On January 20, 2026, I published an essay titled, “Backlash Against the Backlash: Feminists Reveal Their 2026 Playbook.” 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.” 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.”

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, 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’.” The article was written by Steven Roberts and Stephanie Westcott—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 of nonconforming voices, and they are spinning data and pushing out propaganda 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, 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. 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, 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.” 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 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 and who read the Foreign Affairs article 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. 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