take a look.

~

Read the full response here https://questions.assemblee-nationale.fr/q17/17-8484QE.htm

The world is wedded to an extraordinarily narrow, myopic view of domestic violence.

And we all know it.

The big bad violent man, reining unilateral terror down upon a tiny damsel in distress.

It’s a storyline fitting of a Disney film, and whilst it certainly exists in the world of domestic violence – it is not a complete, all encompassing picture.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the coin, is the victim so often excluded from visibility, advocacy, compassion and services – men.

So why is the world so enamored with such an antiquated, exclusionary view, and how do we bring the missing victims back into the picture?

What do you think?

~
Full podcast with The Hodgecast here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH8nVu0a3Aw&feature=youtu.be

Footage by CottonBro Studio

The sad thing about male suicide, is it’s always in the room with us.

It is, and will continue to be, the biggest risk to a young man’s life, every day, until he is about fifty.

There’s no getting away from how terrifying that fact is, and how it goes against the cultural narrative of men as being omnisciently powerful, and privileged people.

Thankfully, male suicide as an issue has entered the public conversation over the past four of five years; adorning campaigns, merchandise, billboards, and the running order of a million podcasts.

And yet –

When it comes to men ending their own lives, 2025 brought us the worst data this century.

So, for all the kind words, nothing seems to have changed, and in fact… it’s getting worse.

Is it time for a new strategy, that looks beyond men, and the sloganeering approach we often take?

Is it time we stopped seeing male suicide as primarily a mental health issue, and instead one of structural, economic, and environmental cause?

What do you think?

~
APPG A New Approach to Male Suicide https://equi-law.uk/inquiry-no-3-male-suicide/

SA and Boys https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/sltb.12148

Full talk https://www.youtube.com/live/vraTKwlnNWo?t=7881s

There’s no denying it, Bonnie Blue is a degenerate, low-life parasite.

Not because of her extraordinarily liberal approach to sex work, frankly I don’t care about that – live and let live, I say.

She’s a degenerate, because of her complete lack of care, compassion, or even interest in the wellbeing of her own community, particularly men, or even her own child.

Her interest is simple and singular – herself.

And she’ll do, sell, or promote anything, and everything, if it puts a few more grubby coins in her back pocket.

Most recently, and it shocks me to even say this, but she allegedly auctioned off the naming rights to her newborn baby, in a sickening online circus act, that raised 1.2 million dollars from the winning bidder – an online gambling company (whose name I am not going to share).

And so her baby is named after a gambling site.

Confused, shocked, and saddened, the mainstream media sought out this gambling site, to ask them why they would part with 1.2 million dollars, so they can destroy a baby’s life, and permanently associate themselves with someone of such low moral character as Bonnie.

Well, an unknown spokesperson “Leo” stepped forward, and provided an answer that, somehow, sent them tumbling down the ladder of moral bankruptcy. Dropping them several rungs lower than even Bonnie herself.

And you simply won’t believe what they said.

A company no less parasitic as she is, from an industry which has destroyed more lives than they can even count.

So what is to be said and done about the devastating harm the gambling industry has inflicted upon society, and what made them part with more than a million dollars, as part of some sickening online stunt, with an innocent baby at its centre?

Well let’s find out…

~

Seek help at gamblingwithlives.org
Full article https://metro.co.uk/2026/09/25/asked-a-gambling-site-paid-1-2m-name-bonnie-blues-baby-response-wild-29649431/

Sometimes in life, and especially in love, when you know, you know.

You know when she’s the one, but you also know when she isn’t.

Last week I asked you about the first part of that question, and now let’s talk about the second…

So guys, when did you know she wasn’t the one for you?

What do you think?

As much as I love data and empirical truth, some things cannot be explained or quantified in a pie chart, on a spreadsheet, histogram or treemap…

Somethings are intuitive, inexplicable gut feelings.

Some times, ironically, the most important decisions of our life are made on such a basis.

So guys, tell me, when did you know she was the one?

What do you think?

As sad and disheartening as ‘men’s issues’ are, there is actually something worse…

And that is, the chronic lack of political will and interest in addressing such issues.

For example, male suicide remains the biggest risk to life for all men under fifty, claiming more than half a million (!!) men’s lives worldwide each year.

That number is impossibly large, and truly staggering.

But what is somehow more shocking, is that when national plans are announced to help combat suicide – such as earlier this month in Italy – somehow suicidal men are routinely left in the cold, with women made a ‘priority’ group instead.

That’s right…

Despite men being 78% of suicides in Italy, women will be one of the primary beneficiaries of Italia’s recently announced ‘National Plan for Suicide Prevention’ instead.

And for me, that is the most shocking part of this whole space.

It’s not that:
Men’s health is now worse than women’s by nearly every metric…

Or that boys are behind at every stage of Western education…

Or that men dominate in homelessness, incarceration, workplace fatalities, suicide, drug deaths, and as victims of violent crime…

The most shocking thing is that, when it comes to political conversation, all we seem to get is tumbleweed.

Of course –

This is doubly disorientating, as we are routinely told that “men” are the ones who benefit from political power, that men are the ones systemically privileged; and that men have built the system and written the laws, for eternity, as part of some omnipotent patriarchal male oppressor class.

Such claims certainly sound good on social media, or when bravely bellowed by your local feminist campaigner; but in reality, where our men and boys are silently crushed by both public and political malaise, such slogans seem embarrassingly far from the truth.

So why do our politicians and ministers keep on betraying vulnerable men?

And what on earth is going on in Italy right now?

What do you think?

~

Source:
Italian policy announcement https://www.salute.gov.it/new/it/news-e-media/notizie/10-settembre-giornata-mondiale-la-prevenzione-del-suicidio/

78% of suicides in Italy are male https://countryeconomy.com/demography/mortality/causes-death/suicide/italy

Ana Redondo, “morally, ethically and constitutionally” wrong https://www.esdiario.com/nacional/240509/135661/ministra-igualdad-ana-redondo-hombres.html

Ana Redondo, “frivolous” waste of money https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/09/13/male-rape-centre-waste-of-money-spain-equality-ministry/

Aurore Bergé rejects request for first support line for abused men https://questions.assemblee-nationale.fr/q17/17-8484QE.htm

Jess Phillips laughs at mens issues https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XX6ATwQv7Q&feature=youtu.be

Why is it that men seem to exist at the most extreme ends of society?

The most likely to stand in the C-suite of a Fortune 500 company, but also, the most likely to sleep on the streets outside of it.

Men are the most likely to sit in the thrones of power, as politicians and presidents, but also, most likely to die from deaths of despair, from drug overdose, alcohol, from work, and by suicide.

They are, overrepresented at the snowy peak, but also, deep down on the ocean bed.

Yes -

As we are often told, men are the ones who commit the majority of violent crimes, but so too, men are the most likely to stand in the way of violence, to risk their life to save a stranger, or indeed, be killed themselves.

Men are the ones who set the fire, but they’re also the ones kicking down the door to drag you out of the burning building.

But why?

Is there something within en’s DNA that pushes them to these extremes of society?

And why do we only ever seem to talk about one end of such extremes?

Talk to me about ‘males at the tails’…

What do you think?

~

Fortune 500 CEOS https://fortune.com/2026/06/03/how-many-women-are-fortune-500-ceos/

Homeless deaths https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsofhomelesspeopleinenglandandwales/2021registrations

Violent crime https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-42/table-42.xls

Heroic acts https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0162309596000593

Homicide convicts https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-42/table-42.xls

Homicide victims https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-42/table-42.xls

New podcast with Ally Fogg, chair of the Association for Male Health and Wellbeing is here! https://youtu.be/0UQ39FSylIA?si=wQfjUktX4LvOkHdc

Ally Fogg is one of a handful of veteran men and boys advocates in the UK, who for decades has been banging the drum for men's health and wellbeing, as a journalist, a campaigner, a chair, a public speaker, and a policy expert.

He is one of the men behind the popularisation of International Men's Day, a co-founder of the Men and Boys Coalition, and the current chair of the newly formed Association for Men's Health and Wellbeing – the membership community for the UK's burgeoning men's health space.

Whether it be pushing for political reform in Westminster, campaigning on behalf of his Association's members, or penning one of his infamous Twitter rants, Ally has been on the front lines from the very beginning.

Here he talks with George at TheTinMen about his journey, where it began, where it is, and how it's changed.

Expect to hear about the new Men's Health Strategy of England, how International Men's Day was brought to the UK, the intellectual sea change such things have brought with it, and most of all, the incredible, thankless, life-saving work that happens every day within the UK Men's Health space…

The most important lessons in life, are not learnt in school, or on college campuses.

They are shared between friends at the pub, or taught by boys behind the bike shed, or bestowed from father to son over the generations.

Such wisdom is never formalized or written down, but considering its importance, it really ought to be.

So to guys, what lessons should every man know, but are so rarely taught?

What do you think?

Yet another terrifying headline is stoking fear around boys, and the so-called ‘MANOSPHERE!’

It’s reaching ‘every classroom’ in the land, as an ‘alarming rise in misogyny’ sweeps across Australia.

“Nearly four in five teachers” have witnessed, or experienced ‘gendered violence’ in school…

Scary… right?

Well, not necessarily.

As such a finding hinges entirely on what you consider ‘gendered violence’?

Because –

You’d be forgiven for assuming such a word refers to acts of physical or sexual violence, or perhaps repeated attempts to intimidate or coerce…

But that’s not the definition that this new report uses – which also considers ‘sexist jokes’, ‘remarks’ and even ‘dismissing a woman’s opinion’, as ‘gendered violence’ too.

Imagine that – to disagree with a woman’s opinion could now be an act of violence against her, and also toward those who witnessed it.

It’s certainly a rather low and subjective bar for such a serious issue – and one that I am sure many of us have crossed in our lives.

I mean, did you ever disagree with a female teacher in school?

Did you ever challenge her opinion?

I know I did – teachers both male and female.

So why are we taking what could easily be low-level acts of boyish inquisitiveness, and mixing the data in with serious acts of sexual violence?

Well perhaps it is to create a problem that doesn’t exist: to secure more funding, more investment, more pay rises, and more money, for more nonsense research – that’s why.

So is dismissing a woman’s opinion inherently an act of gendered violence?

Is this the conversation our boys need?

What do you think?

~

Full report https://bridges.monash.edu/articles/report/Duty_of_Care_Teachers_experiences_of_sexism_misogyny_and_sexual_harassment_in_Australian_schools/32942816?file=67900542

Behind every slogan is a world of detail that the social media universe fails to understand.

Why have nuance, when you can have outrage?

Why offer explanation, when you can offer anger?

Why help people be smarter, when you can do the opposite?

One of these slogans, that I hear far too much, is the claim that –

“Women were excluded from clinical drug trials until 1993!”

And yes, generally that is true.

But what is so often missing is: which women, from what phases, and most importantly – why?

Was such exclusion done for good reasons, or malicious ones?

Was it intended to harm women, or was it intended to protect them?

Was there anything that happened, to precipitate such a decision?

Well, we cannot know the answers until we are willing to understand the context – which is usually the first thing to fall by the wayside, when such discussions occur…

So why were women excluded from drug trials?

Which women?

And from what phases?

Let’s talk about it…

~

Sex of participants in NIH funded research, James Nuzzo https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/sex-of-participants-in-nih-funded

It’s the story that’s impossible to ignore.

The tragic story of Lindsay Clancy, who killed her three children, and whose fate hangs in the balance at this very moment..

But, it was not the brutal and shocking killing of her beautiful children that made such a case stand out, but rather, what happened next…

Right now – there are global protests, not in horror of what happened, but in support of Lindsay.

Rallies, marches and gatherings, as (mostly women) dressed all in pink stand in solidarity, and support, of a woman who committed unthinkable acts of violence to her three innocent children.

‘Youre a good mom’, reads one sign.
‘You were brave’, says another.

Social media is alight with anger in opposition to such scenes, but again, also echos its support; as comments are thrown about like frisbees, speculating on her mental health, her psychological faculties, her actions, her star sign, and even conspiracies that try to pin blame entirely on her husband instead.

“HE DID IT!” I saw again and again.

“A Leo would never do that to her children!”

As of writing this: a GoFundMe page has raised an incredible $1.12 MILLION, much of it in support of Lindsay.

Whilst relationships, and even marriages combust, as the case is fiercely debated in living rooms and across kitchen tables right across America.

So yes –

You may have your own opinion on Lindsay’s psychological status, but one thing seems clear – this would not be happening if it were a man in court for these kind of crimes.

So let’s talk about agency, and who’s given too little, and who is handed too much…

What do you think?

~
Sentencing bias https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2017/20171114_Demographics.pdf

The true pioneers are the ones you never heard of.

Those so far ahead of their time, that their ideas, dreams, and journeys terrified people.

Those who society would try to cast aside, talk over, lock up, or destroy.

For to be a true progressive, is not to be politically popular, in fact, by its very definition, it is the opposite.

It is to be uncomfortable.

And the ideas that Erin Pizzey espoused more than fifty years ago, were exactly that – and remain so today.

It was Erin who opened the first women’s refuge on the planet, who wrote the first book on domestic abuse, and who set up what would become the oldest, largest and most powerful domestic abuse charity in the world.

And yet, it was her insistence that men are victims too, in equal numbers to women, and that abuse was not “gendered” that cast her into the shadows for more than fifty years.

It was the price she paid to be a pioneer, and no, it was not just her who paid it.

So, what happens to those who talk about violent women, or abused men?

Let’s find out…

~

My new podcast with leading coercive control researcher, professor Nicola Graham-Kevan

Images by Getty, and Roger Perry on National Portrait Gallery, and Marketa Luskacova

Men are less likely to report their abuse to the police, and if they do, the police are less likely to record it as ‘abuse’ (particularly male officers).

And if they do, it’s less likely to lead to a charge, and if it does, it’s less likely to lead to a prosecution, and even then, it’s less likely to lead to a guilty verdict.

All of these biases filter abused men out of criminal stats (which is how ’90% of people prosecuted for abuse are male’).

But before all of this happens, something else shapes the landscape against men, before the they are failed by the judicial system, or the police, or even before they ask for help.

And that is –

Men are less likely to even recognise abusive behaviour as ‘abuse’; and instead call it ‘one of those days’, or ‘shes a bit wild’, or ‘a crazy ex’, or ‘just very passionate’, or even ‘happy wife, happy life’…

So with that in mind, I ask the men: what did you think was ‘normal’ behaviour in a relationship, before you realised it was abuse?

What do you think?

Time and time again, men are told, if they want change, they should “go and do it themselves”.

If you want abuse shelters, then build them.

If you want a conversation for men’s issues, go and start it.

And if you want policy for men’s health, then start writing it.

It’s actually good advice, and advice many men have taken seriously.

The problem is, what so often happens when men do these things?

What happens when men open shelters?
What happens when men campaign for support, or ask for funding?
What happens when men set up “men’s spaces” or talk groups?

Well, things change –

Now, a voice (and usually the same voice that told them to “do it yourselves”) shouts them down, pickets, pillories, and protests, and causes so much havoc that these new, embryonic efforts, are beaten into submission and stomped upon, until they are utterly destroyed, beyond repair.

We’re seeing it right now.

A new Bill to form America’s first Office on Men’s Health: to try and quell the deluge of early death, to address suicide and addiction in men, to fund research into male-specific cancers, and tackle the stigma around mental health, has been progressing further and further.

Such an Office will work alongside the (at least) EIGHT Offices that already do these things for Women’s Health, but will provide additional dedicated, tax-funded, national research for men.

And then it happened.

The outrage brigade rolls into town, drunk with anger and entitlement, and hell-bent on destroying yet another well-meaning effort to help men and boys.

The same yells and threats, the same attempts at blackmail, the same chronic victimhood; the same naive slogans, belched from the same ignorant mouths.

We are watching it in real time, and we can only hope that those brave senators and politicians have the strength to ignore the trolls, and carry on undeterred.

We need them to carry on.

Because the policy they are asking for is life-saving, and transformative, and deserves to be passed.

So what is to be said about this new Bill to open an Office on Men’s Health, and how can we push back against the bigotry that threatens to snuff it out once again?

What do you think?

Sources

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953624003071
[2] https://aibm.org/research/six-facts-on-mens-health-from-aibm/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2023/04/17/mens-health-longevity-gap/
[4] https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/7602/text

For years, people have been fawning over the utopian idea of “a world run by women”.

You see –

If only women were sat in the seats of power, then all the world’s ills would melt away; because “men” are the problem, and women are the solution (or “future”), so no more questions.

Such proponents of this thinly veiled female supremacy often point to countries like Rwanda; a one-of-a-kind country where about two thirds of the lower house are women – highlighting the country’s impressive outcomes within healthcare, education, poverty and child mortality.

Intuitively, such an argument seems to make sense.

Rwanda’s lower house has been majority female for more than a decade, and it’s true, many of the graphs of progress are trending in the right direction; poverty and child mortality are down, education is up, as is health insurance, so what’s not to like?

Well –

First, these transformations in poverty, child mortality, education and healthcare, are not just happening in Rwanda, but across the entire developing world.

Yet this quiet, hard won progress is rarely discussed, let alone celebrated, unless those achieving it are women.

So yes Rwanda is doing well, but so are many, many other countries of Africa, who nobody talks about.

Second, those who pedestalise Rwanda choose those metrics carefully, and have ignored the many others where Rwanda sadly lags behind; such as employment, political freedom, secondary school, child malnutrition, and freedom of the press.

And third, just because Rwanda is doing well in many areas, and just because most of its politicians are women, doesn’t mean one is causing the other.

We saw this same correlation vs causation assumption when “countries run by women” were credited as handling the COVID pandemic better, which didn’t stand up to further scrutiny either…

So why do so many deify matriarchal countries?

And is the real road to utopia not one of female or male supremacy, but one of a team effort, that combines the best of both?

What do you think?

Is abuse or harassment ever acceptable?

What if abusing someone avoids a larger conflict? Or if it saves a person’s life? What if an act of abuse would prevent a nuclear apocalypse?

Is it justifiable then?

Well, the answer to that might be obvious to you and me, but when it comes to the latest artificial intelligence LLMs, the answer is not what you expect… At least, not when it comes to the abuse and harassment of women.

Yup, in a 2024 study of gender bias in AI LLMs, GPT-4 was crystal clear: abuse and harassment against women were entirely unacceptable, no matter the consequences, and even if that includes preventing total nuclear war.

Incredible.

Of course, as you might expect, the same LLM was a lot more lenient when it came to the abuse of men, with it being far more open to justifying abuse against male recipients “for the greater good”, than it was for females.

And more interestingly again, the same study seemed to find that these gender biases were not down to sexist data used to train the AI models, but rather, it was a byproduct of post-training tinkering, that was motivated by ‘inclusivity efforts’.

And I know –

These moral dilemmas are extreme, and might seem irrelevant in the context of everyday life – but could they reveal deep biases within the next generation of AIs that sees men and women as fundamentally different?

What do you think?

Read the full study here https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451958824001660