They're OUT OF CONTROL youtu.be/AU9Dn0QLLng?si=nn9X… via @YouTube

A GREAT FILM ABOUT MEN, BROTHERHOOD & HUBRIS Released in December 1975, John Huston’s The Man Who Would Be King is a magnificent old-fashioned adventure; and a surprisingly rich exploration of masculinity. Production began in Morocco during January 1975, after Huston had spent more than two decades trying to bring Rudyard Kipling’s 1888 story to the screen... Sean Connery and Michael Caine are superb as Daniel Dravot and Peachy Carnehan, two former British soldiers who leave India for remote Kafiristan with an audacious plan: conquer it, become kings and make their fortunes. What follows is part adventure epic, part buddy comedy and ultimately tragedy. At its heart is male friendship. Danny and Peachy are brave, resourceful, physically tough, irreverent and extraordinarily loyal to one another. They thrive on danger, competition, hardship and a shared mission. Their friendship has little sentimentality, yet enormous affection. These are deeply flawed men, but vividly alive ones. Watch the trailer: youtube.com/watch?v=gjAi5ER5… The film neither simply celebrates nor condemns their masculinity. Their courage, endurance, humour, competence and brotherhood carry them across mountains and through battles. Yet ambition mutates into arrogance. Danny begins believing his own mythology. Masculine confidence without humility becomes hubris, and eventually destroys what their courage built... There's also an interesting distinction between leadership and domination. Danny briefly aspires to something larger than plunder: laws, infrastructure, order and a legacy. But power overwhelms judgement. Peachy, meanwhile, remains grounded by loyalty and reality. A recent Quillette essay marking the film's 50th anniversary describes it as simultaneously action movie, buddy comedy, travelogue and historical epic (and notes how far its unabashed imperial adventure belongs to another cinematic age). Its colonial assumptions certainly deserve scrutiny, but reducing the film to those assumptions would miss much of its humanity. quillette.com/2025/11/25/the… Connery and Caine's chemistry is exceptional, while Huston's direction gives the story genuine scale and grandeur... This is a rollicking, funny, tragic and deeply masculine film about adventure, brotherhood, courage, loyalty, ambition; and the ancient danger of pride. Highly recommended.

FEMINIST RESEARCH CANNOT BE TRUSTED BECAUSE IT SEES OBJECTIVITY AS “UNDESIRABLE” This remarkable lecture by Dr Adrienne Barnett deserves wider attention, especially among governments relying on academic research. youtube.com/watch?v=-GiefGCZ… Barnett describes key ideas within feminist research: => A “connection between scholarship and political action.” => Research that's “not just about understanding society, it’s about changing the society.” => “Emancipatory and liberatory goals for women.” Most strikingly: “Objectivity itself…is an unattainable and indeed undesirable goal.” She also describes the constructivist proposition that researchers don't simply collect data: “we’re creating data.” This raises a fundamental question: What happens when research begins with a preferred political destination? Wanting to improve women's lives is entirely legitimate, and feminist research isn't automatically wrong. But research informing public policy should be capable of producing conclusions that its authors didn't want or expect. The crucial test is falsifiability: What evidence would prove the theory wrong? If supporting evidence confirms a theory, while contradictory evidence is reinterpreted as patriarchy, masculine knowledge, structural power or flaws in “objective” methods, then the theory risks becoming insulated from falsification... This matters because Barnett later led a literature and case-law review forming part of the evidence programme associated with the UK Ministry of Justice's influential 2020 Harm Panel on domestic abuse and family courts. When research can affect children, mothers and fathers, then scrutiny should be exceptionally rigorous... We need to ask: • Were competing hypotheses tested? • Was contradictory evidence actively sought? • Were allegations distinguished from substantiated findings? • Were men and women treated symmetrically? • Could independent researchers reproduce the conclusions? • What evidence would change the researchers' minds? Human beings are biased: feminists, men's advocates, conservatives, leftists, you and me. That's precisely why we need more scientific rigour, not less. Falsifiability. Transparency. Replication. Competing hypotheses. Symmetrical standards. Serious engagement with contrary evidence. Advocacy can begin with a destination. But research should begin with a question... #ResearchIntegrity #EvidenceNotIdeology #FeministResearch #ScientificMethod #FamilyLaw #EvidenceBasedPolicy #CriticalThinking

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED: Dr Todd Bottom on men, masculinity and mental health This is one of the most thought-provoking videos I’ve watched recently on male psychology and the ways that men are approached by mental-health professionals. youtube.com/watch?v=EQJZ7jjV… Psychologist and researcher Dr Todd Bottom examines professional guidance on working with men across 10 countries, including Australia, the United States, UK, Canada, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Spain, Ireland and Finland. What makes this particularly valuable is the comparison between two very different approaches. Should therapy begin by viewing masculinity primarily through problems such as restrictive norms, power, privilege, aggression and behaviours requiring correction? Or should practitioners begin with empathy, respect and the strengths that many men bring (responsibility, courage, loyalty, resilience, autonomy and a desire for practical solutions) while adapting services to the ways men actually communicate and seek help? The UK material is especially interesting, with its emphasis on taking a positive and empathic view of masculinity, recognising that conventional talking therapies may not suit every man, and considering more practical and action-oriented approaches... Australia also deserves attention. The research discussed by Dr Bottom highlights solution-focused, action-oriented counselling, masculine strengths, choice and autonomy, alongside the value of male clinicians and role models. There's an important principle here: when men are struggling, we shouldn't automatically ask “What is wrong with men?” We should instead ask whether our institutions and services understand them, respect them and are genuinely designed to help them... Dr Bottom is careful not to discourage therapy. His message is to be informed and to find a therapist who understands you, treats you with respect, and helps you achieve the outcomes you are seeking. That's a conversation worth having. Thank you Todd. Highly recommended viewing. #MensMentalHealth #MalePsychology #PositiveMasculinity #MensHealth #MentalHealth #MenAndBoys #HealthyMasculinity #Psychology

Why the Idea of Male Disposability Triggers Women youtube.com/shorts/hVLnV2lEv… via @YouTube

David Epstein: Discipline sets creativity free | Full Interview youtu.be/0barY2A6dpU?si=MNNM… via @YouTube

How to debate, from a 2x world champion | Bo Seo: Full Interview youtu.be/8vYZ5oQb4M8?si=qtpT… via @YouTube

Here's How/Why You're Clinically Misogynistic....Globally youtu.be/EQJZ7jjVq4I?si=01e3… via @YouTube

The Precognitive Roots of National Belonging | Harrison Pitt | Heterodox 2026... youtu.be/q2xEvFiZfC0?si=xzmY… via @YouTube

This is an experience that my son, and my family, will remember for a long time. Gorgeous sunny day, sailing on Sydney Harbour.

LITERACY FIRST. IDEOLOGY SECOND. This Wall Street Journal chart deserves attention. It doesn't show student literacy scores directly. It plots states according to the number of 18 early-literacy policies they have adopted against the strength of their teachers’ unions. And the pattern is striking. In the top-left are states such as Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina and Indiana: relatively weak unions and extensive adoption of evidence-based literacy reforms. Toward the bottom-right are New York, Illinois, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Oregon and Vermont: stronger unions and substantially fewer of these policies adopted. According to the analysis behind the chart, blue states (Democrat leaning) average roughly 9 of the 18 policies, compared with around 13.5 for red (Republican leaning) and purple states (neither). Mississippi provides perhaps the most interesting case. Its sustained literacy reforms (including structured reading instruction, teacher training, early identification and intervention) have accompanied dramatic improvements in reading achievement... Of course, correlation isn't causation. Union strength and political control cannot explain every state, and the exceptions visible on this chart matter. But the broader question is worth asking: why should teaching children to read ever become an ideological or industrial-relations battlefield? Follow the evidence. Screen children early. Teach reading explicitly and systematically. Train teachers well. Intervene quickly when students fall behind. Measure whether reforms actually work. Australia should be watching these social experiments closely; particularly when boys continue to experience substantial reading and literacy gaps... Children get only one education. We should be willing to learn from any jurisdiction (left, right or centre) that is helping them succeed. Policy, not politics. Evidence, not ideology. Literacy first. #LiteracyFirst #ScienceOfReading #EducationReform #Literacy #BoysEducation #Teachers #Reading #Education #SchoolReform