Feminist ‘sludge’ is killing men – literally

by BETTINA ARNDT – THERE’S a four-year gap in life expectancy in Australia between men and women. 

So how come our peak science funding body, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), in 2022 allocated over six times more funding to research on women’s health compared to men’s? 

An increasing numbers of radical young female academics and students, probably indoctrinated back in school, are keen to display their feminist credentials.

This glaring bias in research funding attracted the critical gaze of a Perth-based academic with a keen interest in men’s health.

James Nuzzo is an exercise scientist, currently affiliated with Edith Cowan University, who has been busily churning out academic articles on topics like exercise neurophysiology and physical fitness testing.


But he’s become increasingly concerned to see his discipline infiltrated by gender ideologues whining about women missing out while totally ignoring the health outcomes of boys and men.

He’s calling out their bias and poor scholarship in a hard-hitting series of blogs on Substack (The Nuzzo Files) and podcasts.

For instance, Mr Nuzzo points out that we hear constant allegations about the widespread exclusion of women in clinical trials.

In America, complaints about the neglect of women in health research led, in 1990, to the Office for Research on Women’s Health being established within the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Since then, annual reports from the Office reveal that women constitute 55-60 per cent of all participants in NIH-funded clinical trials each year. Thirty years later, the Office is flourishing, pouring out funding for women-only projects.

Similarly, Australian governments are falling over each other to prove their commitment to improving health outcomes for women and girls – and the NHMRC funding simply reflects that consistent anti-male bias.

This is simply one more example of the feminist claptrap now seeping throughout our academic world.

I hear regularly from principled researchers grinding their teeth at this blatant ideology and poor scholarship. Most don’t dare put their head above the parapet.

It is refreshing to find Mr Nuzzo, a lone warrior willing to call it out, despite being well aware he is likely to implode his academic career in the process.

Mr Nuzzo’s most recent public skirmish in this territory involved an article in Sports Medicine written by mainly female exercise physiology students from the University of NSW claiming that “gender-based violence is a blind spot for sports and exercise medical professionals”.

The UNSW scholars devoted their entire article presenting women as the only victims of interpersonal violence (IPV) – the single mention of men referred to their “socially determined privilege”, an alleged cause of violence against women.

No mention of young male victims of abuse by coaches or fellow athletes, of which there have been plenty, nor of lesbian perpetrators of abuse (lesbians top the chart of rates of IPV). And not one word about the decades of research showing men and women are victims of IPV at roughly equal rates.


Mr Nuzzo set out to put them straight, seeking to get the true facts published in a response letter in Sports Medicine. And he succeeded, but only after nearly a year of back and forth with the journal.

It helped that he combined forces with Deborah Powney, the University of Central Lancashire psychologist doing work on male victims of coercive control, and John Barry, from the Centre for Male Psychology in London.

Sports Medicine took the unusual step of submitting the letter to peer review, but the three reviewers all concurred with the critique by Nuzzo and his co-authors. Ultimately the letter was published – one small victory for proper scientific inquiry.

Their published comment proved it was the UNSW academics who had the blind spot, by providing a summary of some of the best research showing equal gender rates of IPV victimization, which also applied in sports environments.

Storm in a teacup, you might conclude.

Perhaps. But it is a telling example of how the feminist take-over of our universities is playing out.

We now have increasing numbers of radical young female academics and students, probably indoctrinated back in their school days, all keen on displaying their feminist credentials in their so-called scholarship.

Increasingly, they are forcing this sludge into diverse disciplines, right across all academia.

Worryingly, these are the teachers of the next generation, intent on convincing young women they are set for a life of persecution, abuse and discrimination.

They are teaching our future bureaucrats who’ll be setting key policies, the future lawyers, judges, social workers, and the politicians who will be deciding where the dollars are spent.

Their goals are transparent and the process is unfolding before our very eyes.

Kudos for James Nuzzo for having the courage to take them on, in published articles, blogs and podcasts. It’s infuriating to read his research and discover how much we’ve been hoodwinked.

Another of Mr Nuzzo’s published articles concerned bias against men’s issues in the UN.and WHO.

He conducted a content analysis showing consistent promotion of women’s issues whilst men are ignored.


The UN’s sustainable development goal on “gender equality” is exclusive to females.

The organisation observes nine International Days for women’s issues/achievements and one day for men. They operate 69 Twitter accounts dedicated to women’s issues and none for men. And so it goes on.

DAVIA (the Domestic Abuse and Violence International Alliance) has launched a petition that calls on groups to “suspend their funding of the United Nations until all UN agencies fulfill their pledge to respect the ‘dignity and worth’ of all persons and assure the ‘equal rights of men and women’.” That’s a worthy goal.

It’s also a pleasant change to find someone looking for the good in men.

Mr Nuzzo recently wrote a blog on Men: The Martyrs of Medicine. He’d unearthed a 1929 medical journal article listing the names of male doctors and researchers who died as a result of acquiring the disease they were studying or medical technology they were developing.

Brave men who gave their lives trying to save others from yellow fever, typhus, bubonic plague and other infectious diseases.

It was quite a story and a welcome change to see the risk-taking, now so often labelled as “toxic”, being promoted as valuable, even inspiring.PC

Bettina Arndt

MAIN PHOTOGRAPH: James Nuzzo. (courtesy Roil Road)
RE-PUBLISHED: This article was originally published by The Epoch Times on February 25, 2024. Re-used with the author’s permission.

2 thoughts on “Feminist ‘sludge’ is killing men – literally

  1. As Professor Henry Higgins said …

    Why can’t a woman be more like a man?
    Men are so honest, so thoroughly square
    Eternally noble, historic’ly fair
    Who, when you win, will always give your back a pat
    Well, why can’t a woman be like that?
    Why does ev’ryone do what the others do?
    Can’t a woman learn to use her head?
    Why do they do ev’rything their mothers do?
    Why don’t they grow up like their father instead?
    Why can’t a woman take after a man?
    Men are so pleasant, so easy to please
    Whenever you are with them, you’re always at ease
    Would you be slighted if I didn’t speak for hours?


Comments are closed.