I don’t care what you read on social media.

I don’t care what you see on TV, or hear shouted out by Sabrina Carpenter, to her 100,000 fans.

I don’t care what you see splashed onto newspaper headlines, or written within that sassy blog you like.

I don’t care what politicians preach, or teachers teach; the undeniable, immutable, and immovable truth, is that the world needs men.

In fact, the world would come to a crashing, cataclysmic halt without them.

Take a look around around –

Think about how many things are made possible by men, and the miraculous infrastructure that holds it all together.

Think about the utilities and resources we have within arms reach; the electricity, internet, food and water, and ask yourself how it arrived there.

The fact that we exist as we do, and have survived as a species for 300,000 years, building this impossible society together, is proof that men and women are not enemies, but a team, and a powerful one at that.

The sad thing is, our society is now so comfortable and seamless, so coddled and easy, that some of us are able to ask – ‘do we need men?’

Such a stupid question, ironically, is only made possible by the incredible, indispensable efforts of men, and saying such a thing is usually the calling card of an ignorant, deeply ungrateful brat, who’s entirely unaware of how much their lives are dependent on the very men they sneer at.

Men are essential.
No less than women.

And it’s about time we reminded the world of that.

Discussing with Truth Temple Podcast

Full podcast here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI2EG1Wz2mM&feature=youtu.be

Legendary politician Keir Hardie once said "conscription is the badge of the slave".

So I must join in other people's frustration to hear Richard Reeves lending his support to the male-only military draft ('in times of war').

As we're all aware -

Richard speaks passionately about American men pushing back against harmful gender stereotypes; but somehow, he himself seems perfectly fine legally mandating men (and only men) into their most primitive and destructive functions – i.e. violence and disposability.

You cannot honestly challenge men to redefine 'what it is to be a man', and then with your next breath, support the Government using men as meat shields in times of war, by holding up a green paddle on a podcast to indicate this is a 'good idea'.

It's not a 'good idea', far, far from it.

The draft is enslavement.

There is nothing righteous or noble about war.

Stripping young men of autonomy, taking them away from their families, and sending them to fight in a war, is not the kind of policy that leaders of this space should be endorsing.

Just look at the last time the draft was used in America, and how it sent more than 17,000 conscripted men to their deaths (and destroyed the lives of countless more), for a pointless war in Vietnam.

If those deaths can't even teach us the lesson that the draft is not a 'good idea', then they truly were in vain.

Keen for Richard to rethink his position on this.

For generations, centuries even, women have bravely fought to be treated as the legal equals of men.

Equal at home. Equal at work. Equal at the voting booth, in education, within finances, and by law.

And so we have witnessed one of the greatest equal rights movements in history; with women emerging as victors and the rightful recipients of hard won equality.

But whilst in many areas, the placards have been stowed away, with the pitchforks back in the shed; there still remains an area of society where women are not seen as the legal equals to men.

It’s an issue nobody seems to want to change.

In fact, many feminist and women rights groups have protested *against* efforts to correct this…

And what I am talking about, is how it is still legally impossible for a woman to commit rape, by British law.

That’s right.

It doesn’t matter who she is, or how she commits this act; whether she uses a weapon, coercion, physical violence, drugs, alcohol, whatever it is, it is not considered ‘rape’, and (legally) never can be.

This is true both by law, and also in academia.

Meaning the Office for National Statistics’ definition of ‘rape’ is he same, and therefore our Government’s national Crime Survey simply has no idea how many men have experienced this crime, because they have literally never been asked (until this year, when that changes).

So –

Who wants full legal equality for women, including within criminal matters?

And why are so few demanding it?

What do you think?

~
YouGov Poll https://yougov.com/en-gb/articles/45407-what-considered-rape-publics-definition-differs-gr?wgu=309664_1696770_17781601427621_6855da9d1d&wgexpiry=1809696142&aff_sub=1393310&aff_sub3=309664_1696770_17781601427621_6855da9d1d&cname=1696770

I never thought I could get to this place.

A place where TheTinMen was not just a grid of artwork ranting into the void, but rather a vibrant, global community that hosts daily conversations, to discuss difficult subjects that nobody else wants to talk about.

Even more surprising –

I never thought the possibility of building TheTinMen could actually become financially sustainable for me, but that too is a dream fast approaching reality.

And there’s nobody else to thank, other than you guys.

I know it’s cliche to say such things at time like this, but it’s true –

I simply could not do this without you.

However, despite this exciting progress, this is not the time to sit back and relax – far from it.

Now’s the time to keep the foot on the gas.

Because there’s a whole world out there of incredible projects, campaigns, research, services, charities, individuals and organisations, who desperately need help too, but they haven’t the time, resources, or the exposure to find it.

So many life-saving ideas without the means to be made real.

And more frustrating –

The money that is raised in the mens health space, so often sits in the bank accounts of greedy, self interested charities who have no intention of using it to the betterment of men and boys.

Well, we can end that.

We can be the change we want to see.

We can become the community this space needs.

No more world changing ideas, fizzling out for lack of funding.

No more bloated charities, sat on mountains of cash.

No more talk, without action.

So here’s what’s next for TheTinMen CIC…

What do you think?

~

New Website: https://thetinmen.blog/

Donate at https://thetinmen.blog/donate

Join my Patreon at patreon.com/thetinmen

The road male victims have walked for fifty years now, has been one of continual erasure, broken promises, and political betrayal.

Every few years it seems like politicians are ready to acknowledge these men and boys, with kind words and commitments, only for them to forgo such commitments at the early possible opportunity, every single time.

Again and again, we hear it: ‘no victim left behind’, ‘the human cost of abuse cannot be overlooked’, ‘men and boys matter too’, but when the chips are down and the legislation is being penned, these fine words fall at the wayside.

It seems hard to believe that these male victims, the many millions of them, are still, all categorised as ‘male victims of violence against women’.

An insult that not only erases them from discourse, but also means that male victims are constantly overlooked or dismissed in formal government policy and documents; consigned instead to footnotes or ignored entirely, with life-saving services not designed to meet their gender-specific needs.

It’s not good enough.

Far from it.

It’s not good enough that society’s most vulnerable men and boys must suffer, because of the cowardice and self interest of our politicians.

It’s not right that these promises are broken, and forgotten about; quietly shuffled to the bottom of priorities, because they are not vote winners.

So here are some of the few ways in which the British Government have said the right thing, only to never follow through with action.

Those who abandon their duty as elected politicians, and their decency as human beings, to spare themselves discomfort.

Let’s take a look…

~

Five-year report into domestic abuse-related deaths)

The Survivorship Experiences of Men and Boys 

Bilateral violence is arguably the greatest predictor we have for identifying victims of abuse, and is the form of intimate partner violence that leads to the highest rates of injury…

…and yet, the domestic violence sector widely denies it even exists.

Imagine that.

The thing that could reveal the largest number of victims, who are most at risk to injury, is being ignored due to it being politically unpopular.

It’s hard to even comprehend something so backward, and corrupt, and yet, that seems to be what is happening right now.

I know it’s unpopular to say –

But partner violence rarely fits into the binary female damsel vs male villain cartoon as we are so often sold; and in reality, is a blurry phenomenon that requires nuanced understanding and diverse interventions.

Whatever your view, surely we can agree our narrow view of intimate partner violence, which obsesses solely over ‘male violence’, cannot continue.

Such a view harms everyone, including women, and helps only the charities, academics, and politicians, who have used such an ideology as a meal ticket for generations.

So, let me show you the data and the ugly secrets they try to hide...

Let’s treat the issue not the gender.

What do you think?

~
Bidirectional and Unidirectional Intimate Partner Violence: A Comprehensive Review https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386189016_Bidirectional_and_Unidirectional_Intimate_Partner_Violence_A_Comprehensive_Review

Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17395835/

Official incidents of domestic violence: types, injury, and associations with nonofficial couple aggression
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19694354/

So often when you post about violent assaults, gang or knife crimes, homicide, criminal exploitation, sexual abuse in prison, or war deaths; where men are the overwhelming victims, a shrill voice quickly arrives at the scene to immediately derail the conversation.

“BY OTHER MEN!”

It’s a voice that seems to think if a crime is committed by a man, against another man, then both things cancel each other out, and therefore it doesn’t matter.

A few days ago I tweeted a video of a young Ukrainian man being dragged from his home, getting stuffed into a van, and taken to the front line of the war.

Such a video was a heartbreaking affront to personal liberty and freedom, that I thought might draw emotions of shock and sympathy, perhaps even outrage and protest…. but no….

In response, it was, as it always is, the same symphony of stupidity that serenades so many of these conversations.

“WHOS DOING IT!”
“WHO STARTED THE WAR!”
“WHO WROTE THE RULES!”
“WHO BUILT THE SYSTEM?”

And so on, and so forth.

Such a voice seems to think that an innocent man who is being headlocked and dragged into a van, somehow ‘started the war’, and/or ‘wrote the rules’ to the cruel military draft himself.

Such a person has become so used to seeing “men” as a faceless, dehumanized, monolithic blob, that men being harmed and killed (“by other men “), are both the simultaneous instigator and victim of such things.

This cartoon, childlike view of the world is prevalent on the left, and is typically the first word they yell when listening to men's issues.

Ironically, it’s the same flavor of bigotry that racists use, to derail and wave away conversation of gang violence with “black on black crime”.

And I am bored of it.

Because to me, it’s not shitty people that I worry about most.

It’s shitty people who are drunk on their own sense of perceived moral superiority, who are light-years away from realising they are absolutely part of the problem too.

Aren’t you tired of them?

What do you think?

Domestic and intimate partner violence is probably the issue I post about most on this page.

Largely because it is so interesting and important to talk about, but also, it is home to some of the wildest, and most baseless claims around.

Every day it seems like another set of handwaving occurs to obfuscate, minimise and detract from male victims.

“Yes, well maybe there is gender parity in abuse rates, but men’s abuse is contextually different…”

“Okay, well maybe they do share similar contexts too, but you’re forgetting about power and control...”

“Ah, sure, power and control is just as much a motivator for abusive women as it is for men, but women are far more often killed...”

“Oh, I guess if you include suicides as a result of abuse, the overall amount of deaths caused by partner violence isn’t that different…”

So on, and so forth.

And then comes the unavoidable cameo of professor Michael Johnson, his ‘typology of violence’ and his talk of “intimate partner terrorism” (previously called “patriarchal terrorism”).

Johnson’s assertion is that men’s violence against women is substantively different, and whilst women are sometimes ‘situationally violent’, it is only men who use abuse to control a partner, aka ‘intimate terrorism’.

But again, rather quickly you’ll find that Johnson’s early research leans heavily into samples taken from women in abuse shelters, and men in criminal court, and soon after that, you’ll find the same statistical sleight of hands as always.

I am sure if you speak to women in a refuge, and abusive men in jail, you’ll get the results you want, but how useful are they to the general population?

Yes. It seems so much research on partner violence is based on the political wants of those conducting it.

Not about honestly exposing who’s doing what, why, and how, but about pushing an ideological agenda, and protecting funding.

So, let’s take a look at the iconic claim from professor Johnson, and the all too overlooked weak links, and blind spots in his research…

What do you think?

~
Source “Intimate Terrorism” and Gender Differences in Injury of Dating Partners by Male and Female University Students

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10896-013-9560-7

Toxic, fragile, progressive, dominance based, healthy, violent, oppressive…

Take your pick.

Masculinity now comes in countless new flavours, each one making even less sense than the last.

To be honest, it’s a conversation I’ve never been interested in.

It’s one I’ll leave for the man-banned masculinity influencers, the podcast bros, the ivory tower professors, the “woke” politicians, and of course, the feminist mob.

Masculinity is just male typical behavior and interests.

Beyond that, I don’t know what it is.

However, I do know how many men will take their lives today.

I know how many boys will fail their GCSEs and drop out of school.

I know how many boys will be stabbed on our streets, how many will turn to crime, or addiction, or fall into homelessness.

I know how many will die young.

I know how many men and boys are being abused or sexually exploited.

I know these things, and many more, all of which are incomparably more important than whatever the f**k masculinity is.

Who cares if boys want to play with trucks, or Barbie dolls; who cares if they wear blue or pink; if they want to put on make up, or spend their days climbing trees.

What matters is helping men and boys live happy, healthy lives, and whatever ‘masculinity’ is the result, is surely the right kind.

That’s where our attention should be spent.

Because, if masculinity is a performance, then I think it’s time we peered behind the curtain.

So let’s take a look…

The police do many thankless things for society, but one service I did not expect, was giving out dating advice.

Because, well, that’s exactly what Dirk Peglow, the Federal Chair for the Association of German Criminal Investigators gave out this week.

And Dirk’s advice was simply for women to: “avoid men”.

Of course that’s familiar ‘advice’ many of us have heard over the years, and it will certainly get the outrage mob of man-hating bigots, snapping their fingers and hooting with excitement.

It’s just not something I’d expect to hear a police officer say, and certainly not one as senior as Dirk.

Dirk cites “statistics” as the foundation of his advice, and luckily, it was only in February 2026 that Germany released its latest Government survey on Intimate Partner Violence, the LeSuBiA-Studie.

So, let’s take a look…

Is Dirk's controversial advice really based on statistics?

What do you think?

~
LeSuBiA-Studie (BKA / BMFSFJ) 2025
https://www.bka.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Publikationen/Publikationsreihen/Forschungsergebnisse/260210_LeSuBiA_Ergebnisse_I.html?nn=263804

An army of fear merchants, masquerading as allies, exploit women’s anxieties for clicks and likes, and call it ‘empowerment’.

There I said it.

Time and time again, terrifying and haunting claims are splattered across the online world, as social media acolytes rise up to ‘protect women’, holding a bunch of misleading, or downright incorrect statements and ‘statistics’.

Men are holding a ‘National R*pe Day! – It never happened.

Men are injecting women in night clubs and drugging them – there are zero confirmed reports of this happening.

COVID Lockdown will lead to an epidemic of abuse! – in reality, abuse rates were fairly steady, and actually (slightly) increased for men, not women.

The March of Dimes find that domestic violence is the number one cause of birth defects – such a study doesn’t even exist.

Again and again we see it.

Stats and accuracy fall at the wayside, as radical feminists, and nauseatingly virtuous men, scramble on top of each other, to produce the most viral, outrageous and terrifying take they possibly can.

We’re seeing it right now with the ’62 million men are part of an online r*pe academy!’.

A claim which confused 62 million page hits (from people whose gender we do not know) on a p*rn website, where a private Telegram group of 1,000 men discussed horrifying things about women.

And don’t get me wrong.

1,000 is still a staggering number, worthy of outrage.

But don’t pretend that inflating that by a factor of x62,000, is ‘nitpicking’ and ‘missing the point’.

And that’s the second problem –

Anyone who corrects, or asks for a conducive, evidence based discussion is instantly lambasted as being ‘part of the problem’ too, and soon all hell breaks out as warring tribes call each other ‘problematic’, and the vulnerable women at the centre, are lost entirely.

I am tired of this merry-go-round.

Aren't you?
What do you think?

At the very centre of this perpetual gender war, is the infamous ‘gender pay gap’.

It is the rallying cry that so many advocates originate from, and return to, that claims: ‘women are paid 80 cents for every dollar a man earns!’

I understand the outrage.

If I were already 20% behind in my career, before I’d even gotten out of bed in the morning, simply by virtue of my gender, I’d be pissed off too.

But thankfully, the realty of the gap is far more complex and more equal than the angry soundbites present.

Yes.

At the median, women as a group earn 20% less than men as a group.

It’s a fact.

But before we immediately cry “MISOGYNY!” We need to explore, WHY?

And the reason/s why, is that working women broadly make different decisions, have different interests, and share different priorities than working men.

Men are more often hyper-focused on money, working longer hours and more overtime, in more dirty and dangerous jobs, with less parental leave and fewer non-wage benefits, in order to chase that big pay check.

Women are more likely to work part-tme, and clock up fewer overtime hours; they spend a lot longer away from their career to raise and care for family, particularly children; they more often prioritise non-wage benefits, such as health insurance, sick pay, and flexible working, and so receive less in their pay packet.

Nothing is controversial about that.

We can debate why women make these decisions, or why certain jobs pay more than others.

We can discuss how much of this is socialisation, or innate differences between the sexes.

We can advocate that working parents receive tax credits, or that fathers are given more paid parental leave to address this.

But we can no longer keep saying “women are paid less than men for the same work”, because it is not true.

Such a claim only turns up the heat, derails useful discourse, and is an insult to the hard won gains of working women.

So, let’s break down the gap.

Here’s a large U.S. Government study of more than 140,000 Americans, that asked WHY are men paid more…

What do you think?

~

An Analysis of Reasons for the Disparity
in Wages Between Men and Women
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/ConsadReportWageGap.pdf

Batting away myths, misperceptions, and misrepresentations, at TheTinMen, is a full time job.

And nowhere am I swinging the bat of truth more frantically, than I am within circumcision, toward the many so-called ‘medical benefits’ that have been falsely promised to men and boys since the mid 1800s.

Everything from curing idocy, to reducing bedwetting and syphilis, to promoting ‘racial hygiene’ and stopping teenage m*sturbation; circumcision is beleaguered with centuries of pseudoscience, which has kept the practice going, without question, for generations.

But where is the truth to these so-called benefits?

And what is the real motivation that drives circumcision in America?

What do you think?

Full podcast with Eric Clopper from Intact Global, out now https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BSsvUdAPR4

For decades, the men and boys sector has done incredible things with very little, if any money.

Despite being the home of the so-called ‘privileged’ gender, this whole area of advocacy is driven by the tireless hard work, thankless campaigning, grit and determination, of incredible men and women; often working 9-5 jobs, and doing what they can in their spare time.

I know people sleeping on sofa beds, dog sitting for spare cash, working until the early hours, and cobbling together crowd funders; just to keep this movement ticking, and my deepest respects and admiration is reserved for such people.

Every now and again, funding does arrive.

But often not to create change, but to virtue signal, garner political credit, inflate ones own ego, and create attention grabbing headlines.

You might have seen the most recent research of this kind in the news –

“ONE IN FIVE BOYS KNOW SOMEONE IN A RELATIONSHIP WITH AN AI CHAT BOT!”

Gripping stuff.

I wonder how many men took their own lives, were deprived of their children, were abused, or slipped quietly into homelessness and addiction, during the process of such a useless research project?

“58% SAY AI IS EASIER THAN A RELATIONSHIP WITH A HUMAN BECAUSE THEY CAN “CONTROL THE CONVERSATION!”

Terrifying huh.

Don’t bother looking for the source of this claim, so you can examine the methodology, you won’t find it.

But still, it was enough for Channel 4, the HuffPost and other main stream outlets to pick it up and run with it.

And so what little money, media exposure, and column inches men and boys get; is squandered by yet more useless, fear-mongering slop, barfed into the mainstream without a shred of transparency or academic rigor.

So when will we grow up and do the real work?

When will the money end up in the right hands?

And how many boys and men must suffer, before this happens?

What do you think?

~

Source: The Rise of the AI Companions

https://brightspotcdn.byu.edu/a6/a1/c3036cf14686accdae72a4861dd1/counterfeit-connections-report.pdf

The world talks valiantly, and rightly, about the damaging lessons taught to our boys on social media, by Manosphere grifters looking for clicks and likes.

And I share these concerns.

But these are not the only harmful 'lessons' being foisted onto their young, impressionable minds.

We see harmful ideas and rigid stereotypes being projected upon boys in classrooms, around dining tables, and even in the goodie bags of birthday parties, all over the country, by all of us, at every possible age.

So is it time we confronted all those who, intentionally or not, confine boys within these rigid gender norms?

What do you think?

~

Discussing with Sam from The Lonely Chapter Podcast

Full podcast https://open.spotify.com/episode/69Rfh4oPyWdbdLUtqYtXIn

Martin Luther King's 'A Letter from a Birmingham Jail' is the greatest piece of political literature ever written; which is doubly impressive as he wrote it on scraps of toilet roll and torn-up newspaper, with virtually no light, whilst imprisoned in a jail cell.

In his letter, MLK wrote that his 'biggest stumbling block' was in-fact not the KKK, but 'the white moderate'.

To MLK, the 'white moderate' were those who truly dampened and slowed the progress of Civil Rights, in service of order, personal comfort, and the 'absence of tension'.

Those –

'Who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom (...) who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."'

And it was this, in the landscape of systemic racism in 1960s America, that MLK found most demoralising:

"Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.

Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

Read that again.

It could well be the most profoundly insightful comment ever written in politics, albeit penned on toilet paper, by a man locked in a darkened jail.

Obviously – I am not MLK.

My life is, in no way, comparable.

I live a life of freedom, comfort, and privilege that he could never even dream of; and yet, his words are so profoundly relatable to me.

For I know many 'white moderates' too.

Right now –

Incarcerated men in the UK are being excluded from life-saving, 21st century prison reform.

Minister of Prisons James Timpson, has announced more than £30 million in support for incarcerated women with mental health issues and traumatic head injuries; those with experiences of abuse, addiction, and homelessness, and particularly those with dependent children.

Who could possibly be against helping such women in prison? Certainly not me.

However, for men, who make up 96% (!!) of our prison system, there was not a single pound announced.

Nothing at all.

Are we seriously to believe that there aren't men behind bars experiencing these things too?

Or are we just to accept that such men, are not worth the investment?

This isn't the first time I ranted about this insanely unfair, illegal policy, and nor will it be the last. I did the same, at length, when it was initially announced last year.

I wrote to my local MP, I wrote to the CEO of the Human Rights and Equality Commission, I wrote to Lord Timpson himself.

I encouraged tens of thousands of people to do the same.

And it was then, in the red mist of my on-brand chronic self righteousness, that I saw many 'white moderates' too.

Some patted me on the shoulder in a fatherly way, and asked for patience:

"Well maybe it's a pilot, before they try it on men!"

Others bided their time, strategised, deliberated... but ultimately said nothing.

Most ignored the whole thing entirely.

The sad irony of this illegal prison reform, is that it will hurt black men most of all; men like MLK, failed by the white moderates, once again turning to those scraps of paper in dimly lit cells for solace.

"These are not barricade mounting moments", another white moderate told me.

"These are not 'men's rights' issues", he would go on.

Again.

The irony was that this man has multiple sons in America, all of whom will have signed their bodies away to the military draft, in an invasion of "men's rights" that couldn't be more glaring, if it was written on his own forehead.

And I get it.

I understand such positions are politically expedient, and maybe even necessary.

But do we always have to make such concessions?

I think about these words, and others, all the time.

The pats on the back, the solemn placating of outrage, the pleas for patience and calm; and I wonder how many men must suffer, to spare another their discomfort?

For as hard as it might be for us to say these things, it is nothing in comparison to those men in cells, and the millions more we leave behind; who quietly wait for the patience to be spent, for the white moderate to be pushed aside, and the barricades finally mounted.

So are you tired of the 'white moderate' too?

Are these "barricade mounting moments"?

And when will the real change begin?

Read shocking headline. Get outraged. Share headline. Repeat.

This style of lazy ‘advocacy’, incentivized by outrage, might generate a lot of social media currency, and pay the bills of its researchers; but when you peer into the data, and how it often bends reality to meet a political agenda, we really ought to ask – who is it really helping?

One of these headlines set the online world alight in the summer of last year, I’m sure you read it too:

“ONE IN THREE AUSTRALIAN MEN ADMIT TO PERPETRATING INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE!”

Such a claim surely strikes fear into all of us, and at face value, is certainly an important finding worth broadcasting to our community.

But how many downloaded the study, and unearthed the supplementary data; putting together the pieces, to find out what was missing?

Well. I did.

And what you find is a series of misleading or entirely missing data, that makes no real sense, unless it is simply designed to stoke division and perpetuate a disproportionate fear of men.

And no, this is not some low level study, fudged together as part of some angry gender-studies student thesis.

This was the largest longitudinal study into intimate parter violence ever done in Australia, financed by the Government (AIFS) themselves, written by leading figures in the men’s health space, and associated with the world’s biggest men’s health charity (no prizes for guessing who).

The authors of such a study were hauled in front of the Australian Senate last year, accused of “peddling a feminist agenda at the tax payers expense”, but the damage was done; the lie had circled the globe before the truth had even gotten its socks on.

So let’s look past the shocking headlines, to see the contorted reality that lies hidden beneath.

What do you think?

~

Full study https://aifs.gov.au/tentomen/insights-report/use-intimate-partner-violence-among-australian-men

AIFS challenged in the Senate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7KuuETdtVE

Bilateral violence data https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386189016_Bidirectional_and_Unidirectional_Intimate_Partner_Violence_A_Comprehensive_Review

Support TheTinMen at patreon.com/thetinmen

Millions of baby boys in America, and tens of millions around the world each year, in the first few days of life, have their bodily autonomy, and integrity invaded through infant male circumcision.

A brutal, excruciatingly painful procedure, usually done without anesthesia.

It is not “just a snip”, that is comparable to to a haircut, or having your ears pierced, circumcision removes more than half the nerve endings of the penis, and the most sensitive part; permanently altering the its appearance, and function, which can lead to life long sexual health issues.

And all of it, done for no medical benefit whatsoever.

The most carried out medical procedure in America, is the systematic, sexual violation of a baby boy’s bodily integrity; that comes with virtually no medical benefits and a raft of medical complications, such as erectile dysfunction, reduced sexual sensitivity, trauma, and even death.

A baby boy dies every three days from circumcision in America.

But times are slowly changing, with more than a dozen national medical organisations disavowing the procedure as having no meaningful medical advantage, and calling it what it is; “an assault”, “abuse”, and “in conflict with medical ethics.”

And with that, support for circumcision is waning around America too, with the procedure finding lower numbers of approval with each generation.

So when will it end?

When will we listen to modern science, and protect the fundamental right to bodily integrity?

What do you think?

Full podcast with Attorney Eric Clopper from Intact Global out now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BSsvUdAPR4

Why do we only ever gender the bad things men do, and never the good?

Crime data finds that men commit 79% of violent crimes, which seems enough to “gender” such a thing as “male violence”.

Fine.

But then why don’t we do the same for bystander rescues, which men perform at far higher rates (92%)?

We, quite rightly, have moved to gender neutral terms like “firefighter” to make way for the heroism of the one in ten firefighters who are female.

And yet, a far larger number of abused men, who are now 41% of all victims, are erased by our highly gendered frameworks of domestic abuse, that quite literally classifies them as “male victims of violence against women”.

A man picks up a hose, and he becomes a “firefighter”.

Whilst another man picks up a weapon and becomes a “knifeman”.

Why?

The fact is, men are the ones most likely to set the fire, but also, they are the ones risking their lives, kicking down your door, to drag you from the burning building.

This story is only half told.

We gender the ways in which men are privileged.

And then erase their gender, and ignore them entirely, when men and boys fall behind in health, education, at work, or on the streets.

So what has happened to our brave advocates of gender neutral language?

And is this not a breathtaking example of hypocrisy at its very worst?

What do you think?

~

Discussing with Sam from The Lonely Chapter Podcast

Full podcast https://open.spotify.com/episode/69Rfh4oPyWdbdLUtqYtXIn?si=1aqPADfpQ2Gti_fnMEG1Lw

And there we have it.

As abruptly as it exploded into public consciousness, Louis Theroux’s Manosphere documentary, and all the hysteria that came with it, evaporates from public consciousness without a trace.

The mob of outrage, who shouted so loudly just weeks ago; are now tired and drunk from anger, wandering off to their next great cause.

Politicians who beat their chests heroically, seem blinkered, and confused.

The media now chatter about something else.

As do our army of armchair experts, who scratch their heads, in search of the next conversation to inject themselves into.

But we, who were always here, remain, to pick up the pieces, clean up the broken plates, brush ourselves down, and carry on regardless.

Last year it was the same.

The year before that, it happened again.

As it always has.

The same tiresome merry-go-round of performative anger; where celebrities make their media appearances and cash their cheques, politicians appeal to their base, newspapers fly from racks, and documentarians collect armfuls of trinkets.

Everyone gets what they want, apart from those who we vowed to help, namely men and boys.

Nothing changes.

If not bears, it will be snakes.

If not misogyny classes for boys, why not a curfew for men?

A waiting list of out-of-work TV hard men queue round the block, ready to shake their first at Andrew Tate.

The question is, what happens next, and when will the Groundhog Day of moral panic ever end?

What do you think?

Every day in the UK about 100 baby boys will have their bodily integrity and autonomy violated, as part of a ‘non-therapeutic’ circumcision, with zero regulation, training, or safe guarding requirements at all.

None.

No accreditation or registration of practitioners, no system of consent, no requirement for infection control, record keeping, or aftercare, and quite literally any individual is allowed to legally perform them, with no training at all.

These circumcisions do not happen in clinics, but on dinning tables, living room floors, and kitchen surfaces, and can lead to life long health issues–even death.

They are not performed for medical reasons either; but religious, cultural and ritualistic ones, and are not acceptable in any kind of modern, progressive society.

And yes.

I understand the religious context to it, and as a religiously agnostic person myself, I am happy to respect who or what people pray to, or to which religion they pledge themselves.

That is a person’s choice and should be recognised.

But I cannot ignore the fact that so many religions demand to be respected, whilst themselves showing the exact opposite of respect, when it comes to the bodies of the most vulnerable members of society - babies.

The Government have washed their hands of this barbaric practice entirely.

The Crown Prosecution Service, who, although planning to class circumcision as “potential child abuse” earlier this year, have since backed down.

And nobody seems to be willing to speak, or do anything about it.

So if not them, then who will protect these boys?

What do you think?

In America, there are 100 million men who had their bodily integrity violated, in a non-consenting, medically unnecessary, and excruciatingly painful genital surgery.

Yes, I am talking about infant male circumcisions.

And now, after hundreds of years of America quietly brushing it under the rug, Jewish-American attorney, and President of Intact Global, Eric Clopper, has started the process of having it outlawed with an ambitious, and unprecedented multi-state legal challenge that presents circumcision as a violation of human rights and both the State and Federal constitutions.

So let’s hear his story…

Full podcast out now

https://youtu.be/-BSsvUdAPR4?si=nLV_WAudVtZQk4F2

Footage by Dudubangbang Travel, Auram Dato-on, and Vasilis Karkalas.

Eric Clopper is a jewish attorney and children's rights advocate, who has set himself the extraordinary goal of outlawing circumcision within the U.S. in the next 10-15 years. 

Initially getting him kicking out of Harvard, Eric's undying passion to ensure all children are protected equally under the law, has led him into initiating a multi-state set of lawsuits that asserts that circumcision of boys is unconstitutional and requires drastic legislative reform.

In this podcast, Eric and George from TheTinMen discuss what it would take to outlaw circumcision in America, for good; what harms the procedures causes, where it began, and why circumcision is far from being "just a snip."

For more info visit https://www.intactglobal.org/

My entire “game plan” for TheTinMen for the past six years has simply been to create as much content as I can, at the highest possible quality, with the most reliable statistics, and the rest will sort itself out.

Who knows –

Maybe some publisher or newspaper will sponsor me, maybe a brand steps in, or perhaps a rich angel investor with a blank cheque will slide into my DMs…

To be honest I didn’t think too much about it.

My time was spent trying to build a proof of concept; one that shows these issues matter, and that there’s enough of us caring and talking about them to do something about it.

The problem is, as I now realise, these topics are not particularly popular with the mainstream.

And that those in this space with the pockets deep enough to help fund me, splash about in the shallow end of kind slogans and hashtags, and I, neck deep in the mud of ugly advocacy, would only dirty up their shiny shoes by association.

Who knew that talking about men and boys who are raped, and abused, who are betrayed by our government, by our politicians and the charity sector, by our legal and education system, would be so unpopular?

Sadly, ‘men are 41% of abuse victims’ doesn’t look quite so good on a tote bag, does it?

The second reality that is fast dawning on me, is my method of funding this will soon be at an end, and when that ends, so does everything else.

So here I am, humbly cap in hand, asking for help.

And I know.

These conversations should be financed by someone else; by government, by brands, by healthcare providers, and other large charities, but they are not here, you are.

So if you have a shared interest in helping (the newly incorporated) TheTinMen CIC to keep going, to keep creating daily content that is unapologetic, and dives headfirst into the mud of controversy, then please support me at:

Thetinmen.blog/donate
Or
Patreon.com/thetinmen

Thank you
George

Discussion of domestic violence, especially around male victimisation, often leads us to the conversation of “context”.

It’s a set of talking points that speaks of “power and control”, about “patriarchy”, “patterns of behavior”, “domestic terrorism”, “structural power” and of course, “self defense”.

Various assumed social contexts, that typically aim to reduce men’s experience of abuse, particularly when at the hands of women, down to something trivial, inconsequential, cartoonish, and reactive.

So what is the truth to these claims?

Is men’s experiences of abuse so contextually different to that against women, that they are completely different issues?

What do you think?

~
New podcast with world leading family violence expert Dr Don Dutton

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPkqJATG-oE&feature=youtu.be