The Nuzzo Letter

Welcome to the “Countermovement”!

On January 20, 2026, I published an essay titled, “Backlash Against the Backlash: Feminists Reveal Their 2026 Playbook [https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/backlash-against-the-backlash].” In the essay, I commented on two items written by feminist authors. The first item was an article published in Foreign Affairs, titled, “How to Save the Fight for Women’s Rights: The Backlash Against Democracy Calls for New Strategies [https://www.foreignaffairs.com/world/how-save-fight-womens-rights].” The second item was a report published by UN Women and the UN Research Institute for Social Development titled, “Understanding Backlash Against Gender Equality: Evidence, Trends and Policy Responses [https://cdn.unrisd.org/assets/library/reports/2025/understanding-backlash-2025-unrisd-un-women.pdf].” The aims of the UN’s report and the article in Foreign Affairs were to communicate with activist readers the feminist playbook for 2026. The components of that playbook were listed in my previous essay [https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/backlash-against-the-backlash], and they included platitudes like “strengthen[ing] democratic institutions” and “strengthen[ing] broad-based coalitions.” But they also include things like investing in initiatives that include boys and men, and recommendations to use words like “family,” “life,” and “care” in new lights. Overall, the aim of the 2026 feminist playbook is to pushback against the growing “backlash” against feminism and “gender equality” activism. On April 25, 2026, the Journal of Gender Studies published an article titled, “The limits of ‘backlash’ masculinity: on the value of reframing gendered resistance as ‘countermovement’ [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09589236.2026.2665798].” The article was written by Steven Roberts [https://research.monash.edu/en/persons/steven-roberts/] and Stephanie Westcott [https://research.monash.edu/en/persons/stephanie-wescott/]—both feminists, working at universities in the city of Melbourne in Victoria, Australia. The aim of Roberts and Wescott’s paper was to encourage feminists to start using the concept and word “countermovement” rather “backlash” when describing individuals and organizations who are both pushing back against the excesses of feminism and advocating for the well-being of boys and men. Roberts and Wescott identified these individuals and organizations as those who coordinate “masculinist restoration” and seek “not just to oppose feminism, but to re-legitimize patriarchal authority…reshape public discourse, and institutionalize normative masculinity through appeals to common sense, victimhood, or moral order.” Roberts and Wescott did not provide names of individuals or organizations who they had in mind when writing their paper. Instead, they referred only to “men’s rights groups,” “anti-gender organizations,” “manosphere influencers,” and “state-aligned political actors.” The lack of these details is important because it is unclear if persons or organizations who are genuinely concerned about boys’ and men’s well-being, and who are engaged in legitimate discourse about sex differences and related academic theories, are part of these categories. According to Roberts and Wescott, countermovements are “strategically organized actors who mobilize in opposition to progressive gains,” and they reflect a “reaction to disruption, i.e. a patterned, protective response to the destabilization of normative orders.” Roberts and Wescott then expanded on their conceptualization of “countermovement” and how it differs from that of “backlash””: “we propose countermovement as a tool that may help gender scholars move beyond backlash as a language of grievance or regression, towards a more coordinated and politically attuned understanding of masculinity as an active site of power. This reframing also foregrounds masculinity as a formalized political field, rather than an abstractive concept or identity: one in which legitimacy is contested, power is reorganized, and new strategies for reasserting or recalibrating patriarchal dominance are actively trialled. Put simply, backlash and countermovement operate at different analytic registers. Backlash, we contend, is most effective in capturing how gendered resistance is experienced, expressed, and circulated at the level of affect and discourse. Countermovement, by contrast, provides a framework for analysing how such resistance is organized, coordinated, and mobilized as a political project.” Elsewhere in their paper, Roberts and Wescott added that misogyny is a “mobilizing force” that provides “ideological coherence” in countermovements against feminist progressivism. Thus, Roberts and Wescott equated men’s rights groups and mansophere influencers with misogyny, though example names of such individuals and groups were entirely absent from their paper. So, why have I highlighted Roberts and Wescott’s paper? First, the paper itself an indirect admission that boys’ and men’s advocates have been effective in raising awareness of issues facing the male population. Roberts and Wescott’s paper is a reaction to this progress, and it seems to reflect some degree of worry that the grip on the typical academic narrative is slipping. Remarkably, instead of using this moment to introspect and consider if the promotion of ideas like “male privilege,” “patriarchy,” and “gender inequality” might have gone too far, feminist academics and activists are digging their heels in deeper. In doing so, they are revealing an ugly underbelly—one characterized by a shocking lack of empathy and understanding for boys and men. Moreover, to sustain their careers, often via taxpayer-funded salaries, they are resorting to cancelations [https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/my-academic-cancellation-story] of nonconforming voices, and they are spinning data [https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/the-australia-institutes-biased-reporting] and pushing out propaganda [https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/un-womens-feminist-propaganda-on] to desperately maintain their narrative. A second reason for highlighting Roberts and Westcott’s paper is that the paper openly presented another step in the feminist playbook—a shift in activist nomenclature and the thinking that underlies it. Knowledge of these intellectual underpinnings is important. With this information, men’s advocates can predict feminist plays. For example, groups like UN Women may start using the word “countermovement” in some of their reports or social media communications, whereas they might use the word “backlash” in other documents or communications. By having a prior awareness of these two words and their conceptual underpinnings, men’s advocates can respond more quickly, precisely, and academically to the relevant documents and communications. In other words, by having a copy of the playbook before the game begins, men’s advocates can stop a play before it goes anywhere. Third, Roberts and Westcott’s paper exemplifies a concerning characteristic about activist academia. Universities are meant to be politically neutral. Yet, academics like Roberts and Westcott issue intellectual directives to political activists from atop their taxpayer-funded tower of privilege. This feature of academia, which has existed for many years, warrants more media attention, and it requires correction. Finally, as progress toward boys’ and men’s issues continues in Australia [https://celebratingmasculinity.substack.com/p/get-onboard-the-wave-of-support-for], the feminist playbook, and the academic papers that inform it, should not be forgotten. For example, one of the proposed plays was to invest more in initiatives that include boys and men [https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/backlash-against-the-backlash]. That sounds friendly, but it is a trojan horse, and appointed leaders in the men’s space, such as Victoria’s first ever Minister for Men and Boys [https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/members/paul-edbrooke/], should be aware of that. In the Minister’s case, he will be surrounded by the many feminist academics in his state, who will want to shape the position to be part of the playbook. In fact, just one day after the appointment was made, Roberts and Westcott co-authored an article in The Conversation titled, “A new minister in Victoria will tackle the manosphere. Here’s what they should do [https://theconversation.com/a-new-minister-in-victoria-will-tackle-the-manosphere-heres-what-they-should-do-280733].” In the article, Roberts, Westcott, and their colleagues shared their desire for the new Minister position to be used as a vehicle to counter the “countermovement.” “It’s also essential that beliefs in boys and men “falling behind” or being victims of feminism and gender equality are strongly refuted. These beliefs are promoted by manosphere myths that cause significant harm.” Thus, if male leaders in the policy and government space are not careful, and do not exhibit a backbone, then their magnanimity will be used as a weakness to be exploited. My recommendation to these men is to be unwavering in adopting an androcentric approach [https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/androcentrism-not-gynocentrism-should] to boys’ and men’s well-being—knowing full well that such an approach will indirectly improve the lives of girls and women. In taking this approach, male leaders will have various labels thrown at them. “Misogynist” is one of them, and academics like Roberts and Westcott shamefully provide the intellectual greenlight for why such a label is deemed permissible. We also know from Roberts and Westcott’s paper that other labels exist—some of which refer to the collective of these supposed misogynists. It will be interesting to observe how these labels are used moving forward and what the response to them is. For example, you might imagine a future scenario, where an activist journalist, who follows UN Women’s X feed [https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/un-womens-feminist-propaganda-on] and who read the Foreign Affairs article [https://www.foreignaffairs.com/world/how-save-fight-womens-rights] in early 2026, tries a “gotcha” question on a man who is leading a new government role in the space of male well-being. The journalist might ask in a smug tone, “Sir, there are some concerns that you are anti-woman, perhaps even a misogynist. Can you clarify for the record – are you part of the backlash against gender equality?” My recommendation to this male leader is to not dodge the question. Instead, the man should stand proudly—remembering all the sons, brothers, fathers, and grandfathers that he represents, and knowing full well of all the unfair tricks and traps set in feminist academic writing—and respond with a confident and easy-going grin on his face: “No. I’m part of the countermovement.” Related Content at The Nuzzo Letter SUPPORT THE NUZZO LETTER If you appreciated this content, please consider supporting The Nuzzo Letter with a one-time or recurring donation. Your support is greatly appreciated. It helps me to continue to work on independent research projects and fight for my evidence-based discourse. To donate, click the DonorBox logo [https://donorbox.org/the-nuzzo-letter]. In two simple steps, you can donate using ApplePay, PayPal, or another service. Thank you. Thanks for reading The Nuzzo Letter! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jameslnuzzo.substack.com [https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

Public Health’s Historical Prejudice Against Men and Boys

“Shorter life expectancy among men in general, if likely avoidable, would clearly be an issue of public health importance based on the magnitude of potential population impact. However, men as a group have more wealth, influence, and prestige, so this difference would not be a social injustice and, therefore, not a health disparity or equity issue.” That statement was written in a paper published in the American Journal of Public Health in 2011. The title of the paper is “Health Disparities and Health Equity: The Issue Is Justice [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3222512/],” and it has been downloaded over 97,000 times [https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2010.300062] according to the publisher’s website and cited over 1,400 times [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Health+Disparities+and+Health+Equity%3A+The+Issue+Is+Justice&btnG=] according to Google Scholar. The lead author of the paper is Paula Braveman [https://profiles.ucsf.edu/paula.braveman], who is currently a professor emeritus at the University of California – San Francisco. In writing the paper, Braveman was accompanied by six co-authors, all of whom have doctoral letters after their names. Remarkably, none of those letters created immunity from the anti-male prejudice expressed in the statement that the authors signed off on. Putting aside all the nasty and inaccurate things said about boys and men in humanities journals, Braveman’s statement is one of the most irresponsible things that I have ever read about men’s well-being in a health or medical journal. Her statement is shocking in its dismissiveness, its irrationality, and its inhumanity. It was published 15 years ago, but it is still relevant, because it helps to explain how we arrived at our current situation in which group identities are prioritized over individual flesh-and-blood human beings. It helps to make sense of why substantially more funds [https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/nih-funding-mens-womens-health] and initiatives [https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/us-mens-and-womens-health-offices] have been dedicated to women’s than men’s well-being, even though male life expectancy has been significantly shorter than female life expectancy [https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/life-expectancy-in-the-united-states] for many years. The misguided ideas expressed in Braveman’s statement come from critical theory [https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-critical-theory/], critical race theory [https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-critical-race-theory/], and intersectionality [https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-intersectionality/]. The injection of these ideas into the public health domain can be traced back to the founding of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health within the World Health Organization in 2005, including the Commission’s 2008 report titled, “Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on social determinants of health [https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-IER-CSDH-08.1].” The report included a section on “gender equity,” which only discussed women’s health. In the past year, men’s health has received increased attention in the public policy sphere [https://www.auanet.org/about-us/media-center/press-center/2026/a-new-era-for-mens-health-begins-aua-proud-to-support-landmark-office-of-mens-health-legislation], and continued progress seems likely. As this progress is made, investigations into how discussions of sex and public health became so historically one-sided ought to also be conducted. The individuals who created the one-sided narrative ought to be known, and their ideas ought to be dissected. Here, my purpose is to identify Paula Braveman and her colleagues as some of the individuals responsible for the years-long denial of boys’ and men’s health issues, and to explain why Braveman’s statement is incorrect, as to ensure a proper defence is readily available the next time that such a statement is made. So, let us reiterate Braveman’s statement and then dissect it. Reiterating Braveman’s statement First, Braveman said that male life expectancy is not an area of public health importance. Second, Braveman said that the reason that male life expectancy is not an area of public health importance is because it is not a social justice, health disparity, or health equity issue. Third, Braveman said that the reason that male life expectancy is not a social justice, health disparity, or health equity issue is because “men as a group have more wealth, influence, and prestige” than women. Dissecting Braveman’s statement Braveman’s statement is problematic on many fronts. First, Braveman incorrectly assumed that for a topic to fall within the purview of public health that it must be a social justice, health disparity, or health equity issue. Yet, the field of public health existed well before Woke concepts like “equity” and “social justice” became popular among activist academics. Furthermore, Braveman’s notion that men’s health and life expectancy are of concern to public health only if certain socioeconomic or sociopolitical conditions or qualifiers are met also is misaligned with the history of public health. Therefore, Braveman’s view is not a health or medical view, it is a misguided philosophical and sociopolitical view. Second, Braveman illogically classified all men as being the same. Braveman said that men as a “group” have more wealth, influence, and prestige than women. However, this was a sweeping generalization that ignored the range of life experiences of many men. One example is homelessness, which is a topic that falls within the domain of public health. In the U.S., men are approximately 70% of the unsheltered homeless [https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/homelessness-united-states]. Homeless people have little or no wealth, influence, or prestige. Third, when discussing shorter male life expectancy, Braveman added the qualifying phrase “if likely avoidable.” In doing this, Braveman seems to have expressed doubt as to whether shorter life expectancy among males is avoidable or preventable. However, this deterministic view of the sex difference in life expectancy is misaligned with historical data [https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/life-expectancy-in-the-united-states]from the U.S. Since 1900, the sex difference in life expectancy has been as large as 7.8 years in the 1970s and as small as 1-2 years in the early 1900s. If the sex difference in life expectancy was due purely to biological factors, then one might expect the size of the sex difference to remain roughly the same over time. Yet, the large sex difference in life expectancy in the 1970s is believed to have been due to high rates of cigarette smoking among men, which caused them to develop lung cancer and ischemic heart disease at higher rates than women. Cigarette smoking is a modifiable risk factor of early mortality, as are many other causes of early male mortality – for example, poor diet, lack of physical activity, and drug and alcohol abuse. Thus, Braveman’s deterministic view of male life expectancy ignores the role of preventive health actions that can alter how long someone lives. In fact, what makes Braveman’s qualifying phrase particularly egregious is that it is the specific role of the field of public health to address the preventive health measures that can enhance the quality and length of people’s lives. Intersectionality Another problem with Braveman’s statement is that it contradicts itself, given that Braveman’s guiding philosophy is one that includes intersectionality [https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-intersectionality/]. The contradiction is that many individuals who fall within the intersectionality framework based on race are boys and men. Thus, Braveman simultaneously wanted to virtue signal by saying that public health should be focused on only so-called oppressed, marginalized, or minority groups, without understanding that many of the males who she disregarded with her blanket statement about life expectancy are members of these minority groups. For example, in the year that Braveman’s article was published, there were 20.4 million black males in the U.S., accounting for 6.5% of the total U.S. population. There were also 8.3 million Asian or Pacific Islander males, who accounted for 2.6% of the total U.S. population, and 2.1 million American Indian or Alaskan Native males, who accounted for 0.6% of the total U.S. population (see Table IV here [https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/231839]). Life expectancy for black males in the U.S. in the year that Braveman’s article was published was 72.2 years [https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/231853]—the lowest of any demographic group other than perhaps American Indian and Alaskan Native men. What’s more, these demographic data do not account for boys and men who might fit into other intersectional categories – for example, Hispanic males based on ethnicity, non-heterosexual males based on sexual orientation, or mentally or physically impaired males based on disability status. After all these intersectional categories are accounted for, the only males of non-interest to Braveman are heterosexual white males who do not have a disability. Boys Another concerning aspect of Braveman’s statement is its implications for boys. Braveman referred to “men” rather than boys. Nevertheless, all men start life as boys, and boys’ early life experiences have a great impact on their lives as adults. And one reason that male life expectancy is shorter than female life expectancy is because of the disproportionate number of deaths that occur among boys and young men. In other words, one cannot disentangle male life expectancy from boys’ health. Yet, Braveman’s statement implied that public health should also not take an interest in boys, because, one day, all those boys will supposedly have greater “wealth, influence, and prestige” than their female counterparts. However, boys have no power; they are entirely dependent on their parents and other adults in society. Moreover, compared to girls, boys exhibit many worse health outcomes and educational outcomes, such as higher school dropout rates [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13685538.2019.1645109] and greater rates of communication disorders [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13685538.2019.1645109], autism spectrum disorder [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13685538.2019.1645109], Tourette Syndrome [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13685538.2019.1645109], accidental drownings [https://aibm.org/research/deaths-from-drowning-the-facts/], suicide [https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/suicide-in-the-united-states-in-2022], etc. Conclusion: personal accountability In conclusion, misguided philosophy underlies why boys’ and men’s well-being have not been given appropriate focus by big public health. Paula Braveman’s statement provides a prime example of this. Her statement was prejudicial, stereotyped, and not evidence-based. For this dereliction, Braveman and her co-authors should be held personally accountable. Braveman’s paper was presumably approved by multiple peer reviewers and the journal’s editor. Those individuals are also responsible, albeit to a different degree. International groups like the World Health Organization [https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/bias-against-mens-issues-within-the] are also to blame, because they set the tone for global- and national-level health policies. Countless numbers of other health officials and academics have also played a role, as they have pushed Woke Medicine [https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/woke-medicine-terminology] in recent years. Finally, women’s health advocates, like those who wrote the recent National Academies’ grand plan [https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/national-academies-plan-for-womens-health] for the future of women’s health, are also responsible, as they have continually exhibited a childish inability to express concurrent care for both women and men. Men and women should not be viewed as enemies caught in a zero-sum game. They are Nature’s pair, and they are meant to flourish together. As this positive, forward-looking message begins to gain traction, one need not shy away from simultaneous discussions about problematic ideas from the past, and the individuals who created and spread those ideas. Moving forward, fear of personal accountability can serve as a formidable deterrent against the publication of wrongheaded ideas—ones that we do not want to read again in our fairer and healthier future. Related Content at The Nuzzo Letter SUPPORT THE NUZZO LETTER If you appreciated this content, please consider supporting The Nuzzo Letter with a one-time or recurring donation. Your support is greatly appreciated. It helps me to continue to work on independent research projects and fight for my evidence-based discourse. To donate, click the DonorBox logo [https://donorbox.org/the-nuzzo-letter]. In two simple steps, you can donate using ApplePay, PayPal, or another service. Thank you. Thanks for reading The Nuzzo Letter! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jameslnuzzo.substack.com [https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

Weekly Roundup

LEADING ARTICLE Source of Usual Health Care for Adults Age 18 and Older: United States, 2024 [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db558.htm] NCHS Data Brief Summary: In 2024, 9 in 10 adults reported having a source of usual health care, with women more likely to report having a source of usual care (93.3%) than men (87.1%). Women were more likely to report a doctor’s office or health center as their source of usual care (82.2%) compared with men (72.6%). The percentage of adults reporting an urgent care center or clinic in a drug store or grocery store as their source of usual care declined with age. The percentage of adults with a Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center or VA outpatient clinic as their source of usual care increased with age. Men were more likely (2.0%) than women (1.5%) to report a hospital emergency room as their usual source of health care. THE NUZZO LETTER IN THE NEWS UN Propaganda Campaigns Can be Traced Back to Media Biases from 15 Years Ago [https://endtodv.org/pr/un-propaganda-campaigns-can-be-traced-back-to-media-biases-from-15-years-ago/] Domestic Abuse and Violence International Alliance (DAVIA) Nuzzo on Exercise and Mental Health [https://open.spotify.com/episode/5uKvcxtuzfJcgk8sMCuLSb?si=76d6ea03515e4f68] Therapy Disruptors Episode description: Exercise is not yet a big part of the mental health treatment landscape. Exercise needs to be a major part of the mental health landscape and Dr. James L. Nuzzo is here to make the case. It’s inexpensive if not free, frequently effective immediately, and has none of the side effects you’ll see listed in the Big Pharma TV ads. Exercise as a mental health tool is more than just a politically correct platitude, and this podcast may just change your mind about how you view it in your arsenal of treatment options. ARTICLES AND ESSAYS Sex/Gender The War on Biology Is Far From Over [https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/the-war-on-biology-is-far-from-over] Reality’s Last Stand Activists are flooding the zone with pseudoscience on sex because too much of their politics now depends on it. FAQ about the IOC Policy on the Protection of the Female (Women’s) Category in Olympic Sport [https://www.olympics.com/ioc/athletes/medical-research/faq-ioc-policy-protection-female-category] International Olympic Committee (IOC) Gender Blind Spot: United Nations Neglects the Global Crisis of Male Homelessness [https://www.menandboys.net/pr/gender-blind-spot-united-nations-neglects-the-global-crisis-of-male-homelessness/] International Council for Men and Boys Brazil establishes penalties of up to 5 years for interrupting a woman [https://derechadiario.com.ar/us/argentina/Brazil-establishes-punishments-5-years-interrupt-women] La Derecha Diario (See also the article by Free Speech Union Brasil on Substack titled,“Brazil’s Senate votes to criminalise “misogyny” [https://fsu-br.org/p/brazils-senate-votes-to-criminalise] ) The Rise of the Anti-Manosphere [https://thedispatch.com/article/manosphere-williamson-boys-men-health-brooks/] The Dispatch Opinion: Another generation of men will be left behind as Australia creates a generation of lost boys [https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/news-centre/stories/2026/opinion-another-generation-of-men-will-be-left-behind-as-australia-creates-a-generation-of-lost-boys] Western Sydney University (See the related article in The Australian titled, “‘Lost boys’: another generation of men will be left behind [https://archive.md/qpBMV].” See also my brief comment on these articles on X here [https://x.com/JamesLNuzzo/status/2044413247865205124].) Psychologist Dr. John Barry Exposes The Truth About Masculinity [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOQLsaLOU0U] THE SALIENTS Episode description: 1. Why male suicide was dismissed as “men being better at DIY” in his psychology class. 2. How negative messaging about masculinity creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. 3. Gamma Bias: the hidden cognitive distortion shaping how society sees men. 4. Why men express depression differently (and why therapists miss it). 5. The fertility crisis and whether we’re heading toward “civilizational collapse”. 6. What men can do to reclaim their sense of self Education Texas Tech University System to phase out all sexual orientation, gender identity programs [https://www.thecollegefix.com/texas-tech-university-system-to-phase-out-all-sexual-orientation-gender-identity-programs/] The College Fix CAPS or no caps: Scholars reject capitalization rules for feminist ‘activism,’ ‘trans’ identity [https://www.thecollegefix.com/caps-or-no-caps-scholars-reject-capitalization-rules-for-feminist-activism-trans-identity/] The College Fix North Carolina Is a Model for Higher-Education Reform [https://jamesgmartin.center/2026/04/north-carolina-is-a-model-for-higher-education-reform/] The Tar Heel State has dramatically improved its universities in recent years. Martin Center for Academic Renewal Beyond protection? [https://universityaffairs.ca/opinion/beyond-protection/] University Affairs The impact of ethics sprawl on researchers at Canadian universities. Exercise Science Sex differences in wheelchair marathon performance [https://journals.lww.com/ajpmr/abstract/9900/sex_differences_in_wheelchair_marathon_performance.873.aspx] Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Abstract: Objective: To evaluate the historical trends of sex differences in athletic performance and participation among male and female wheelchair marathon athletes Design: This retrospective, observational study utilized secondary, publicly available data of the Boston, Chicago, and New York City marathons within the Wheelchair Division from 1984 to 2023. Athletic performance and participation were evaluated across all marathon events and over time using univariate analysis of variance and Pearson correlations. Results: Sex differences in athletic performance were observed with males outperforming females in all marathon events over time (p < 0.001). The sex difference among first place finishers was 20% and increased to 33% for tenth place finishers. Though sex differences decreased over time (p < 0.001), large sex differences in performance remain. Female athlete participation in wheelchair marathon events significantly increased over time (p < 0.001) and the ratio of male athletes to female athletes in these events significantly decreased over time (p < 0.001). Overall participation and male athlete participation also generally increased over time. Conclusion: Significant sex differences were observed in wheelchair marathon performance and participation. These findings highlight the importance of sex as a key biological variable related to human health and performance, especially among wheelchair athletes. American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand. Resistance Training Prescription for Muscle Function, Hypertrophy, and Physical Performance in Healthy Adults: An Overview of Reviews [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12965823/] Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise Abstract: Purpose: The aim of this overview of reviews was to determine the impact of resistance training (RT) prescription on muscle function and hypertrophy, utilizing evidence synthesis methods. It updates the American College of Sports Medicine 2009 Position Stand, “Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults.” Data sources: Ovid MEDLINE(R) ALL, Ovid Emcare, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EBSCOhost SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science Core Collection current to October 2024. Eligibility criteria: Eligible systematic reviews synthesized randomized trials of healthy adults (≥18 yr) who completed RT (≥6 wk; range: 6–52 wk), compared with a group that completed no exercise or an alternative RT program, and reported the change in muscle function, size, or physical performance. Results: We synthesized data from 137 systematic reviews (>30,000 participants). Compared with no exercise (control), RT significantly improved muscle strength, size (hypertrophy), power, endurance, contraction velocity, gait speed, balance, and multiple physical function outcomes. Few RT prescription (RTx) variables affected primary adaptations. However, voluntary strength was enhanced by lifting heavier loads (≥80% one-repetition maximum), through a complete range of motion, for 2–3 sets, at the beginning of training sessions, and ≥2 sessions/wk. Muscle hypertrophy was enhanced by higher volumes (≥10 sets/wk) and eccentric overload. Power was enhanced by moderate loads (30%–70% one-repetition maximum), low-to-moderate volume (≤24 repetitions⋅sets), Olympic-style weightlifting, and power RT (fast concentric phase). Power RT enhanced physical function. Training to momentary muscle fatigue, equipment type, exercise complexity, set structure, time under tension, blood flow restriction, and periodization did not consistently impact training outcomes. Conclusions: Healthy adults should perform progressive RT, with variable prescription consistent with our findings, to improve muscle function, size, and physical performance. Muscle strength, hypertrophy, power, and certain components of physical function can be enhanced by manipulating the RT variables highlighted. HISTORICAL ARCHIVES Sexual molestation of males: Associations with psychological disturbance [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/sexual-molestation-of-males-associations-with-psychological-disturbance/A43E921A70394C4857F9E45F3B273CE9] British Journal of Psychiatry (2018) Abstract: Background: There are no epidemiological data in Europe on associations between sexual molestation in males and psychological disturbance. Aims: To investigate whether sexual molestation in males is a significant predictor of psychological disturbance. Method: We recruited men attending general practice and genitourinary medicine services. Participants took part in a computerised interview about sexual molestation as children or adults. We ranked reported sexual experiences into three categories of decreasing severity. Each category was treated as an independent predictor in a multivariate analysis predicting different types of psychological disturbance. Results: Men who reported child sexual abuse were more likely to report any type of psychological disturbance. Men who reported sexual molestation in adulthood were 1.7 (1.0–2.8) times more likely to have experienced a psychological disorder, but self-harm was the single most likely problem to occur (odds ratio⩵2.6, range⩵l.3–5.2). Men reporting ‘consenting’ sexual experiences when aged under 16 years also were more likely to report acts of self-harm (odds ratio⩵l.7, range⩵0–2.8). Conclusions: Sexual abuse as a child or adult is associated with later psychological problems. All forms of sexual molestation were predictive of deliberate self-harming behaviour in men. Physical fitness differences between prepubescent boys and girls [https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/fulltext/2012/07000/physical_fitness_differences_between_prepubescent.4.aspx] Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2012) Abstract: The purpose of this study was to analyze in which physical capabilities boys and girls are closer or distant. An additional objective was to find which of the body fat, physical activity, and somatotype factors have a greater effect on prepubescent children’s physical fitness. This was a cross-sectional study involving 312 children (10.8 ± 0.4 years). The physical fitness assessment employed sets of aerobic fitness, strength, flexibility, speed, agility, and balance. The boys presented higher values in all selected tests, except tests of balance and flexibility, in which girls scored better. Gender differences in the physical fitness were greatest in the explosive strength of upper (p ≤ 0.01, η(p)(2) = 0.09) and lower limbs (p ≤ 0.01, η(p)(2) = 0.08), although with a medium-size effect of gender, and smaller in the abdominal (p > 0.05, η(p)(2) = 0.007) and upper limbs (p > 0.05, η(p)(2) = 0.003) muscular endurance, and trunk extensor strength and flexibility (p > 0.05, η(p)(2) = 0.001). The endomorphic (p ≤ 0.01, η(p)(2) = 0.26) in the girls, and the ectomorphic (p ≤ 0.01, η(p)(2) = 0.31) and mesomorphic (p ≤ 0.01, η(p)(2) = 0.26) in the boys, had the high-sized effect on the physical fitness. The physical activity in the girls, and the endomorphic and body fat in the boys, did not have a significant effect. These findings can help in the planning of activities that take into account the success and motivation of both boys and girls and thus increase levels of physical activity and physical fitness at school. However, in prepubescent children, one cannot neglect the influence of genetic determinism, observed from the morphoconstitutional point of view. Sex-related differences in vision are heterogeneous [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-25298-8] Science Reports (2018) Abstract: Despite well-established sex differences for cognition, audition, and somatosensation, few studies have investigated whether there are also sex differences in visual perception. We report the results of fifteen perceptual measures (such as visual acuity, visual backward masking, contrast detection threshold or motion detection) for a cohort of over 800 participants. On six of the fifteen tests, males significantly outperformed females. On no test did females significantly outperform males. Given this heterogeneity of the sex effects, it is unlikely that the sex differences are due to any single mechanism. A practical consequence of the results is that it is important to control for sex in vision research, and that findings of sex differences for cognitive measures using visually based tasks should confirm that their results cannot be explained by baseline sex differences in visual perception. RUBBISH BIN A new minister in Victoria will tackle the manosphere. Here’s what they should do [https://theconversation.com/a-new-minister-in-victoria-will-tackle-the-manosphere-heres-what-they-should-do-280733] The Conversation (See my brief comment on this article on X here [https://x.com/JamesLNuzzo/status/2045048954698776929].) Masculinity, masculinist politics, and political extremism [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09589236.2026.2654169] Journal of Gender Studies (See my brief comment on this article on X here [https://x.com/JamesLNuzzo/status/2043647456035086353].) Wildfires in the [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0966369X.2026.2646305](M)anthropocene [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0966369X.2026.2646305]: fieldnotes from a young woman social scientist in Portugal [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0966369X.2026.2646305] Gender, Place & Culture Abstract: The gendered character of wildfire research has marginalised alternative knowledges and realities, particularly those of women. This article examines how situated epistemologies can foster alternative ways of knowing and governing fire-risk in the context of feminist and decolonial critiques of the Anthropocene. As a young woman researcher early in her career studying social dynamics in communities affected by severe wildfires, fieldwork posed challenges due to my personal background and identity. However, it also offered opportunities to explore gender relations and practices in fire-prone areas of Portugal. What also meant knowing untold stories of women and the power structures that entangle them. Drawing on autoethnographic data gathered during research in two rural communities of Central Portugal, it is argued that researchers’ embodied situatedness and experiences influence how wildfire knowledge is produced and the consequences that may follow. The paper aims to contribute to the ongoing debate on how male- and white-dominant narratives in wildfire science have marginalised knowledges and approaches, preventing the much-desired paradigm shift in fire-risk reduction policies and practices. Finally, a wildfire-situated epistemology is proposed as a means of reclaiming not only unreported realities and the forces of reproduction underpinning the (m)Anthropocene’s master narrative but also shedding light on the current invisibility of its women researchers. “Cis Hell” [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09589236.2026.2647417] Journal of Gender Studies Abstract: This paper develops the concept of cis hell to describe the regulatory normativity over all bodies based on gender biopolitics as a global political pandemic. Centring the recent UK Supreme Court’s 2025 Equality Act ruling and connecting it to similar examples across the world, we demonstrate how biopower operates through social movements inspired by the new authoritarianisms to establish transnational regimes of bodily control. Drawing connections between trans exclusion in the UK, USA and pronatalist policies in Turkey, Hungary, and Russia, we argue these seemingly disparate developments represent coordinated manifestations of biopolitical logic reducing human worth to reproductive capacity. Authoritarian innovation threatens and destroys modest progress towards human rights for vulnerable groups. ‘Gender-critical’ activism, despite protection claims, functions within a broader masculinist restoration project threatening collective prosperity by constraining human potential and re-centring white, male, and cis supremacy. The purported ‘safety’ of cisgender categorization creates a hell of rigid taxonomies undermining human flourishing across the gender spectrum, necessitating a radical reimagining of gender justice as essential to global prosperity through participative co-design processes inherent in new social movements theory focusing on social identity, human potential, and affect. Feminism, so confusing: Charli XCX’s Brat and [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14791420.2026.2637426]nihilistic feminism [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14791420.2026.2637426] Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies Abstract: This essay introduces “nihilistic feminism” as an emerging representational discourse in order to understand nihilism as a product of neoliberal and postfeminist ideals. I define nihilistic feminism as a disavowal of both patriarchy and feminism, characterizing feminism as necessary in theory but impossible in practice and, therefore, unworthy of pursuit; instead, nihilistic feminism positions fulfillment of individual pleasures as the only feasible alternative. This essay examines Charli XCX’s 2024 album Brat and its viral “brat summer” trend as exemplars, identifying three foundations of nihilistic feminism: political hopelessness and withdrawal, hedonistic hyperindividualism, and aestheticized (apolitical) chaos. The moral-political economy of discomfort: who is allowed to feel uncomfortable in higher education [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14681366.2026.2658184] Pedagogy, Culture & Society Abstract: This conceptual paper interrogates the affective limits of discomfort in higher education by situating it within a broader moral-political economy. While work on ‘pedagogies of discomfort’ in the past has framed unease and disruption as pathways to ethical and transformative learning, this paper argues that not all discomfort is equally recognised or welcomed. Drawing on scholarship on affective governance, backlash politics, and DEI controversies in the United States, the analysis shows how universities selectively authorise certain forms of discomfort – those aligned with reflective growth, civility, and institutional legitimacy – while delegitimising others, such as anger, refusal, or exhaustion that expose structural injustice or institutional complicity. Introducing the concepts of authorised and unauthorised discomfort, the paper argues that discomfort becomes politically significant precisely when it exceeds the affective limits institutions are willing to tolerate. In doing so, the analysis reframes discomfort a site of ongoing struggle over affective legitimacy, authority, and voice. (See my brief comment on this article on X here [https://x.com/JamesLNuzzo/status/2043702768079458731].) SUPPORT THE NUZZO LETTER If you appreciated this content, please consider supporting The Nuzzo Letter with a one-time or recurring donation. Your support is greatly appreciated. It helps me to continue to work on independent research projects and fight for my evidence-based discourse. To donate, click the DonorBox logo [https://donorbox.org/the-nuzzo-letter]. In two simple steps, you can donate using ApplePay, PayPal, or another service. Thank you! If you prefer to donate to a specific project, please see the Go Fund Me page [https://www.gofundme.com/f/ChildStrengthResearch] for my current research on sex differences in muscle strength in children. Thanks for reading The Nuzzo Letter! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jameslnuzzo.substack.com [https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

Australia's Manosphere Guide for Teachers

On March 12, 2026, ABC News in Australia published an article titled, “Teachers, schools given handbook to combat misogynistic behaviour in classrooms [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-12/how-to-reclaim-the-classroom-from-the-rising-manosphere/106443326].” The article highlighted a new guide published by Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety and Monash University titled, “An Introductory Guide to the Manosphere and the Impacts for Young People, Teachers and Schools [https://www.anrows.org.au/resources/guide-to-the-manosphere/].” In this video, Tom Golden and I dissect the guide, highlighting its many flaws. Our discussion ties back to my recent essay/podcast, “Australian Research Council Funds Biased Project on “Anti-Women” Movements [https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/australian-research-council-funds-biased-research],” and to Tom’s recent essay, “The Manosphere Study That Reveals Academic Panic [https://menaregood.substack.com/p/the-manosphere-study-that-reveals].” See also Janice Fiamengo’s recent essay, “Masculinity Experts “Map the Manosphere” and Find Nothing Good [https://fiamengofile.substack.com/p/masculinity-experts-map-the-manosphere].” Related Content at The Nuzzo Letter SUPPORT THE NUZZO LETTER If you appreciated this content, please consider supporting The Nuzzo Letter with a one-time or recurring donation. Your support is greatly appreciated. It helps me to continue to work on independent research projects and fight for my evidence-based discourse. To donate, click the DonorBox logo [https://donorbox.org/the-nuzzo-letter]. In two simple steps, you can donate using ApplePay, PayPal, or another service. Thank you! Thanks for reading The Nuzzo Letter! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jameslnuzzo.substack.com [https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

Australian Research Council Funds Biased Project on “Anti-Women” Movements

In the Rubbish Bin of the Weekly Roundup [https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/weekly-roundup-203?utm_source=publication-search] on July 27, 2025, I included a paper published in the journal Men and Masculinities titled, “Mapping of the Neo-Manosphere(s): New Directions for Research [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1097184X251350277?int.sj-full-text.similar-articles.8].” This paper was authored by Vivian Gerrand, Debbie Ging, Joshua Roose, and Michael Flood. The paper and its authors were supported by the Australian Research Council (ARC). ARC is one of Australia’s main funders of academic research, and its staff are 60-70% [https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/australian-public-service-employee-sex] female. Joshua Roose is also an investigator on an ARC-funded project titled, “The Far Right: Intellectuals, Masculinity and Citizenship [https://www.grants.gov.au/Ga/Show/89fc605d-c6d3-4d03-90ce-32cae0838c6b],” while both Roose and Flood are authors of the book, “Masculinity and Violent Extremism [https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-10497-8],” and they are co-investigators on a second ARC-funded project titled, “Anti-Women Online Movements; Pathways and Patterns of Participation [https://dataportal.arc.gov.au/NCGP/Web/Grant/Grant/DP220100736].” This latter four-year project, which is scheduled to end in December of this year, was funded by Australian taxpayers at a level of $400,000. The stated aim of the project is to “understand the influences shaping men’s attraction to anti-women online movements and patterns of participation within them.” Here, my purpose is to briefly highlight the in-built bias in this project (and others like it) and briefly explain where research on such topics is going. First, the project disregards results from polls [https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/online-harassment-victimization] conducted in Australia and the United States on online abuse and harassment. These polls, several of which were published prior to the project’s start date in December 2022, clearly show that the proportion of women who experience online abuse and harassment is no greater than the proportion of men who experience online abuse and harassment. In fact, results from these polls typically show that men are more likely to report being victims of online abuse and harassment. Second, the project only intends to explore the male perpetrator – female victim paradigm. Data on the female perpetrator – male victim paradigm, the male perpetrator – male victim paradigm, and the female perpetrator – female victim paradigm will presumably not be captured. This means that topics like online misandry and expressed hate [https://endtodv.org/pr/growing-consensus-that-feminism-represents-a-diabolical-hateful-ideology/] toward men will not be examined. Women’s political radicalization on the left [https://www.stevestewartwilliams.com/p/the-radicalization-of-young-women] will also not be examined, presumably because this political identity matches that of the researchers and the current federal government in Australia. Evidence of this radicalization exists in the form of polling data showing more women moving further to the Left in their political ideology [https://news.gallup.com/poll/609914/women-become-liberal-men-mostly-stable.aspx?utm_source=chatgpt.com], while men’s political beliefs have remained relatively stable. Also, one recent U.S. survey [https://www.city-journal.org/article/women-political-violence-digital-online] found that a greater proportion of women than men endorse political violence in the form of targeted murders of President Donald Trump and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani. But apparently it is the boys and men who are the political extremists in need of re-education! Also, there is no need to speculate on where this academic work is heading, because the activist academics are already telling us. In their 2025 paper in Men and Masculinities, the activist academics wrote: “…the regulation of online platforms must be brought to the fore. Social media ecosystems remain largely unregulated in their amplification of misogynistic content through opaque algorithmic recommendation systems. Government efforts to regulate them have met with fierce resistance and resulted in court cases – and not always successful ones (eSafety Commissioner 2024). Structural interventions must therefore include policy reforms that address not just content moderation, but also the architecture of virality, algorithmic bias, and platform accountability. Such approaches should complement rather than replace educational strategies, recognising that upstream regulation of the digital environment is as crucial to long-term prevention.” “As the manosphere becomes more diverse, politically incoherent, and ideologically unstable - driven predominantly by the whims of algorithmic capitalism - there is an increasingly urgent need to educate boys and men about gendered disinformation, mental health, gender-based abuse and the political economies of social media and influencer culture. This challenge is further complicated by the recent incursion of analyses from the field of evolutionary psychology into this space, as well as some psychotherapists working with boys, who eschew structural analyses of power, insist on immutable sex differences and claim that encouraging boys to express emotion is treating them as ‘defective girls’.” Importantly, the funded projects that I have mentioned are not one-offs. The Australian Communications and Media Authority is now pouring millions more dollars into a program called the eSafety Commissioner’s Preventing Tech-based Abuse of Women Grants Program [https://www.grants.gov.au/Go/Show?GoUuid=0e48e93e-cf6d-4d1b-8587-86a7a5450ca5]. The funded projects will, as usual, be biased from the start. They will not acknowledge the lack of sex difference in online abuse victimization, and they will presumably only explore the male perpetration - female victimization paradigm. They will not be open to hearing about boys’ and men’s experiences or life challenges. In essence, the funding will be given to activist academics who will then use to generate one-sided information that the government will then use as rationale for creating sex-biased polices and increasing controls of freedom of expression online. Related Content at The Nuzzo Letter SUPPORT THE NUZZO LETTER If you appreciated this content, please consider supporting The Nuzzo Letter with a one-time or recurring donation. Your support is greatly appreciated. It helps me to continue to work on independent research projects and fight for my evidence-based discourse. To donate, click the DonorBox logo [https://donorbox.org/the-nuzzo-letter]. In two simple steps, you can donate using ApplePay, PayPal, or another service. Thank you. Thanks for reading The Nuzzo Letter! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jameslnuzzo.substack.com [https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]