How grievance-driven men’s rights activists undermine genuine survivors — and what institutions must do to stop them
Introduction: False Advocacy and the Credibility Crisis
In today’s fractured advocacy landscape, domestic violence survivors — especially men — face a crisis of credibility. The rise of grievance-driven rhetoric, particularly among “men’s rights” activists, has created a dangerous inversion: abusers now pose as victims, dominating public discourse and distorting public trust. Institutions meant to protect survivors often misread the signals. The cost is silence, alienation, and re-traumatization for those with real stories to tell.
When advocacy is hijacked by false narratives, the credibility of genuine victims is undermined. Media platforms amplify indignation instead of investigation. Oversight bodies dismiss testimony. Legal actors avoid uncomfortable truths. And in this void, survivors watch helplessly as their stories are drowned out by those who speak from grievance, not truth.
Not My Tribe: Rejecting Men’s Rights Activism
I never felt represented by the so-called “men’s rights” groups. Their tone has always struck me as defensive, not restorative — grievance-driven rather than grounded in truth. I’d read their claims, watched their commentary, and sensed something off: a pattern of false victimhood, sweeping generalisations, and hostility that didn’t reflect my experience of relationships, nor my values.
When I later experienced domestic violence, I was referred to male support services, but I hesitated. I didn’t trust those organisations that claimed to represent me. I feared being exposed to the same rhetoric I’d already seen online — spaces where victimhood was weaponised, not healed. I didn’t want to associate myself with any group that had “male” in its title or mission statement, because too often, those spaces felt hijacked by people who weren’t sharing in a restorative process — they were seeking vindication.
That sense of alienation shaped my initial response. I didn’t know where to turn, and I didn’t feel safe turning anywhere. And as I’ve come to understand more about the psychology of false victimhood — and the institutional failures that allow it to flourish — I’ve realised that my distrust wasn’t misplaced. It was protective.
The Narcissistic Playbook: False Victimhood as Manipulation
Psychological literature has long noted the connection between narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) and false victim narratives. A hallmark of NPD is the tendency to distort reality in ways that maintain personal control and deflect responsibility. Victimhood becomes not a cry for help, but a tool for manipulation — a shield against consequence.
NPD is statistically overrepresented among male perpetrators of domestic abuse. A study published in Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment found that narcissistic traits — particularly grandiosity and entitlement — are significantly correlated with intimate partner violence among men. These individuals often externalise blame and lack empathy, making them more likely to adopt a victim narrative when confronted with their own misconduct.
So when men with abusive histories — including court findings of violence, coercion, or vexatious litigation — position themselves as victims, we must consider not just what they say, but why they say it. Their messaging isn’t about recovery. It’s about retribution. It often comes cloaked in language about “men’s rights,” but beneath the surface, it’s grievance masquerading as principle. And when media platforms or advocacy networks fail to discern the difference, they become complicit in undermining real victims.
False Prophets and the Erosion of Credibility
Some self-proclaimed male victim advocates reveal more than they intend. Their tone is steeped in indignation, not healing — centred on what they believe they were denied, rather than what victims need restored. Their messaging tends to elevate “men’s rights” over gender-neutral policy reform, creating the impression that justice must be rebalanced in their favour rather than centred on a pursuit of truth grounded in objectivity and evidence.
One prominent example is Bettina Arndt, a commentator who has repeatedly platformed men with troubling histories. In 2018, she interviewed convicted paedophile Nicolaas Bester and framed him as a victim of feminist persecution — a move widely condemned by survivors and legal experts. Her “Fake Rape Crisis” university tour claimed that women fabricate sexual assault allegations to seek revenge, undermining institutional efforts to support genuine victims.
Whilst I have now personally experienced false allegations of sexual violence, I would never generalise this rare experience as representative or typical, nor promote the assumption that female victims should be considered with cynicism. People who report sexual violence must be listened to, and their claims investigated — irrespective of the gender of the person reporting. I reported, and was dismissed based on my gender. That should not happen to anybody.
Don’t reflexively believe all those who claim to be victims, but absolutely investigate all reports.
Despite these controversies, Arndt was awarded an Order of Australia in 2020 for “advocacy for men,” prompting calls for the honour to be revoked due to her failure to uphold a duty of care in public commentary.
Beyond individual cases, Australian media and advocacy platforms have documented how men’s rights groups — including the Men’s Rights Agency — have amplified narratives of false allegations and judicial bias while potentially omitting key facts about perpetrators’ conduct. A 2021 article in Crikey noted:
“A trawl through MRA sites shows all the usual disinformation about fake allegations of domestic violence, and embittered fathers being denied access to children. The reason the courts may have blocked their access is rarely — if ever — mentioned.”
These platforms have also promoted unfounded statistics — such as the claim that 21 fathers commit suicide each week due to family court decisions — which have been debunked by independent fact-checkers and researchers. When exaggerated claims about the prevalence of male suicide become a rhetorical weapon, the public health concern is undermined, and this messaging erodes the credibility of genuine advocacy.
The Australian Brotherhood of Fathers (ABF) is another example. ABF founder Leith Erikson and consultant Michael Jose have opposed coercive control legislation, describing it as “another tool to be used against men.” Their #21Fathers campaign has circulated discredited statistics, and their submissions to parliamentary inquiries have been challenged for relying on anecdotal claims. During a 2021 NSW parliamentary hearing, ABF representatives failed to substantiate their key assertions — including claims that domestic violence is “often female-instigated.”
Their messaging weaponises tragedy while omitting facts — discrediting male victims instead of representing them.
The Impact on Genuine Male Survivors
The fallout is profound. When abusers claim the mantle of advocacy, actual male survivors face increased scrutiny, disbelief, and rejection. Services grow reluctant. Media outlets become wary. Policymakers retreat from reform.
What’s worse, genuine survivors often feel alienated from the very groups claiming to represent them. Spaces become toxic. Conversations become polarised. And the possibility of healing — of justice — shrinks under the weight of misrepresentation.
Male survivors need support — not false prophets. Advocacy must be rooted in compassion for genuine trauma, accountability of institutions, objectivity of data, and truth. In place of that, we currently have performative claims of victimisation.
A Survivor’s Perspective on Coercive Control Legislation
As someone who has personally experienced the wrong end of coercive control, I can attest that the criminalisation of this behaviour is a vital reform — one that protects genuine victims regardless of gender. Coercive control is not about isolated incidents; it’s about sustained patterns of domination, fear, and psychological erosion. The new legislation in NSW and Queensland rightly recognises this, and I welcome its introduction.
The messaging of groups such as ABF and MRA doesn’t just distort public understanding — it actively undermines the credibility of reforms that could save lives. When these organisations oppose coercive control legislation, they risk silencing the very survivors they claim to represent.
I know this firsthand. I was dismissed by institutions because of my gender. That should not happen to anyone. And it’s precisely why we need laws — and advocates — that are trauma-informed, evidence-based, and inclusive.
The Real Cost of Neglect: Suicide and Male Victimhood
It’s important to understand the crisis of male suicide without distorting it through rhetorical claims or grievance-based messaging. It is a crisis, and needs no hyperbolic claims to justify research and policy action.
In 2022, 2,455 Australian males died by suicide — nearly 75% of all suicides that year. It remains the leading cause of death for men aged 15 to 44.
But unlike common assumptions, male suicide is often linked to situational stressors — not mental illness. These include relationship breakdowns, legal disputes, financial hardship, and institutional neglect. A 2024 report from the Coroner’s Court of Victoria found that one in four suicides involved a history of family violence — and in one-third of those cases, the deceased was a victim.
Male survivors of sexual abuse are particularly vulnerable: studies show they are ten times more likely to contemplate suicide in adulthood. Many wait decades to disclose, and when they do, they are often met with disbelief or dismissal.
This is not a rhetorical talking point. It’s a public health crisis. And when institutions fail to respond with trauma-informed care, they don’t just fail individuals — they contribute to preventable deaths.
Recognising Trauma-Adapted Victimhood
Not all male victims present with indignation or demands. Some arrive quietly — worn down by years of emotional erosion. Psychological literature suggests that men raised by mothers with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) may develop patterns of self-suppression, emotional caretaking, and tolerance for abuse in adult relationships.
These men often excuse harmful behaviour from female partners, internalise blame, and give chance after chance until they reach a breaking point. They are the inverse of the narcissistic false victim: not grievance-driven, but trauma-adapted.
Institutions must learn to distinguish these presentations.
Institutional Reform and Public Accountability
Institutions must do better. The burden of discernment should not fall on the public alone. Credibility should be safeguarded by police, courts, lawyers, and the media.
- Police must investigate, not stereotype. Victimhood should never hinge on tone, gender, or social status. Cases must be assessed through objective fact and evidence, not shortcut. There’s no substitute for real, old-fashioned shoe-leather investigation.
- Courts must protect credibility. Judges should have the power to restrict public advocacy following findings of abuse. Spokesperson status must be earned through truth — not performative indignation. Allowing someone found in court to be an abuser to continue in a public performative role, re-traumatises their victims each time they are platformed, and destroys the credibility of a broader class of victims too.
- Media must vet its experts. Commentators like Arndt undermine trust when they elevate abusers or spread misinformation. Journalists have a duty of care to survivors and the public alike.
- Lawyers must uphold ethical standards — and oversight bodies must enforce them. As discussed in my previous articles, when lawyers refuse to hear clients, act against instructions, or insist on silence based only on the gender of their client, they obstruct justice. The Office of the Legal Services Commissioner must investigate contradictions, speak to witnesses, and answer foundational questions. Accepting without scrutiny the account of those they are charged with policing is not oversight — it’s complicity.
Without reform, institutions risk perpetuating harm. Without scrutiny, they risk amplifying it. And without courage, genuine survivors will continue to be silenced while perpetrators dominate and discredit the policy debate.
A Path Forward
What’s needed is simple and hard:
- Diligence to investigate all victims’ reports;
- Integrity to call out falsehood;
- Commitment to support those suffering, whatever their gender.
Real survivors aren’t demanding vengeance. They’re asking to be heard. It’s time we listen — and time we stop giving microphones to those who speak from grievance rather than authenticity.
Disclaimer:
This article reflects the author’s personal experience, informed opinion, and interpretation of publicly available sources. It is published in good faith to advance public discourse on advocacy ethics, institutional accountability, and support for survivors. Commentary on individuals and organisations is based on documented public conduct, direct observation, or fair comment on matters of public interest. It is not intended to cause harm, but to highlight patterns of concern and promote reform. Readers are encouraged to engage critically and assess all views in context.