WHY ARE BOYS AND MEN TURNING AWAY FROM BOOKS? PERHAPS PUBLISHING SHOULD LOOK IN THE MIRROR. A provocative new @Quillette article by Adam Szetela, “How to Suppress Men’s Writing”, exposes a remarkable transformation in the publishing industry. And it raises uncomfortable questions about ideological conformity, institutional bias and the neglect of male readers. quillette.com/2026/10/23/why… Consider the figures Szetela cites: • Over 70% of employees at America's Big Five publishers are women. • Over 70% of editors and interns are women. • Over 60% of publishing executives are women. • The industry disproportionately recruits graduates from elite universities. Yet these same institutions frequently proclaim their commitment to diversity, inclusion and representing marginalised voices. The hypocrisy is blatant and extreme. Their diversity doesn't include men. Szetela argues that contemporary publishing increasingly privileges leftist ideological narratives, identity politics and particular conceptions of female experience, while marginalising traditionally masculine storytelling, interests and perspectives. His most provocative contention? “Young men don’t hate reading—they hate the books these women publish.” Consider David Goggins' Can't Hurt Me: an unapologetically masculine account of adversity, discipline, resilience and extraordinary achievement. Goggins self-published it, subsequently selling millions of copies. Meanwhile, boys' reading engagement and literacy outcomes remain deeply concerning... Of course, smartphones, gaming, educational practices and other factors also contribute. Nor does female representation itself establish discrimination. But Szetela raises an important question: Why do institutions routinely examine their own biases when minority groups are underrepresented, yet so rarely apply the same scrutiny when boys and men disengage? Having personally reviewed more than 300 books during the last seven years, and also having recently published 100 of the Best Books for Men, I know there’s an extraordinary wealth of literature capable of inspiring, challenging and enriching male readers… Read my book for free at the National Library of Australia: nla.gov.au/nla.obj-423988221… We should celebrate books about courage, adventure, fatherhood, competition, sacrifice, responsibility, achievement and the distinctive experiences of men and boys. The answer isn't fewer books for women. It's more great books for everyone, especially including men and boys. Publishing should embrace genuine intellectual diversity, rather than ideological gatekeeping… Men and boys deserve literature that speaks to their interests, aspirations and potential. #MensIssues #BoysEducation #MaleLiteracy #Publishing #Masculinity #Reading #Quillette @Adam_Szetela

IS IT TIME TO PUSH BACK AGAINST THE NORMALISATION OF MISANDRY? Across Australia, Britain, America, Canada and other English-speaking societies, contempt for men and boys has become disturbingly acceptable in parts of our culture. Man-bashing is marketed as empowerment. Male incompetence is entertainment. Masculinity is portrayed as toxic. And prejudice against males is too often excused as humour, feminism or social justice. Some writers, performers and commentators have built commercially successful brands around provocative criticism of men. Publishers, broadcasters and entertainment platforms have helped bring these messages to large audiences. Consider 20 examples spanning explicit misandry, provocative titles, male-directed ridicule and contested portrayals of masculinity: 1. Clementine Ford — Boys Will Be Boys, I Don't, and notorious jokes about killing men. 2. Pauline Harmange — I Hate Men, explicitly defending misandry. 3. Suzanna Danuta Walters — "Why Can't We Hate Men?", published in The Washington Post. 4. Blythe Roberson — How to Date Men When You Hate Men. 5. Mona Eltahawy — The Seven Necessary Sins for Women and Girls, including provocative rhetoric about violence. 6. Kathy Lette — Men: A User's Guide, featuring male-directed stereotypes. 7. Sabrina Carpenter — "Manchild" and Man's Best Friend, commercially successful male-incompetence satire. 8. Kate Manne — Entitled: How Male Privilege Hurts Women. 9. Hannah Gadsby — Nanette and controversial commentary about supposedly "good men". 10. Chelsea Handler — Commercial comedy frequently ridiculing men. 11. Amy Schumer — Gender-based stereotypes in Inside Amy Schumer. 12. Katherine Ryan — Stand-up comedy about male shortcomings. 13. Iliza Shlesinger — Comedy featuring male-female stereotypes. 14. Michelle Wolf — Provocative gender and sexual satire. 15. Ashnikko — "STUPID", "Daisy" and aggressive anti-patriarchal imagery. 16. Eliza Clark — Boy Parts, a novel featuring female objectification and violence against men. 17. Michael Flood — Academic research on masculinity, male violence and gender relations. 18. Laurie Penny — Bitch Doctrine and Sexual Revolution. 19. Jessica Valenti — Commercial feminist commentary on male entitlement and political power. 20. Chidera Eggerue — How to Get Over a Boy and relationship-focused feminist branding. These examples are not equivalent. Some involve explicit hostility towards men; others involve satire, fictional characters, structural criticism or legitimate challenges to harmful behaviour. But we must ask some uncomfortable questions. What happens when boys repeatedly hear that masculinity is defective? When fathers and husbands are routinely ridiculed? When male vulnerability is dismissed? When schools approach boys primarily as potential perpetrators rather than young people deserving encouragement? Such messages are undermining relationships, parenting, educational engagement, mutual respect and boys' self-worth... Equality must mean rejecting sexism in BOTH directions. We should celebrate positive masculinity, responsible fatherhood, healthy relationships and the inherent dignity of every boy and man. Are English-speaking societies finally ready to challenge misandry with the same seriousness that we challenge misogyny? #Misandry #MensRights #BoysMatter #PositiveMasculinity #GenderEquality

WHEN ACTIVISM MASQUERADES AS RESEARCH I am deeply concerned by activist research emerging from Australian universities, being uncritically amplified by media, then potentially exploited by politicians to justify sweeping changes to laws, regulation, public policy and taxpayer funding. Too often, narrow vested interests appear to benefit while ordinary Australians bear the consequences… The Velvet Triangle is a political science and feminist studies concept describing the informal advocacy network of actors inside and outside European Union institutions who work together to promote so-called "gender equality" (which increasingly looks like female supremacy). Key Components of the Velvet Triangle are the three points, typically consisting of... 1. Feminist Bureaucrats ("Femocrats"): Officials working within governments and parliaments. 2. Researchers and so-called "experts": Feminist academics and think tanks who provide one-sided data, poor-quality research, and a veneer of legitimacy. 3. Activists: Representatives from a selection of women's organisations, non-profits, and civil society networks (such as the European Women's Lobby). Consider two troubling Australian examples. MONASH UNIVERSITY: DUTY OF CARE An Australian Education Union funded, self-selected survey of teachers makes sweeping claims about misogyny and the manosphere. Its unrepresentative sample, extraordinarily broad definition of "gendered violence", and reliance on teachers' perceptions raise serious methodological concerns. Yet it recommends expanded regulation, government spending, curriculum interventions and workplace reforms. UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE: MISOGYNY AND YOUTH EXTREMISM This government-funded research investigates misogyny and anti-feminism without equivalent examination of misandry and hostility towards men. It then recommends incorporating misogyny and anti-feminism into counter-extremism frameworks, alongside interventions targeting the manosphere. Criticising feminism is not terrorism. Traditional masculinity is not extremism. Both reports raise serious questions about the distance between evidence and policy prescriptions… The danger is a self-reinforcing cycle: Academics → Activists → Media → Bureaucrats → Politicians → More funding and regulation. This is a serious risk requiring investigation, not a conspiracy established by these two reports. I support rigorous research, genuine equality and protecting victims of violence. But I reject ideological conformity masquerading as scientific consensus. Australia needs independent replication, transparent funding, symmetrical research, competing hypotheses and genuine accountability. Universities must pursue truth, not predetermined political outcomes. Politicians must serve the public interest, not narrow advocacy networks. FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE. FOLLOW THE MONEY. DEFEND DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY. #EvidenceBasedPolicy #AcademicIntegrity #MensRights #BoysMatter #GenderEquality

AUSTRALIAN JOURNALISM HAS A SERIOUS PROBLEM. AND MEN AND BOYS ARE PAYING THE PRICE. I'm increasingly disillusioned with the declining standards of Australian media, particularly the ABC, Guardian Australia, Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. Too much of what passes for journalism has become repetitive, predictable, ideologically conformist and remarkably lacking in intellectual curiosity. The same grievances. The same ideological assumptions. The same approved experts. The same conclusions. And when it comes to men and boys, a disturbing lack of empathy, compassion and dignity. Consider some recent examples: 🔴 ABC's The State of Man (2026). Another extensive examination of masculinity through the lens of the "manosphere", misogyny and supposedly problematic male attitudes. Why does masculinity so frequently become something to diagnose, reform or fear? Misandry and toxic females are just as big an issue for our society, but they never get put under the media microscope... 🔴 ABC's classroom coverage. Headlines such as "Nazi salutes and Epstein jokes: Female teachers on how the manosphere is impacting classrooms" (August 2026). Unacceptable behaviour deserves scrutiny. But where is the equivalent urgency about boys' declining educational outcomes, disengagement and developmental vulnerabilities? 🔴 Guardian Australia's "MPs v the manosphere" (May 2026). Even government initiatives intended to support men and boys become entangled with narratives about misogyny, extremism and men's rights activists. Why can't male wellbeing be treated as a legitimate priority in its own right? 🔴 The wider media's treatment of masculinity. From the relentless fascination with Andrew Tate to the prominence given to Netflix's Adolescence and Louis Theroux's Inside the Manosphere, negative portrayals of males receive enormous attention. Healthy men, positive masculinity, responsible fatherhood, male sacrifice and constructive role models deserve far greater prominence. Meanwhile, consider Australia's actual male disadvantages: • Approximately 76% of suicide deaths are male. • Around 95% of workplace fatalities involve men. • Boys substantially underperform girls in literacy, school completion, and educational attainment. • Men experience higher mortality, greater incarceration and disproportionate homelessness. These are serious inequalities affecting millions of Australians... Yet too often, when women experience disparities, the conversation centres on structural injustice and institutional responsibility. When men experience disparities, the conversation turns to masculinity, attitudes, behaviour and what men must change about themselves. Why the double standard? I don't object to serious reporting about women's disadvantages. Quite the opposite. Women and girls deserve compassion, dignity and fair treatment. SO DO MEN AND BOYS. And that's precisely what is missing from too much contemporary gender commentary. Journalism should investigate rather than indoctrinate. Challenge assumptions rather than reinforce ideological orthodoxies. Seek truth rather than manufacture outrage. There are excellent journalists, including within these organisations, producing important work. But that doesn't excuse questionable editorial priorities or recurring double standards. The ABC, as our publicly funded national broadcaster, has an especially important obligation to demonstrate impartiality and serve ALL Australians. We need fewer recycled grievances, less identity politics and more independent investigation, intellectual diversity, rigorous evidence and genuine human compassion. Gender equality cannot mean endless scrutiny of male shortcomings while overlooking male suffering. Australian men and boys deserve much better. So does Australian journalism. #MediaBias #AustralianMedia #GenderEquality #MensHealth #BoysEducation #CelebratingMasculinity