Disagree, men have loads of support and avenues to turn to when the need arises. Starting with the men's shed and men only clubs/associations/the legal fraternity/the old boys club.

It's when they are prevented from spousal abuse/child abuse and the like that we get this, poor me whinging, from a former pollie who crossed the line in a big way in the Senate. And is now trying in a backhand way, I believe, to justify his obnoxious, beyond the pale, unacceptable behaviour.
Alan B.

Perhaps you could enlist the character featured here as a role model
http://godblesstheusabible.com

Or the dreadfully sane talking heads both male & female listed here:
http://digital.cpac.org/speakers-dc2024

Or maybe even Scott Morrison?

This character would be an excellent role model too!
http://wethepeoplebible.com
Nearly fell off my chair laughing when I came across it, but unfortunately it is not at all funny.

Plus this assessment of Orange Jesus.
Trump lacks any shred of human decency, humility or caring. He is morally bankrupt, breathtakingly dishonest, lethally incompetent, and stunningly ignorant of virtually anything related to governing, history, geography, human events or world affairs. He is a traitor and a malignancy in our nation and represents a clear and present danger to our democracy and the rule of law.

We need an educational system for children, overseen by Bear Grills. One teaching perseverance at its core.
One teaching pride in self achievement and a recognition aligned to human values and achievable aims.
One teaching the benefits of failure as a character builder, and an enlightened and spiritually motivated engine to power personal achievement, underscored with community wellbeing as a reward for all.
And finally, one with a firm grasp of the true meaning to the teachings of leadership qualities by Arnold Schwarzenegger; viz a vie, “there is no plan B”!

Daffy Duck, conspicuous by their non inclusion on the CPAC speakers 'guest list' are Josef Goebells, John Howard and Rupert Murdoch. I'm sure they'd have lots to say about democracy, human rights and many other topical issues of our times. Sadly today we see history repeating itself, the lead up to another global conflict looming on the horizon and the state of mens issues taking a very badly upholstered back seat to those folks of the LGQTABC variety whose struggles are very real...at least in their own minds. Today in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth or Hobart there would be a total of 10 places of refuge that a male, parent (let's say "heterosexual" father) could go to at short notice in the event of family breakdown...e.g. family violence/domestic violence perpetrated against them by the female partner/parent. This situation is seldom ever mentioned by the researchers, simply because the dialogue is not there. The Psychology, Law, and Sociology faculties of every university or campus of learning are not funded by folks who want the general public to know there is a disproportionate number of offences by females. The "facts" are skewed by omitting relevant data to show Wimmins issues, Gay issues, LGQT...72 flavours of ABC/SBS propaganda and the policies, laws and such ensure they get the maximum air time and votes.

Here's a thought, do you think introducing 'respect' by all, as a social element might lower social conflict?

A good and well informed article. However rather than asking for more people to stand up for men, we simply need to get rid of bad laws.
• What is the reasoning for post-divorce spousal support laws? Don’t we live in an age of equality when everyone has rights that exist with commensurate responsibilities?
• Often deciding who gets custody of the children can be a judgement of Solomon, but when told that you miss out (except for every second weekend) and then get the bill for their full maintenance, it does seem extra harsh. Why not even out the suffering by changing the law such that whomever wins custody also get the bills, or at least proportional to how much custody time they get.
• People who go to court claiming they have been bullied, or discriminated against, or sexually harassed, often get taxpayer funded legal aid. This creates a ‘nothing to lose’ environment for the claimant, no matter who weak their case may be. Why not abolish all legal aid except for serious criminal prosecutions, leaving it to legal firms to represent clients for a percentage of the damages?