NCFM Helps Major Women Event Avoid Major $$ Sanctions

March 31, 2011
By

Sea Otter Classic - women free, men $10 - not anymore.

NCFM was made aware of the Sea Otter Classic, a major annual event in Monterey, California. Their promotional materials said, “Ladies Day is for all females—adults and children… a free Festival Pass for all women and girls, providing them entry to the Sea Otter Expo and other Festival areas at no charge…” Men and boys over the age of 12 had to pay $10 admission.

One of our National Coalition For Men volunteer attorneys, Al Rava, researched the issue. We then sent the Sea Otter Classic a letter ( 110321 ltr to Sea Otter Classic re Unruh and sex discrimination ) advising them that charging men for something women received for free was a violation of several California laws.

For example, the Unruh Act establishes $4,000 sanctions for each violation. Each of the 37 sponsors and the event organizers may have been liable. If just two males over the age of 12 were discriminated against and sued the Sea Otter Classic and its sponsors sanctions could have been as high as $340,000 plus attorney fees.

Within days we received a response from their attorney ( 110323 NCFM Unruh ltr from Sea Otter Classic Attorneys ) . He assured us that men would not pay a higher fee than women.

Local media took an interest in the story including the Monterey County “The Herald” in the article Men’s group balks at Sea Otter Classic Ladies’ Day, and in the KSBW Action News 8 story Controversy Over Sea Otter Classic’s “Ladies Day”. The Herald story even showed up on Yahoo News.

This looks like a great event. I’m hoping to attend. If you’re in the area you might consider attending too.

Imagine if a class action suit had been filed. You do the math. Considering what was at risk I’ll keep checking the mail box for thank you letters from all the sponsors…

Harry Crouch

President, NCFM

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • Orkut
  • Twitter

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

117 Responses to NCFM Helps Major Women Event Avoid Major $$ Sanctions

  1. Ray on April 13, 2011 at 6:52 AM

    kira said, "…if, say, a hula dancing studio wanted to offer a free class to men in order to attract more men, i would say “bravo!” and i think most “feminist organizations” would too. they have more important issues to worry about."

    Your ignorance of CA case law is showing. In the 1970s, there were stories on every week, involving one prominent feminist attorney, suing every imaginable enterprise that did not offer the same goods and services to women that were offered to men. After decades of those kinds of lawsuits, most businesses have learned not to discriminate against women. And "yes," local feminist organizations voiced their support of her.

  2. Judge William S. Can on April 11, 2011 at 2:58 AM

    I am sure Matt would love to become a female bicycle seat for every women. Women get to free load all the time and it doesn't add and grow the sport. Look at how many women sign up because it is free and how many are no shows because it is not costing them anything!

    • kira on April 11, 2011 at 1:21 PM

      "judge", please explain this statement. you are, again, showing your ignorance. bike racing is NOT free, it is in fact very expensive. there are never real bike races with free entry (the sea otter expo is just that, an expo, not a race. and there is no "sign up" at an expo). in bike racing (which is what this expo is promoting) women pay the same entry fee as men, and often do not get as much prize $$.

      and it has been mentioned here before, but in case you missed it, women did not ask for free entry to this event. the promoters and sponsors offered it to attract more women. if, say, a hula dancing studio wanted to offer a free class to men in order to attract more men, i would say "bravo!" and i think most "feminist organizations" would too. they have more important issues to worry about.

      • kira on April 12, 2011 at 11:02 AM

        no explanation. that's about what i figured. please stick to topics you know something about and leave us cyclists alone.

        • Marc A on April 13, 2011 at 4:10 AM

          "i would say “bravo!”

          Fair enough. If you apply your belief across the board, then I respect your consistency. It's the hypocrisy I mainly oppose. So I trust you have gone or will go to the feminist sites and criticize them for having sued salons and dry cleaners for giving men discounts.

          But meanwhile, feminist lawsuits have gotten rid of virtually all male discounts while there are still lots of female discounts (we find them all the time in car washes, bars, restaurants, sporting events, etc.). And that is a double standard. So even putting aside the belief of many that this feeds into larger forms of anti-male discrimination, the double standard by and of itself is wrong. So NCFM supports enforcing the law.

          And thankfully, when a man named Dennis Koire was discriminated against and brought Ladies' Nights discounts all the way to the California Supreme Court, the court unanimously agreed with our position. Justice Rose Bird wrote a decision supported by all other justices – conservatives and liberals alike – finding Ladies' discounts are illegal, unfair, harmful *per se*, and spread sexist stereotypes. They held:

          "Men and women alike suffer from the stereotypes perpetrated by sex-based differential treatment. When the law emphasizes irrelevant differences between men and women, it cannot help influencing the content and the tone of the social, as well as the legal, relations between the sexes. … As long as organized legal systems . . . differentiate sharply, in treatment or in words, between men and women on the basis of irrelevant and artificially created distinctions, the likelihood of men and women coming to regard one another primarily as fellow human beings and only secondarily as representatives of another sex will continue to be remote. When men and women are prevented from recognizing one another's essential humanity by sexual prejudices, nourished by legal as well as social institutions, society as a whole remains less than it could otherwise become."

          Koire v. Metro Car Wash (1985) 40 Cal.3d 24, 34-35.

          Thank you, Your Honors. NCFM rests. We will continue to enforce the law and end the sex-based female discounts, despite the reactionaries, and we will continue opposing the larger forms of anti-male discrimination as well (child custody, etc.). To us, it all matters.

          • kira on April 13, 2011 at 7:00 AM

            "So I trust you have gone or will go to the feminist sites and criticize them for having sued salons and dry cleaners for giving men discounts"

            no i have not, and i don't plan to. it's not something i am passionate about. bike racing is. i only stumbled upon this site because of the sea otter bike festival debacle, and, having done a lot of volunteer work in the cycling community to bring more equality into the sport of bike racing, (and also having raced at sea otter in the past) it upset me to see someone's hard work in that arena go to waste.

            futhermore, my dry cleaner and hair salon charges more for cleaning women's shirts and cutting women's hair, so it doesn't seem that much has changed.

            the fact that so many male cyclists have come here and stated that they don't need or want your help should tell you that you are barking up the wrong tree. but what's done is done, the bike festival is this weekned, and i will be anxiously awaiting harry crotch's festival report, since he claimed he will be attending. (yeah, right)

          • Marc A. on April 13, 2011 at 7:37 AM

            I don't agree that they have to use sex-based pricing to get more women to ride. There are alternative ways to encourage women to ride, like having a free women's ride. In fact, Sea Otter is bragging about how they're having women's day anyway, just without the discrimination. So nobody's work has gone to "waste" just because men will get to ride for free as well.

            I'm not surprised at all if a number of men are going there chivalrously saying they don't need NCFM's help. Men also supported the male-only draft, discrimination against fathers and other forms of discrimination. In fact I'm willing to bet male judges give men higher sentences than women more often than female judges do. It's part of men's nature and social conditioning to accept sex discrimination against them.

            If your salon charges women more regardless of hair length, then they just haven't been sued yet. I'm informed there is a major suit right now pending against Mastercuts for doing exactly that.

          • Marc A. on April 13, 2011 at 9:35 AM

            Sorry, I had to add something to this. As I understand it, the alleged reason for the discriminatory pricing was to encourage more women to ride because many women are intimidated when riding with men. That means the purpose of the higher price for men was so there would be less men, and thus women wouldn't feel intimidated. Ok. So if so many men are now saying they don't need NCFM's help, why is there any problem? If those men are so supportive of the discrimination, why don't they just not ride? To whatever extent allowing men to ride free would actually thwart the purpose of the discriminatory pricing (as you way, "go to waste"), then it's not true these men are so supportive of the discrimination. Why are they riding at all on Ladies' Day if they're so supportive of the discrimination? It doesn't seem to make sense to say, on the one hand, that it's important to have less men there in order to get more women to participate, and on the other hand that so many men are coming along saying they don't need NCFM's help. If that's true, then allowing men to ride for free doesn't hurt the purpose at all, and I don't understand how anyone's work was "wasted" at all, or even slightly hurt at all. It seems to me a win-win situation – men can ride free, the discrimination is eliminated, there is still a Ladies' Day event, and few men will ride because they're so supportive of the Ladies' Day purpose.

  3. Ray on April 9, 2011 at 4:03 AM

    "Marc, you don’t have to be a complete douche. The NCFM pissed off a lot of women who had the best intentions. The promoters were trying to encourage women to join in…"

    Hey Matt, encouraging women to freeload, while men have to pay is a very bad idea. If that "pissed off" a lot of women, that doesn't speak very highly of those women now does it? I'd hardly call their motivations "the best of intentions."

  4. Ray on April 8, 2011 at 7:27 AM

    Fat times said: “Might as well put forth an effort to stop the manufactures from making female specific bikes and accessories.”

    Why, are those manufacturers forbidding men from buying women’s bicycles, or women from buying men’s bicycles? I think not. Whoever has the cash can buy either to their hearts content.

    As far as non gendered categories in competitive events, have you ever heard of the feminist term “gender norming,” where women are spotted distance, or time, over men in golf tournaments, or marathons, respectively. Now that’s sexist and hypocritical, given how feminists say women are men’s physical equals in ability. Feminists’ "gender norming" is not leveling the playing field, it’s tilting the playing field in an overt, sexist manner, and admitting that women have less ability to compete with men as a group. In your calling attention to separate competitive categories you seem to be making the feminists' argument that women don't have the ability to compete with men equally.

  5. fat.tires on April 8, 2011 at 3:56 AM

    NCFM – did you guys see they have women only racing women and men only racing against men? That's way more crazy than women getting in for free. Harry, please make it so men compete against women. We are all people, all equal – no gender bias. Might as well put forth an effort to stop the manufactures from making female specific bikes and accessories.

    Who the heck funds you guys?

    • Marc A on April 8, 2011 at 4:21 AM

      Generally, having separate teams isn't something NCFM cares about as long as the men's team isn't being treated unequally. That's not the same as making only men pay for something, which treats men unequally. A men's and women's team is like separate restrooms, separate education, etc. But sometimes people come to NCFM with complaints about there being an all-female team but not an all-male team. That happened at a park in Los Angeles once, where a kids baseball leage had an all-female team and a co-ed team but no all-male teacm. That's similar to letting girls play on boys' teams but not the vice versa, or letting female sports reporters into the men's locker room but not letting male sports reporters into the female locker room. That treats men unequally.

      As for funding, well so far we're funded by alot of individual donations, the Combined Federal Campaign for nonprofits, and a few small grants.

    • Mary Anne on April 8, 2011 at 4:44 AM

      I would think NCFM would have no problems with same sex sports teams, as long as male and female fans are welcome to attend competitions (games) for such sports teams, and pay the same price for admission into such events. Regarding female-specific bikes and accessories, I would also think NCFM would have no problem with this, as long as men and women could purchase them and if so, for the same price. Just like NCFM does not have a problem with companies that make dresses or tampons, as long as men and women are allowed to purchase them (e.g., for their spouses) and are charged the same price.

      • Marc A on April 8, 2011 at 4:48 AM

        That's exactly right MA. I'm glad you get it. If you're not yet an NCFM member I invite you to join.

        • Mary Anne on April 8, 2011 at 10:39 AM

          I would love to Marc, but my boss Steve Martin would kill me if he found out.

    • Ray on April 8, 2011 at 7:19 AM

      "Might as well put forth an effort to stop the manufactures from making female specific bikes and accessories."

      Why, are those manufacturers forbidding men from buying women's bicycles, or women from buying men's bicycles? I think not. Whoever has the cash can buy either to their hearts content.

      As far as non gendered categories in competitive events, have you ever heard of the feminist term "gender norming," where women are spotted distance, or time, over men in golf tournaments, or marathons, respectively. Now that's sexist, given how feminists say women are men's physical equals in ability. Feminists' gender norming is not leveling the playing field, it's tilting the playing field in an overt, sexist manner, and admitting that women have less ability to compete with men as a group. You seem to be making that argument, supporting that argument, for feminists in your posting.

  6. Mike on April 7, 2011 at 1:02 PM

    This is just sad, the sport of mountain biking is 85 to 90% male. Programs like this are created to share this great sport with females, and guess what, that is great news for guys. The more girls out on the trails the better. I can't believe this so called coalition for men gets programs like this shut down. As a male mountaing biker, I can think of nothing better than meeting some good looking girls out on the trail.

    • Marc A on April 7, 2011 at 1:22 PM

      Nobody shut anything down. NCFM simply asked notified them of the law. Do you really think there won't be lots of girls riding anyway on Ladies' Day? Somehow now that men can ride free that means there won't be lots of girls? It's still called Ladies' Day, and it's still promoted as an event for women. You'll be fine. And to those men who are so angry about equal rights, well if you ride on Ladies' Day then just pay the $10 voluntarily out of spite for NCFM. That will show NCFM you mean business.

    • Mary Anne on April 7, 2011 at 10:32 PM

      Mike, nothing was shut down. Instead, Sea Otter's former plan to charge boys and men $10 to enter the festival and exhibition on what was then called "Ladies' Day" was changed so that patrons were not charged admission acccording to their sex. That is, now everyone gets in free, not just females whose incomes are greater or less than males.

      And I have no doubt someone with your reading comprehension skills can think of nothing better than meeting some good looking girls out on a desolate mountain trail.

  7. Alex Fredrick on April 7, 2011 at 10:30 AM

    NCFM, is doing great work in the community!

    The Sea Otter Classic should be thanking the National Coalition for Men for helping them not commit a crime in gender discrimination and saved them from a costly legal claim.

    If people only knew how destructive gender discrimination is we would stop this big mess and treat men and women equal!

    • copel118 on April 7, 2011 at 2:30 PM

      do you know anything about cycling?

      almost all higher end product was geared towards men until about 10 years ago. Getting women into the sport is one of the best things that happened to cycling. Honestly, because they were letting women in for free that day and having a ladies after you guys really felt the need to stop that? You know how many 'female only' bike rides leave from from bike shops every week in California? Why don't you guy go and stop everyone of those too while you're at it.

      As a man I am ashamed of this organization, what you do, think, and what baseless ideals you stand for.

      • Mary Anne on April 7, 2011 at 10:37 PM

        Copell, women will still ride for free on Sea Otter's "Ladies Activities Day," but so will boys and men, and I don't see how that will discourage women from riding or generally getting involved in cycling. And if you feel so bad about the former sex-based price disparity now being equal pricing no matter what your sex, then why don't you mail one or more $10 contributions to the Sea Otter Classic.

      • Marc A on April 8, 2011 at 12:59 AM

        "do you know anything about cycling?"

        I certainly enjoy mountain biking in my local mountains. But that's about it.

        "Honestly, because they were letting women in for free that day and having a ladies after you guys really felt the need to stop that?"

        No. Letting women in for free is fine. Just let the men in free too. The sex discrimination is not ok, and it's illegal.

        "You know how many ‘female only’ bike rides leave from from bike shops every week in California? Why don’t you guy go and stop everyone of those too while you’re at it."

        To my knowledge, a female-only bike ride is not illegal if it's just a volunteer event that's not charging any money. Same for a male-only bike ride. It's a whole different thing when you start charging money.

  8. Brando Fontaine on April 7, 2011 at 6:58 AM

    Matt are you really a guy or some gay fe-ME-nist. You make fun of people that are fighting for rights and equality. You seem to be ok that are rights are being stolen and only care if it is politically correct. Just wait until Sharia Law comes to Amerika and your smeckel vagina is branded shut!

    • Matt on April 7, 2011 at 7:44 AM

      Wow, you and Marc are really angry. Good luck in life Brando. Keep fighting that fight…

      • Marc A on April 7, 2011 at 1:47 PM

        Angry? What did I say that makes you think I'm angry, Matt? I'm not angry one bit. I actually love seeing reactionaries come on here every once in a while like this. I'm absolutely amused by the furor.

        Of all the work NCFM does on things like paternity fraud, male DV victims, etc., the two things that bring the most anger from people are Unruh Act work and anytime we cite data on the high rate of false rape accusations. Some people come here and just respectfully disagree, and I respect that and when I have time I respectfully debate it with them.

        But what is so amusing, and I mean that sincerely, is the people who become so outraged and furious when all NCFM did was inform an event about the law, nothing more. NCFM said "hey, this is illegal." And it was nothing more than equal rights, a very simple concept. And somehow a certain number of people explode in anger, or react with name-calling, put-downs, hate, lame accusations, and all the same type of hype that comes from feminists when you talk about false rape accusations or refute the "pay gap."

        That's what I find so amusing. I love to respectfully debate the issue with people though I often don't have the time to keep coming back. But for those who react with such furor over a simple thing like equal rights, that is what is truly, incredible amusing.

        In one of our lawsuits, we brought this all the way to the CA Supreme Court and won (Angelucci v. Century Supper Club.) In other lawsuits, we have seen different judges go different directions. One judge pulled out the law and read the other side the Koire v. Metro Car Wash case in which the CA Supreme Court unanimously held that sex-based Ladies Nights and Ladies Day discounts spread sexual stereotypes and are illegal. In another case, the judge didn't read the law but just reacted in anger said, "this case was designed to pull at the heartsrings of the American public!" He later settled down after learning the law. But anyway, he was right. It IS designed to pull at the heartstings of the American public, because the American public is still not used to seeing men demand equal rights. Men are supposed to be chivalrous and just take it when they're treated unequally. That's what the military draft, criminal sentencing disparities, anti-father legislation and other discrimination is all about. Be a man and take it. And that's partly what all the reactionary furor is about. That's why they challenge our manhood and make all kinds of silly put-downs, thinking it hurts us in some way. But we all know that comes with the territory. The reactionaries will always be there. And it's really amusing to see.

        On the other side of the coin, NCFM members are certainly not the only ones who speak out about this stuff. Men in Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Missouri, Washington, D.C., Wisconsin, Illinois, New Jersey and other states are objecting to female-only and ‘Ladies' Nights’ discounts, either through courts or state civil rights commissions. (‘Ladies’ Night, R.I.P.; The Curious Campaign Against Free Booze for Girls,’ http://www.chiprowe.com/articles/ladies-night-rip.html )

        Radio Host Tom Leykis has spoken out strongly against Ladies' Nights discounts as well.

        In 2004, New Jersey’s Director of Civil Rights announced that female-only discounts violate the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. (‘Ladies Night’ Discount Axed in New Jersey Bars,” Associated Press, Yahoo News, June 2, 2004.)

        Findlaw’s legal commentator Joanna Grossman publicly objected to Ladies' Nights discounts, stating: ‘Regardless of stereotypes, it is simply unfair to charge people different prices for the same product because of some immutable characteristic like gender. Most sex-specific prices disadvantage women – dry cleaning and haircuts, to give two examples – but ones that disadvantage men are unfair as well.’ (“The End of Ladies’ Night in N.J.,” Findlaw Legal Commentary, June 15, 2004, http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20040615.ht… .)

        One blogger, in a four-page objection to female-only discounts, stated: ‘The issue is important and it is unfair to men, especially men who are not making all that much money, that is the men we do not like to consider much. . . . This type of discrimination would have died years ago had it been discrimination against women in American bars, and the world would have heard a good deal of greasy wheel about it and would have cheered the proceedings.’ (‘Kiss Ladies Night Goodbye: Not the Poor Boys,’ Robert Babbitt, 10/24/03, San Diego Indymedia.)

        Another blogger, who took a similar position, stated: ‘In the end, it doesn’t really matter if it’s a win-win situation, because it’s that the laws be applied consistently, and it has consistently held that gender-based discrimination in the sale of alcohol is unconstitutional.’ (“Ladies night is unconstitutional,” The Calico Cat, A Blog.)

        • Matt on April 8, 2011 at 12:18 AM

          "I often don’t have the time to keep coming back"

          Clearly…

          The point you are sadly missing is that this event wasn't intended to be some ladies night at a bar, where male promoters attempt to fill a club with women with the intention of attracting more men which all means more profit. This event was a way to introduce women to a male dominated sport, some times with men who can be intimidating.

          There are women out there that don't feel comfortable participating in coed sports for a variety of reasons. The hope was that offering one free day of admission to womens only events might entice women to try something they'd never considered before; a healthy activity which gets people outdoors.

          Out of curiosity, how do places like Curves which are women only get away with not allowing men? I'm not asking to be argumentative, but purely out of a lack of understanding of the issues you are clearly passionate about. I only ask because I feel like what the Sea Otter Classic was trying to promote seemed similar in comparison; offering women an activity where they can feel comfortable without worrying about being concerned about looking silly in front of men (falling off their bike, how they might look in tight fitting clothing, etc.).

          • Marc A on April 8, 2011 at 12:53 AM

            To me, the difference between the night clubs and the event misses the point. The event was going to charge men for participating. That makes it a public accomodation and business establishment subject to anti-discrimination laws. They could hold a free event that doesn't charge anyone, and have an ride for only women and perhaps another for only men. But as soon as you're charging one sex but not the other, it's discrimination in a business establishment.

            The "domination" argument just doesn't fly well with me, though I do understand it. As I mentioned before, when I go to hula dance classes with my gf, I'm often the only male, and it can be somewhat intimidating, but if they started giving a discount only to males, that would be discriminatory, and I'm sure some women would object to it. Again, feminist groups passed the Gender Tax Repeal Act to stop that very kind of thing. I believe men's groups should utilize that very act too. I think it's very hypocritical for anyone to suggest that only women should, or to only get angry at men's groups for it.

            As for Curves, it is illegal for them to discriminate in CA (I can't speak for other states, it varies). And a number of men, including some NCFM members, have sued them for it or reported them to the DFEH. The DFEH has itself sued them for it. Some Curves will allow men in because they know they have to. We have seen at least one case where they allowed the man to work out there but they mistreated him for it and made him uncomfortable. Some women made angry remarks toward him and called him names. When he entered the weight room area they would announce that a "man" is entering.

  9. Judge William S. Can on April 7, 2011 at 3:53 AM

    I, Judge William S. Cannon declare that women in the United States have more rights and priviledges than men plus have more free programs designed for them such as more schloarships, free housing, child care services, food programs, free health care, free food and free gifts from men.

    Effective immediately, I will cut off my penis and become a women so that I can enjoy all the free benefits offered only to women and not men.

    So ordered.

    Signed,

    William S. Cannon, Judge

    • copel118 on April 7, 2011 at 2:38 PM

      You know they would have the same rights as you if you actually treated them that equally. Maybe they would get the same rights if Dad's didn't run out on pregnant mother, if there weren't so many single mother as compared to single dads, if women didn't need to fight hard for their own rights, and damn right women receive gifts from me. With all the stuff my wife and other women in my life do for me they deserve far more than i could ever buy for them.

      I do hope all the men who actually believe in this site cut off their dicks so that they never make another life like them.

      • Marc A on April 8, 2011 at 9:57 AM

        "if Dad’s didn’t run out on pregnant mother, if there weren’t so many single mother as compared to single dads, if women didn’t need to fight hard for their own rights, and damn right women receive gifts from me"

        Well, maternal gatekeeping is a big factor in the dad shortage.
        http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/health/03dads.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19092063/ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12451975796932122

        So is anti-father gender bias in family courts that make dads into visitors and wallets. See, Cynthia McNeeley, “Lagging Behind the Times, Parenthood, Custody and Gender Bias in the Family Court,” http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/254/...

        According to an Urban Institute study entitled “What About the Dads?”, CPS attempted to contact fathers of children at risk in their mothers care only a little over half the time, even though they knew the father’s identity in 86% of cases. http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/06/cw-involve-dads/rs.htm

        In many parts of the world, discrimination against fathers is still *explicit* in the laws. Germany, Japan and Ireland are a few examples. The European Court of Human Rights recently had to intervene on behalf of unmarried fathers who were given no rights over their kids.
        http://www.thelocal.de/society/20101221-31945.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8395456.stm http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/36959398/ns/today-p

        And dads are often denied equal rights to take parental leave and are stigmatized for taking it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8149http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2009/12/02/1245d8f...

        And despite strong negative stereotypes against teen fathers, research shows most teen dads are anxious to participate in parenting, and that 82% are reported to have daily contact with their children, 74% contributed to the child's financial support, and almost 90% maintained a relationship with the mother.

        "Teenage Fathers: The Missing Father Myth," Time Magazine, 6/21/05
        http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1074862,00.html

        Another thing we never hear about when we say things like "so many single mothers instead of single dads" is the amount of control women have over the entire reproductive process plus over the child altogether. Even before conception women have far more contraceptive choices than men. Then at conception women have the morning after pill, then they have abortion, which is entirely their own choice. Then after birth, if they're not married to the dad, they have almost total control over whether the child is adopted (not to mention safe house abandonment). When you factor all of those things, of *course* there will be more single mothers than fathers, and more unwanted children born to dads than moms, because after the child's birth mom had lots of choices and dads had none. That is not in any way to excuse deadbeat parents, of either sex, but it does put the disparity into more light. It isn't so much that dads are worse people, but rather who has more options when it comes to birth and reproduction rights.

        There is also data showing that, of separated dads who have jobs and have access to their kids, over 80% pay their child support in full, while only 5% don't pay at all. I don't have the data with me but it's cited in Cathy Young's book "Ceasefire! How Men and Women Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality."

        Consider this 17 year old kid who just had a baby and *wants* to raise his kid. But mom put the child up for adoption. Dad filed a parentage action on the very day the child was born. But since he wasn't married to the mom, the courts gave him no rights unless he proved that he did things during the marriage like buy mom things related to the pregnancy. The testimony was disputed, but the court put the child in foster care because it found dad didn't do all those things. He had bought furniture and clothing for the child, but the court said he should have given that to the foster parents. Amazing isn't it? Had he done that they would have said he didn't care to be the dad. They would not have taken the child from the mother for being immature during pregnancy. They never found he was abusive or bad for the kid. It was totally gender biased. http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/investigations/112919...

        Whoever says we don't need a men's and fathers' rights movement is out of their minds. That's fine if people want to disagree about the Unruh Act, and that's fine if they even want to go into childish name-calling antics about it. But we absolutely need a men's rights movement, and again that's why MRA movements are growing all over the world. One of my favorites to watch is still this Men's Rights march in Mexico City.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZcIL93nTOY

        And of course our friends in India.

        http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/city/chanhttp://www.telegraphindia.com/1090817/jsp/nation/story_1... http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/harass... struggle-against-biased-laws_100232981.html

      • Ray on April 8, 2011 at 9:31 AM

        copel118:

        You ignorance, vulgarity, and call for violence are appalling and despicable. Approximately 2/3 of divorces are filed by women and approximately 80% of women get primary custody of the children. Yes, the divorce industry incentivizes the dissolution of marriage and many unscrupulous women take full advantage of it. Being the fair minded, reasonable person you think you are, do you also advocate that women who run out on their spouses cut off their sex organs so they never make another life like them? Shame on you.

  10. Matt on April 7, 2011 at 4:45 AM

    This is clearly a very serious legal issue. You must be friends with this guy:

    http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-v

  11. Don Silva on April 7, 2011 at 3:34 AM

    NCFM, thankyou for being the sounding board. It is funny when more men are unemployed than women, less men are able to graduate from college because they lack the funds to pay for school, and the current environment of a government that gives women every opportunity to earn more than men. I believe this Otter Festival letting women in free is a step back and an insult for women. If women want to be treated equal, they should simply pay what men pay and stop demanding all the freebies and stuff that men aren't getting.

    I believe the prior commenter are just a bunch of fools for believe that only men should pay and women get in free or they are oppressors or women haters that don't want women equal.

    • Roger Williams on April 7, 2011 at 5:53 AM

      A mountain biking event gives breaks to women and juniors to attract more of them to the event as they are usually under represented. Women and Junior riders don't demand this benefit it is something that is done to grow the sport.

      Please learn all the facts as to why something is done before trying to write about it like you are an expert on the matter.

      • Marc A. on April 7, 2011 at 6:04 AM

        "A mountain biking event gives breaks to women and juniors to attract more of them to the event as they are usually under represented."

        Roger, nobody really disputes the reasons why the discrimination would have occured. By comparison, nobody disputes that when hair salons and dry cleaners charge women more than men, it's often to attract male customers because most of their customers are women. But women's groups still sued to stop it. They even passed the Gender Tax Repeal Act to end it. Do you criticize them for that? Or is it just the men's rights groups who are wrong for fighting this?

        • David Harris on April 8, 2011 at 3:45 AM

          The need for protection of males in child custody and DV cases is a great cause. This attack on growing a bike race does a huge disservice to your mission and undermines your legitimacy.

          An event like the SOC charges admission to pay for the event itself. If everyone got in for free, the event would cease to happen.

          Just as "hair salons and dry cleaners" would go out of business if they charged everyone the discounted rate.

          Is your argument truly that your actions are justified by the actions of "women's groups" of whom you obviously do not respect? Your "Well, the Gender Tax Repeal Act passed, so we're going to threaten to sue a bike race!" attitude is ridiculous. And on that subject, who is the "they" who passed the GTRA? Last I checked, that is handled by publicly elected officials, voted in to office in our great democracy… the same democracy that allows you to misfire your movement in such a poor manner.

          Get your focus back to the things that actually make a difference.

        • kira on April 8, 2011 at 4:20 AM

          marc and other NCFM loyalists: i agree that your organization has a few valid issues: custody issues, domestic violence against men (much rarer than dv against women, but still occurs), circumcision (much less brutal than the female circ that occurs in some cultures, but still a valid issue; and if we had a son, i would choose not to circumcise). all are worth fighting for. but this issue; and the skateboarding at the Y issue, and yeah the fight against ladie's night, are just plain dumb, and really make your organization look bad.

          and before you go into your tirade about "ALL the women's groups that fight against salons and dry cleaners charging more for women", let me just say that a)i think this is a dumb issue too, (b)my salon and dry cleaner DOES charge more for women, so obviously not much has changed and (c)that is their choice, and if i don't like it, i can take my biz elsewhere.

          suing bars that offer a ladies night is just ridiculous, and sure doesn't help the guys who gravitate to ladies night in hope of having, for once, more women than men at a bar. doesn't help the bar owners (predominantly male) either, so just who are you helping?

          how do you feel about price breaks for seniors, students, or children? isn't that age discrimination?

          you say that NCFM did a good thing by getting the festival to admit men for free as well, but that was not your doing- it was the festival promoters, who took the high road, when they could have also started charging the women admission as well, thus not attaining the goal of attracting more women to the sport. sadly, they are probably now losing a lot of money on this event, making it less likely to occur again, but i'm sure you don't care about that; and you actually don't give a rat's ass about the sport, or the men who you supposedly helped (who didn't want or need your help). your disparaging remarks about men in lycra tell me that much. oh, and here's an issue for you: in the pro/elite ranks of bike racing, prize money for men is usually quite a bit more than for women. and yes, we usually pay the same entry fee. you say that women are not underserved in the cycling community, but you really have no idea what you are talking about. there has been a lot of hard work in the past 5-10 years, by women and men in the cycling community, to turn this around, but there is still a long way to go.

          oh, and NCFM did nothing to help the boys or girls at the YMCA, since the Y now charges girls more, instead of charging boys less. that helps no one, including the Y, who will probably now see a decline in girls wanting to skate with the (probably more aggressive) boys.

          so it's time to admit that this issue of a bike festival trying to get women interested in the sport is just not an important one for NCFM, or anyone to fight against. it was a move strictly for publicity, but in this case it was bad publicity, and probably not worth your efforts. may i suggest sticking to the issues that ARE important, and leave us cyclists (and skateboarders, and bar owners) alone.

          • Marc A on April 8, 2011 at 4:41 AM

            "sure doesn’t help the guys who gravitate to ladies night in hope of having, for once, more women than men at a bar."

            Well, the more the Ladies' Night serves its purpose of bringing in more males (who pay for everything), the less it improves any "ratio" for males. I haven't seen any data on that either. But I don't see how that justifies discrimination. As I have said, that type of discrimination conditions men to accept discrimination even in larger areas.

            "how do you feel about price breaks for seniors, students, or children? isn’t that age discrimination?"

            Everyone goes through the age process, but race and gender are about people's birth groups. And elderly and minors are naturally less able to generate as much income for understandable reasons. One could say the same about student discounts too. For those and other reasons, including the history of discrimination by race and sex, the State of California has not made it illegal to give discounts based on age or student status.

            And NCFM doesn't address any of those issues, or even race. NCFM has a focus on men's rights issues. So, for instance, even though race discrimination is illegal, NCFM does not address it.

            I hope that answers your question.

            "you actually don’t give a rat’s ass about the sport, or the men who you supposedly helped (who didn’t want or need your help)"

            We give a rat's ass about discrimination against men, yes. As for men who don't care when they're discriminated against, that has historically been the case. Only a small number of males objected to the discrimination in the draft, to anti-father legislation, etc. as well. So what? That is not a good enough reason for us not to.

            "oh, and here’s an issue for you: in the pro/elite ranks of bike racing, prize money for men is usually quite a bit more than for women. and yes, we usually pay the same entry fee. you say that women are not underserved in the cycling community, but you really have no idea what you are talking about."

            If women are being underserved in the biking community, such as by getting a lower reward when all other factors are equal, then women's groups should raise that as an issue. That isn't a men's rights issue.

            "there has been a lot of hard work in the past 5-10 years, by women and men in the cycling community, to turn this around, but there is still a long way to go."

            Ok. There has also been alot of hard work in the past 5-10 years by women and men to turn anti-male discrimination around, and there is still a long way to go.

            "oh, and NCFM did nothing to help the boys or girls at the YMCA, since the Y now charges girls more, instead of charging boys less. that helps no one,"

            I see, so that means the discrimination was ok? If whites were getting a discount, and then minority groups objected, and then the whites no longer got a discount, would that men the objection "helped noone"? I disagree. Discrimination is wrong, and eliminating it is a good thing, period, regardless of whether the lower price was raised, or the higher one was dropped.

            "so it’s time to admit that this issue of a bike festival trying to get women interested in the sport is just not an important one for NCFM, or anyone to fight against. it was a move strictly for publicity, but in this case it was bad publicity, and probably not worth your efforts."

            I don't agree one bit. It was totally worth it. My gosh, you think we're so sensitive to backlashes and some bad publicity that we suddenly regret fighting discrimination? Very wrong. We've had backlashes many times before. It's actually alot of fun to see people turn into reactive kids and start name-calling just because we ask for equal rights. As I said, if it weren't happened, something would be wrong. And no, it's not about publicity. We had eradicated lots of discrimination without seeking publicity. Sometimes we notify media, and sometimes we don't. And of course that is just another put-down type of arguments that has nothing to do with the substance of the issue.

            "may i suggest sticking to the issues that ARE important, and leave us cyclists (and skateboarders, and bar owners) alone."

            You're not alone in that sentiment, but I disagree. I think they're all imporant, even if some are more important than others.

  12. James Bond on April 6, 2011 at 11:33 PM

    I can't take this seriously. I mean, come on, a grown man complaining about women getting free entry to a bike festival?

    Sounds like you need to talk to someone, there are clearly some major underlying issues which need be to addressed.

    This article is doing the rounds of bike forums (and others no doubt), and it's certainly putting a smile on everyones faces. That's from laughing AT you, not with you.

    • Mary Anne on April 7, 2011 at 12:06 AM

      Sounds like some men, and even some women, think the world should forever treat adult women as little girls and have their daddies pay for everything, instead of treating them as adults, equal to men, who genetically are capable of earning as much as men and therefore should be expected to pay the same as their equals for the same goods, services, and bike festivals. Women don't ride on the short bus anymore.

    • Marc A. on April 7, 2011 at 5:54 AM

      James, people always have laughed at activism for equal rights. I can't think of a single equal rights movement that wasn't ridiculed in its early stages and even onward. That's just part of the territory. When NCFM sued the State of California and state-funded domestic violence programs for discriminating against men, there was lots of that too. So what. It doesn't stop us at all. In fact our lawsuit was successful in the end and we overturned an unconstitutional law that excluded male victims. Every success, and fact even failures, bring reactionaries to us. We're used to it. If it wasn't happening, something would be wrong.

  13. KW on April 6, 2011 at 6:19 PM

    You have to understand that chauvinistic and bigoted people(people unable to see others as human beings first) lack self awareness. They can't see what is wrong because of their flawed upbringing.

    From their perspective it is like punishing a dog that urinated inside a day after the fact it happened. That is how ignorant they are, so speaking with them about their ignorance is pointless. The only thing they understand is punitive action for their displays of dehumanization.

    Look at how they refer to women as something other than a human being like you and me. Seems pretty pathetic but it is what it is.

  14. Ray on April 6, 2011 at 1:00 PM

    Thanks NCFM, for opposing discrimination against men.

    Some ignorant men are unaware of their vulnerability to discrimination and its wider ranging consequences. Many of those ignorant men are products of a flawed educational system that promotes the standard feminist lies. Many of those ignorant men are in relationships with women and think they are immune to the discrimination, oppression, and disposability that has destroyed the lives of so many good men. Those aforementioned ignorant men live in a fools paradise, where often they become aware of the reality of men's issues after they hit bottom with a resounding thud; after one, or more, of America's misandrist social institutions exercises one, or more, of the many misandrist injustices that exist in America.

    Unruh Act violations are the tip of an iceberg of misandrist discrimination against men, that exists in America today. Unruh Act violations are insidious misandrist discriminations that condition society to accept a wider range of misandrist discriminations that lower the quality of men's lives and shorten them. Oppressions against men are accepted in America society and add up to an epidemic of male carnage that would rock the halls of government if allowed to happen to women.

    By all means, lawsuits should be filed against every Unruh Act violation against men that exists, in my opinion. Those lawsuits shouldn't stop until all violations against men's human rights in America stop, and the hate movement know as gender feminism stops its war on males. NCFM's primary mission as a 501 (c)3 is to educate all, even ignorant males, and females.

    Please continue to do everything in NCFM's power to address the many discriminations and oppressions that exist against males in America today. Please continue, no matter how loudly a few ignorant males, and females, come screaming and shouting into an enlightenment, where all are treated with true equality, instead of just feminist lip service.

  15. Nick Buckley on April 6, 2011 at 8:53 AM

    Mate, your such a wanker. You really truly are, you have done no favours to mtb or to male rights. All you have served to do is belittle any good work you might have previously done and to alienate future generations of women away from my sport.

    Did your mother not show you enough affection? What is your problem. Why don't you use that intelligence and enthusiasm to fight a meaningful issue and not a second rate issue such as this.

    You prick

    • Marc A. on April 6, 2011 at 8:59 AM

      Oh you poor thing, Nick. I have alientated future generations away from "your sport" because now men can participate. Why that's such a shame. I can't believe I would do such a thing! How horrible! Maybe it's my mother's fault that I believe in equal rights and fight for it. That's it. I'm so bad that I can get an idiot pretending to be a Brit on here calling me a "wanker" and a "prick" and saying I have now alienated women from his sport.

      Get used to it, fake Brit boy! We're here to say! hahahaha!

      • kira on April 8, 2011 at 4:47 AM

        marc a. your sarcastic tone tells me that you are either not very emotionally mature (you're the VP of this org? really?) or are becoming very defensive as you slowly realize that perhaps this was not the best move for NCFM.

        your statement "now men can particiapte" is absurd. men have particiapted in this sport since it's inception, and it is only recently that there have been been women participating, because in the past there were not even women's races offered- if women wanted to race, they had to race with the men.

        right or wrong, many women feel initimidated while learning a new sport amongst men. they may feel embarrassed about their strength or skill, or how they look in tight clothing, or they may feel uncomfortable with the differences in size or aggression between men and women. i am not one of these, but i do respect and understand this feeling, and i do feel that there is still a need to reach out to these women.

        • Marc A on April 8, 2011 at 4:54 AM

          That's funny Kira because you didn't bother saying that about the sarcasm of those I'm respoding to, or for that matter to your own tone. It's just mine you have a problem with?

          And since when does sarcasm make someone emotionally immature?

          And how is your little put-down relevant to the issue again?

          "slowly realize that perhaps this was not the best move for NCFM."

          oh don't you WISH! Lol! I've been doing this for years and have seen plenty of this type of backlash, and I LOVE it!

          "your statement “now men can particiapte” is absurd. men have particiapted in this sport since it’s inception"

          Men can participate for *free* now, Kira. That's what I'm saying. I'm not sure how you aren't getting that.

          "right or wrong, many women feel initimidated …"

          Then how about having an event that doesn't charge. Have a separate even held by a nonprofit for a nonprofit purpose that does not charge anybody. That's not so hard. But if you're going to charge only men, that's illegal and discriminatory.

          I said it already, but I do hula dances with my gf, and I'm often the only male, and it can sometimes feel intimidating, but no I do not want a discount for being male, and women would rightly complain about it.

          • kira on April 8, 2011 at 1:55 PM

            marc, even your reaction to my saying you are sarcastic is, well, sarcastic. it's just not becoming to a VP, and tells me a lot. you're right, it is not necessarily relevant to the issue, but when you are trying to convince us of the SERIOUSNESS of this issue and you come off sounding like a complete sarcastic jerk, well that is yourself you are hurting, not me. some day when you are older and wiser you will understand what i mean.

            "oh don’t you WISH! Lol! I’ve been doing this for years and have seen plenty of this type of backlash, and I LOVE it!"

            well congrats to you, marc. you have made you org sound like a bunch of jerks, have only pissed off the people you say you were helping, and have started a firestorm over a non-issue.

            and please don't go comparing this SERIOUS ISSUE to race discrimnation, or the very real (female) gender discrimination that used to exist in this country, even though it is much less now. that is insulting to the people who suffered through it

            the fact remains that, though you are probably getting publicity, it is mostly negative, and you have helped no one.

            "Then how about having an event that doesn’t charge"

            so you are saying that they should make it a free event for women, and not allow men at all? somehow i think men would rather have the choice. c'mon marc, give it up, you know you don't care about this event or sport, you (and your org) are just trying to make a point.

    • Judge Cannon on April 6, 2011 at 9:35 AM

      In furtherance of his solidarity with the women in his sport, Nick's ride has a step-through frame.

      • kira on April 8, 2011 at 4:51 AM

        i really hope you are not really a judge, because you really sound like an immature, misogynistic jackass. step-through frame? those are not used in bike racing, so clearly you know nothing about this sport, and don't really care about any of the particiapnts, male or female.

    • Steve F on April 6, 2011 at 11:00 AM

      Right on Harry. Perhaps the event should have been called the 1462 AD Classic because thats the cro-magnon mentallity of anyone who would support such a gender biased activity in the modern age of "enlightenment" between the sexes.

  16. Paul on April 6, 2011 at 8:39 AM

    What friggin joke. All this just to get out of paying ten bucks. Buncha pussies!

    • Marc A. on April 6, 2011 at 8:41 AM

      Oh now don't change your name just to look like you're someone else. Don't be a pussy now, Paul. Pussy Paul. I like that! Is that why you changed your name, Pussy Paul?

  17. nicole on April 6, 2011 at 7:07 AM

    The fact this male sex descrimantion law event exists in such a way that could be applied in such a farsical manner really sums why the rest of the civilised world considers the USA a third world emotional black hole where fear of lawyers overrules common sense. Thank god you are in America and the rest of the civilised world is not.

  18. James on April 6, 2011 at 6:54 AM

    You guys are a joke, What a sad organisation. Be real men and harden up. Stop wasting everyone's time and money and do something useful with your lives ratehr than pupport some namby pamby idea that male sex desrimnation exists. What a joke.

    • Marc A. on April 6, 2011 at 8:25 AM

      Right. It doesn't exit.

      That's why the European Court of Human Rights recently intervened on behalf of unmarried fathers in Germany because they were given no rights over their kids.
      http://www.thelocal.de/society/20101221-31945.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8395456.stm

      That's why dads in Japan, UK etc. are explicitly denied equal rights.

      http ://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/36959398/ns/today-parenting_and_family/

      http ://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8149702.stm http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2009/12/02/1245d8f...

      That's why as late as 1971 the Minnesota State Bar Association’s handbook advised judges not to give custody to dads. www .time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101011119-183968,00.html

      That's why an Urban Institute study found CPS contacted fathers of children at risk in their mothers' care only a little over half the time, even though they knew the father’s identity in 86% of cases. http ://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/06/cw-involve-dads/rs.htm

      That's why the College Sports Council confronted anti-male discrimination in NCAA scholarships.

      http ://collegesportscouncil.org/newsroom/display_releases.cfm?id=28

      That's why men get higher criminal sentences than women even when all other factors are accounted for.
      http://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/sentencing.pdf
      Crime & Delinquency, 1989, v 35, pp 136-168.

      That's why for years the Forced Labour Convention of 1930 exempted “able-bodied males” between ages 18 and 45 from the ban on slavery and forced labor. See Article 11 at http ://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/convde.pl?C029

      And although the exemption was eventually eliminated, Article 2 still exempts prisoners and soldiers (90+% male).

      That's why male slaves are frequently ignored by many human rights laws.

      http ://nationmultimedia.com/2007/05/14/headlines/headlines_30034148.php

      www .chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-06/15/content_895414.htm

      That's why in Australia and the UK, the government had to revoke funding from domestic violence shelters for refusing to help male victims.

      http ://express-advocate-wyong.whereilive.com.au/news/story/support-team-pulls-plug/#

      www .guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/05/domestic-violence-charity-funding
      http://thedailycougar.com/2010/04/21/study-examin

      That's why NCFM won a landmark appellate case in California that held it is unconstitutional to exclude male victims of domestic violence from state-funded services.

      www .metnews.com/articles/2008/wood101508.htm

      That's why boys who are molested in Canada, often by adult women, have no programs to help them because they're male.

      www .canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=604d29af-5999-47ec-a156-0f5bc96954f2

      That's why British Airways was removing unaccompanied kids from male passengers until NCFM spoke out.

      http ://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11061577

      That's why Lawry's was denying male busboys the right to become servers.
      http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5if_cO6...

      That's why UNICEF gave food only to women but not men in Haiti.

      http ://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/01/31/haiti.food.aid/

      That's why Mexico has buses that exclude men.
      http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080124/ap_on_re_la_a

      That's why men in Sweden are reporting huge amounts of anti-male discrimination including in government benefits.
      http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=2983&da

    • Ray on April 6, 2011 at 1:09 PM

      "You guys are joke,"

      NCFM is no joke. Get used to good, strong men who are tired of this kind of disparate treatment – illegal discrimination.

      Some ignorant men are unaware of their vulnerability to discrimination and its wider ranging consequences. Many of those ignorant men are products of a flawed educational system that promotes the standard feminist lies. Many of those ignorant men are in relationships with women and think they are immune to the discrimination, oppression, and disposability that has destroyed the lives of so many good men. Those aforementioned ignorant men live in a fools paradise, where often they become aware of the reality of men’s issues after they hit bottom with a resounding thud; after one, or more, of America’s misandrist social institutions exercises one, or more, of the many misandrist injustices that exist in America.

      Unruh Act violations are the tip of an iceberg of misandrist discrimination against men, that exists in America today. Unruh Act violations are insidious misandrist discriminations that condition society to accept a wider range of misandrist discriminations that lower the quality of men’s lives and shorten them. Oppressions against men are accepted in America society and add up to an epidemic of male carnage that would rock the halls of government if allowed to happen to women.

      By all means, lawsuits should be filed against every Unruh Act violation against men that exists, in my opinion. Those lawsuits shouldn’t stop until all violations against men’s human rights in America stop, and the hate movement know as gender feminism stops its war on males. NCFM’s primary mission as a 501 (c)3 is to educate all, even ignorant males, and females.

      Please continue to do everything in NCFM’s power to address the many discriminations and oppressions that exist against males in America today. Please continue, no matter how loudly a few ignorant males, and females, come screaming and shouting into an enlightenment, where all are treated with true equality, instead of just feminist lip service.

  19. Tony Sams on April 6, 2011 at 5:38 AM

    WTF-Last time I checked we did not need our mommy's fighting for us. You are a shame to men everywhere, and I am guessing, a pussy! Have you ever been to a mountain bike race. Better yet, a DH or 4X race. A sport that requires you lay it all out! My guess again would be no! Golf, tennis, sailing, sports that women compete in equally is most likely your sports of choice (or some other lame team sport). Mountain biking has a huge male following, we out number women at DH/4X races 20:1. We do not need your help, please go away!

    • Marc A. on April 6, 2011 at 5:50 AM

      Good thing, because your mommy obviously didn't fight much for you, judging by the idiocy of your post. And NCFM didn't do this to help dumb asses like you, but because it opposes sex discrimination, even if some men think it's ok. Poor Tony boy can't stand that….poor poor thing.

    • Judge Cannon on April 6, 2011 at 9:44 AM

      Yeah, Tony doesn't need your help, please go away and let him wear his Lycra and ride his bicycle, you pussies.

      • Joe on April 6, 2011 at 9:09 PM

        Dear Judge,

        You demonstrate your lack of understanding of the subject matter by implying that Tony would be wearing Lycra. In his post he mentions DH and 4X events. Downhill and 4-Cross racers are much more likely to be wearing body armor for protection.

        However if we want to talk about brutal, macho sports field hockey should be included. Will you all be gearing up to ensure there is full male opportunities for field hockey? I've always been intrigued that one of the meanest and bloodiest sports played is considered a "girls" sport.

        • Mary Anne on April 7, 2011 at 3:39 AM

          Joe,

          Similarly, you demonstrate your lack of understanding of field hockey, because many boys/men play with girls/women on high school and other field hockey teams. Simply Google "boys" "field hockey."

  20. Shawn on April 6, 2011 at 3:51 AM

    NCFM = Douche Bags

    • Marc A. on April 6, 2011 at 4:04 AM

      Shawn = childish idiot with nothing of substance to say but ad homs, and reminds to practice Proverbs 26:5: "Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes."

  21. Anne on April 6, 2011 at 2:16 AM

    Perhaps you should be reminded that today, in this country, there is still a male/female income disparity of about 25%, with women earning less than men. I would fully support any cause or organization that is going to try to stop or take a action against any true discriminatory issues, but yours isn't going to be one of them. Mr. Crouch, I can safely assume you are still waiting by your computer for those emails to arrive from the sponsors thanking you for your efforts. By the way, can I borrow $10 to attend the Festival at the Sea Otter Classic?

    • Marc A. on April 6, 2011 at 2:38 AM

      Anne, did NCFM's letter cause women to pay more? From what I've read, it only ensured that men get in free too. So now, how does the "income disparity" matter again?

      Also, the "income disparity" is only a snapshot of average yearly full-time incomes. It doesn't account for overtime (about 90% male), type of work, or other factors. It reflects the fact that women have more choices than men to work part time or go from career to staying home and back, or to change careers, while men act as primary breadwinners. That's why never-married childless women earn more than their male counterparts. Women have more options than men to be primary parents, and many of them exercise that option rather than work long, stressful hours. That's why 57% of female graduates of Stanford and Harvard left the workforce within 15 years of entry into the workforce. http://edition.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/03/15/optout

      This is an option few men have (try being a single male and telling women on the first date that you want to stay home). The latest research shows women still seek men who earn more than they do.
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8237298/What-wome...

      The Dept. of Labor funded a study that shed light on this issue and found the "disparity" is due more to like choices than to discrimination.
      http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Ga...

      In fact, female CEOs outearned men in 2009. http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=10630664

      Female U.S. corporate directors out-earn men: study
      http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0752118...

      Women between ages 21 and 30 working full-time made 117% of men's wages. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/nyregion/03women.html?...

      Blaming men for women's choices is unfair. In fact research shows most men have no problem with their wives outearning them. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23413243

      Current research shows women who still seek men who earn more money than them.
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8237298/What-wome...

      Research also shows most working dads would quit or take a pay cut to spend more time with kids if their spouses could support the family.
      http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/Careers/06/13/dads.work/index...

      Research also shows that parents share workloads more when mothers allow men to be primary parents.
      http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-05-04-equal-par...

      In “Why Men Earn More," Warren Farrell, Ph.D. examined 25 career/life choices men and women make (hours, commute times, etc.) that lead to men earning more and women having more balanced lives, and that showed how men in surveys prioritize money while women prioritize flexibility, shorter hours, shorter commutes, less physical risk and other factors conducive to their choice to be primary parents, an option men still largely don’t have. That is why never-married childless women outearn their male counterparts, and female corporate directors now outearn their male counterparts.
      http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0752118...

      Farrell also lists dozens of careers, including fields of science, where women outearn men.

      For more, see:

      ABC News: “Is the Wage Gap Women’s Choice? Research Suggests Career Decisions, Not Sex Bias, Are at Root of Pay Disparity”
      http://abcnews.go.com/2020/GiveMeABreak/story?id=

      http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/04/magazines/fortune
      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23413243

      • What??? on April 6, 2011 at 11:46 AM

        Wow NCFM… way to throw a lot of meaningless statistical “research” around to prove a point. None of that “research” is relavent to the issue at hand, and most of it is taken out its proper context in the news articles you cite. For your information, siting a secondary source (a news article about a statistical study) is not a valid way to back up a claim. Start citing primary sources (the statistical studies found in peer-reviewed journals) and I may, I repeat may, start to believe your claims. Your organization is a joke and should seriously consider disbanding for spreading worthless information and wasting everyone’s time. What gives you the right to pick and choose stories out of your Google News feed and threaten class action legal action against that organization? Have you ever even been to the Sea Otter Classic? Is your next step to sue every bar in the USA that has a Ladies Night? Please go find something better to do with your time than bothering the rest of us.

        Sincerely,
        A Man Who Finds This Ridiculous

        • Marc A. on April 6, 2011 at 4:00 AM

          "None of that “research” is relavent to the issue at hand"

          It's relevant to the Anne's post about the "pay gap."

          "and most of it is taken out its proper context in the news articles you cite."

          I'd sure like to see how.

          "For your information, siting a secondary source (a news article about a statistical study) is not a valid way to back up a claim."

          First off, I did. I gave a link straight to the study funded by the U.S. Dept. of Labor. Secondarily I provided credible news sources that cited data. For purposes of the discussion here regarding pay gaps I think that's perfectly legitimate, and I welcome you to provide counter evidence.

          "What gives you the right to pick and choose stories out of your Google News feed and threaten class action legal action against that organization?"

          Uh, how about the law, maybe?

          "Is your next step to sue every bar in the USA that has a Ladies Night?"

          NCFM has sued hundreds of bars that had Ladies' Nights. Most of them successfully.

          "Please go find something better to do with your time than bothering the rest of us."

          Oh I'm so sorry that NCFM "bothered" you by bringing about equal rights. Oh my, are you ok you poor thing?

          Sincerely,

          A Man Who Finds This Ridiculous

          Reply

          Mike Mac on April 6, 2011 at 9:02 AM

          High ground. My arm would hurt if I used it like you guy do to pat myself on the back.

          Your usage of that image is illegal. Rights to the use of an image lie with the rights holder. I’m just doing you a favor by telling you. Be a real shame to see all of your good work come crashing to the ground as a result of one athlete justifiably leveraging a suit against your organization for illegal representation.

          Reply

          Marc A. on April 6, 2011 at 9:50 AM

          Oh we don’t need to pat ourselves, Mike. We have enough people thanking us that’s it’s not necessary. The igno-reacto furor is old news. We’ve seen it for years and it’s so amusing. I wouldn’t want your arm to hurt but I do invite you to write a letter citing the law like NCFM did in its letter. Either way, I’ll pass on your frightening threat.

          Reply

          Annoyed on April 5, 2011 at 10:34 PM

          Wow you guys at ncfm really don’t get it.

          You stand for everything wrong in the US of A. You have nothing better to do than attack a festival trying to promote a very under serviced community?

          How about going after every crappy bar who gives free cover charge to the ladies? Or how boys can’t join Girl Guides?

          You guys are pathetic.

          Reply

          Marc A on April 5, 2011 at 10:50 PM

          I think you’re the pathetic one for being sooooooo “annoyed” about equal rights. Wow. Had the event offered discounts to men and NOW objected (as they have for similar discrimination), would that annoy you.

          “How about going after every crappy bar who gives free cover charge to the ladies?”

          Annoyed you may want to do research before assuming things. NCFM has sued hundres of those Ladies’ Nights places. Here is an example. http://ncfm.org/2011/01/uncategorized/ncfms-huge-

          Reply

          Marc A on April 5, 2011 at 10:54 PM

          “You have nothing better to do than attack a festival trying to promote a very under serviced community?”

          Attack? How was it “attacking” to warn them that they’re violating the civil rights laws by discriminating? I hardly consider that “attacking.” NCFM could easily have sued, but chose to give a warning instead.

          “Under serviced community”? How are women “under serviced”? Are they so prevented from biking that they need illegal discriminatory pricing to help them out? And when feminist groups sued salons and dry cleaners who charged women more than men, were you just as angry at them for that? Did you go to their sites and name-call like an angry child?

          Reply

          JIll on April 5, 2011 at 9:49 PM

          I especially appreciate how the “Coalition for Men” (sorry, just gives me the giggles every time) team is studiously ignoring my comment though replying in an exhaustive manner to all of the men.

          I find this whole thing entertaining beyond all belief. You guys really think you are doing some sort of public service here. Yeah! You successfully blocked Ladies’ Day at the Sea Otter Classic! You interfered with an event meant to promote health, fitness, and the outdoors for all citizens! Round of high fives, bros!

          Reply

          Marc A on April 5, 2011 at 10:07 PM

          Uh, Jill? I’ve been replying to your posts, despite how dumb they are.

          Oh, and please don’t fake laugh. You’re not very good at it. Get some smelling salts before you collapst. It mike help you ride better among all those terrible men who now can ride for free along with the women.

          Don’t you just love it?

          Reply

          El Man on April 5, 2011 at 8:43 PM

          NCFM just broke the glass ceiling for women cycling… the sponsors will not be happy as this means there will be protests to stop all events where women and men participate and women receive unequal prize money but pay the same entry fees… doh! I am sure this will force events to be canceled and men to feel angry that the good ol days are gone!

          Reply

          JIll on April 5, 2011 at 9:33 PM

          Oh rest assured, NCFM will be leading the charge to ensure that prize money is equalized in sport everywhere! I can’t wait. I’m going to become a pro bicyclist after all now that NCFM has my back and will make sure that I win just as much money as the men when I podium. This is great news.

          Reply

          Brad Laesch on April 5, 2011 at 9:44 PM

          NCFM, pls give me a break. Of all the incredibly important issues in the world, this is what you’re chasing– Ladies Day at a bike race 99.5% of Americans have never heard of? I agree with El Man that sponsors are going to be chuffed that to achieve gender equity the payout needs to be the same, perhaps the number of competitors in each field needs to be equal (have you ever been to a bike race? do you know how few women participate in this dangerous sport?). Can you get NASCAR to get some gender equity while you’re at it?

          Reply

          Marc A on April 5, 2011 at 9:52 PM

          NCFM addresses all forms of discrimination against men, large or small. That includes fathers’ custody rights, paternity fraud laws, DV laws that exclude male victims, circumcision, false allegations, and – yes – discrimination against men at public events that violate the Unruh Act. And if NASCAR discriminates by sex, I’m sure NCFM would like to know about it.

          Reply

          Dylan on April 5, 2011 at 4:38 PM

          NCFM,

          I have to say that as both a working male professional in the legal community and an avid cyclist and amateur bike racer I am very disappointed in the efforts made by your president against the Sea Otter Ladies’ Day. I believe that such actions by Mr. Couch have seriously undermined whatever honorable objectives the NCFM may have had with respect to gender equality.

          The entire point of Ladies’ Day was to celebrate the growing entrance of women into the sport and promote that influx. Making it a special day for women was a specific show of gratitude and support. It was a one-time event designed for nothing else than to promote the increase of females into a sport that for so long has been dominated by men.

          Nevertheless, President Couch saw fit to sound the alarm and treat this matter as if it were the gender equivalent of Brown v. Board of Education. Threatening legal action against a cycling event for giving away free admission to one day of the event to women seems hardly like the scenario that the Equal Protection Clause was designed for. The event did not raise ticket prices for men, make free women admission a standard or even refuse to admit men. Instead, it attempted to celebrate women cyclists, a less nefarious plot I have not seen in the trenches of the fight for gender equality.

          The problem with this situation is that it sets a negative precedent for gender politics. People tend to care less about movements when the public battles are manufactured and contrived. This is exactly why Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are more of a punch line to mainstream America than sage counselors.

          As an attorney who deals with discrimination as part of my job, I am not immune to the slippery slope of small concessions that have the potential to erode our national character and view of self. I have also seen in my own personal life how the scales of justice and equality too often slant away from my gender. The frustration I feel when defending an exceptional father in a custody battle or divorce proceeding, the unspoken skewed admission standards for colleges and indefensible promotion practices in neo-corporate America are real and constant.

          With so much inequality present in society, organizations such as yours should be spending time on the real problems not the make believe ones. Cosmetic issues are just that- superficial and cosmetic. I am saddened by not only by the NCFM’s actions, but also its headline and article on the matter. Writing an article that you helped an event avoid a lawsuit indicated that you were part of the solution to a problem. However, to claim the high ground, you actually need to have the high ground. Whether you agree with my position or not, we can all agree that sending litigation propaganda and implying a lawsuit over an event that most people did not even know about for the purposes of scoring a cheap win is most certainly not the high ground.

          To be honest, I was not even aware of this organization until this issue was covered in another news media. After reading the postings about this article, seeing the letters and information sent to Sea Otter and browsing your website I cannot in good conscious promote or align with such an organization, especially if I want gender ethics and equality to be taken seriously in this country.

          Reply

          Marc A. on April 5, 2011 at 5:26 PM

          “The entire point of Ladies’ Day was to celebrate the growing entrance of women into the sport and promote that influx.”

          Ok, that’s fine. But NCFM made a warning that if they discriminate, it is illegal. What is wrong with that?

          “Nevertheless, President Couch saw fit to sound the alarm and treat this matter as if it were the gender equivalent of Brown v. Board of Education.”

          No, he did not. He treated it as discrimination against men, period. Women have rightfully sued when they were excluded from public events. To suggest men should not do the same is a sexist double standard. In fact, this type of “harmless” discrimination conditions males to accept discrimination as “normal,” and it feeds into larger forms of systematic anti-male discrimination such as in child custody, parenting rights, criminal sentencing, military conscription, domestic violence laws that neglect male victims, forced labor laws and more.

          “Threatening legal action against a cycling event for giving away free admission to one day of the event to women seems hardly like the scenario that the Equal Protection Clause was designed for.”

          It’s the California Unruh Civil Rights Act that applies, not equal protection. And if you would do your research you’d find that the California Supreme Court has written entire decisions supporting men who sued where car washes and night clubs charged women more than men using “Ladies’ Day” discounts. The court stated it is discrimination per say and that sex discrimination is harmful, period. Look up Koire v. Metro Car Wash (1985) 40 Cal.3d 24 and Angelucci v. Century Supper Club (2007) 41 Cal.4th 160. In fact Jerry Brown raised the penalty from $1K to $4K years ago because some mechanic’s were charging men more than women for oil changes, and that’s in the legislative history. So, yes, it was definitely designed to stop discrimination against BOTH sexes, even seemingly minor forms of it.

          “The event did not raise ticket prices for men, make free women admission a standard or even refuse to admit men.”

          Oh I see. Imagine: “the event didn’t raise prices for blacks, it just gave white people free entry.” Or, “the event didn’t raise prices for women, it just let men in free.” Sorry, that’s still discrimination.

          “With so much inequality present in society, organizations such as yours should be spending time on the real problems not the make believe ones.J”

          We address ALL forms of anti-male discrimination. If you did your research you’d see that we have successfully sued the State of California for excluding male victims of domestic violence from state-funded services, and we got the law declared unconstitutional. (Woods v. Shewry). You’d find we introduced and influenced legislation to protect paternity fraud victims, organized rallies at the courthouses, helped many men get through very difficult and unfair legal situations, donated to homeless programs, and much much much more. Instead, you choose to assume things, reactively, without knowing what you’re talking about.

          Reply

          advid cyclist on April 5, 2011 at 7:39 PM

          Try and catch a hockey game and maybe drink a beer or two….lighten up francis………if you actually attended a bike festival you too would be asking for more female participation. Keep your opinions to yourself and get a girlfriend instead of a boyfriend ……….

          Reply

          Marc A on April 5, 2011 at 8:38 PM

          I don’t know who francis is, but I do have a wonderful gf and she rides with me, so I don’t care much about the gender ratio at bike festivals as long as there’s no sex discrimination. Thank you for that, NCFM.

          Reply

          JIll on April 5, 2011 at 9:36 PM

          This is my FAVORITE comment because you can always predict it. The complete chauvinist ALWAYS falls back on ‘well, I have a hot girlfriend so I MUST be OK!’ to legitimize his misogynist leanings.

          I like it a bit better when it’s his friends who post it, like they’re circling the wagons or something.

          Marc A on April 5, 2011 at 9:55 PM

          Wow, supporting equal rights makes me a “chauvinist” and “misogynist”? Well then so be it.

          Oh, and I said I had a gf because some dummy like you here told me to get one, and somehow assumed I had a boyfriend. I didn’t say it because it means I “must be ok.” I couldn’t care less about accusations like yours. But if the dummy-like-you tells me to get a gf, well I’m gonna say no thanks I have one already.

          Cyclingforall on April 6, 2011 at 7:40 AM

          Marc, you are a complete idiot. You probably have nothing to do all day but research how men have been discriminated against. Your comments are pathetic and you do nothing to help a cycling event in a sport that you could care less about.

          Cycling needs more women and this was one event that helped promote that cause….I would know, as a male cyclists traveling to many regional cycling events.

          Meanwhile, keep your stupid, lame chauvinistic opinions to yourself and do something worthwhile with your life!

          Reply

          Marc A. on April 6, 2011 at 9:41 AM

          Actually I’m very busy, but it’s so fun and amusing to read the anger from reactionaries like you who are soooo mad when men and women get treated equally, and I find it fun dto respond too. Can’t resist! hahaha!

          “Cycling needs more women and this was one event that helped promote that cause….I would know, as a male cyclists traveling to many regional cycling events.”

          That’s great, so bring on more women. Just don’t discriminate, or you might get sued. Salons have charged men less because they feel they need more male customers, but women’s groups sued to stop it. Did you explode in a rage and go on their sites to make the same reacto comments?

          “Meanwhile, keep your stupid, lame chauvinistic opinions to yourself and do something worthwhile with your life!”

          Well as long as you taking the time to write misandrist, idiotic, reactionary comments I’ll have some fun responding and smelling our mephitic anger through the screen hahahahaha!

          Reply Sea Otter Classic v. National Coalition for Men « bicycles can save the world on April 5, 2011 at 12:54 PM

          [...] spun it as ‘helping this event avoid huge potential monetary lawsuit’, but given this ‘subsequently deleted yet saved [...]

          Reply

          Jill on April 4, 2011 at 6:13 PM

          Excellent! You did your part to even up the immensely pro-woman (read: anti-men) sport of cycling! This is amazing. And the way you worked so hard to make sure that all those little girls have to pony up the same cash the little boys do in order to skateboard! It’s just heroic, that’s what it is. Imagine if little girls continued to have so many unfair advantages in sport. Pretty soon the idea of a male doing a sport would be laughable! Gear companies would finally drop all pretense and stop making men’s gear (breathing a sigh of relief, no doubt) and FINALLY races and sports teams will be able to stop making up for the disparity by paying male athletes all those hundreds of millions of dollars extra over what they pay women. Wow. Harry Crouch, despite your unfortunate name, you are truly a humanitarian and, as everyone’s favorite warlock would say, just a WINNER. Nothing says winning like doing your part to make sure it’s even harder for women to participate and compete in male dominated sports. You go, Harry!

          Reply

          Marc A on April 5, 2011 at 9:57 PM

          “even harder for women to participate and compete in male dominated sports”

          Yeah, it’s sooooooooo hard for women to ride at bike festivals that they need a discount to get them to do it. I guess a discount will make it easier to ride, right Jill? Makes you feel special?

          Reply

          Mike Mac on April 4, 2011 at 10:56 AM

          Noting your devotion to the letter of the law I’m certain that you’ve negotiated usage rights for the athlete pictured in the image you used for your article. You guys probably got the OK from Sea Otter to use their image, right? I mean you guys being sticklers for the law and all…

          Reply

          Marc A. on April 5, 2011 at 5:30 PM

          NCFM is a stickler for the law when it comes to sex discrimination. The issue you raise is not about discrimination. So I hardly buy the “hypocrisy” denotation. But anyway, if that’s illegal, please write NCFM a letter saying so and explaining why, just as NCFM did with Sea Otter.

          Reply

          Andre on April 5, 2011 at 6:50 PM

          Please ensure that before you send your letter that you also invent some hokey organisation dedicated entirely to the eradication of the heinous crime of unauthorised image usage so as to validate the contents of your correspondence. Perhaps the National Organisation Against Usage Rights Mis-Appropriation or NOAURM. Sounds catchy – where can I join!

          Reply

          Marc A on April 5, 2011 at 9:00 PM

          That’s right. Maybe “Igno-Reactionaries Angry at Men’s Rights Activits” (IRAMRA). And to really make it like NCFM, be sure it has been around for 35 years, wins an award from Enclyclopedia Britannica like the one at the bottom of http://ncfm.org/lead-with-us/awards/, has members in every state and several continents and chapters all over, has academics on its board from various respected universities, has letters from judges and public figures praising its work, has successfully overturned unconstitutional statutes, has passed laws protecting people from paternity fraud, has had people like Ed Asner and the late Gregory Hines as members, and has lots of people throughout the world saying “thank you” for its work. That’s not hard to do. Just give it time.

          Reply

          JIll on April 5, 2011 at 9:54 PM

          Hm. You value the law for one particular pet issue but not for any other issue? That is, in point of fact, absolute hypocrisy.

          And I’m pretty sure Mike just wrote you to tell you that using that image without permission is in fact illegal. It doesn’t have to be on a letterhead for it to be true, you know that, right?

          Reply

          Marc A on April 5, 2011 at 10:00 PM

          “You value the law for one particular pet issue but not for “any other issue? That is, in point of fact, absolute hypocrisy.”

          Uh…no Jill. As a men’s rights organization NCFM’s focus is men’s rights, and that’s where NCFM’s activism is. But as I said, if NCFM has broken a law, they would like to know about it.

          Boy Jill and your ilk sound so upset. Would you like some smelling salts? It might help you ride better, y’know.

          Reply

          Matt on April 6, 2011 at 9:46 AM

          “Boy Jill and your ilk sound so upset. Would you like some smelling salts? It might help you ride better, y’know.”

          Marc, you don’t have to be a complete douche. The NCFM pissed off a lot of women who had the best intentions. The promoters were trying to encourage women to join in on an activity that has had a positive impact on a lot of people. As many people have said already, there are a lot of causes worth fighting for, and this isn’t one of them.

          The proper thing would have been to point out a potential legal issue, and offer suggestions; possibly offering free entry to first time participants, regardless of sex. It’s men like you that give the rest of us a bad image.

          harry on April 1, 2011 at 3:34 PM

          This is a good thing. It helped the Sea Otter Classic whether they would agree or not.

          Reply

          dave on April 1, 2011 at 6:47 AM

          I think NCFM should be applauded. They could have just as easily sued the promoter. Instead they took the higher ground. A lesson can be learned.

          Reply Leave a Reply Cancel reply

          Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

          Name *

          Email *

          Website

          The National Coalition For Men is the oldest Men's Rights organization in North America if not the world. Our members are men and women from all walks of life. Donations help us help you make the world a better place for all of us.

          Men's Issues? see the Video!

          TRANSITIONS

          Journal of Men’s Perspectives

          NCFM Sites

          NCFM, Washington, DC

          NCFM, Australia

          NCFM, Bangalore

          NCFM, San Diego

          NCFM, Chicago

          NCFM, Twin Cities

          NCFM, Los Angeles

          National Coalition For Men (NCFM)

          New Comments

          NCFM = Douche Bags (More)

          Wow NCFM… way to throw a lot of meaningless statistical "research" aro (More)

          Anne, did NCFM's letter cause women to pay more? From what I've read, i (More)

          Perhaps you should be reminded that today, in this country, there is sti (More)

          Oh we don't need to pat ourselves, Mike. We have enough people thanking (More)

          New Posts

          NCFM, LA Objects to County's Discriminat

          NCFM, LA objetos a la discriminación co

          NCFM, LA Objects to County's Discriminat

          NCFM helps the San Diego YMCA to Stop Ch

          NCFM helps the San Diego YMCA to Stop Ch

          Activities

          The 18th Annual Genital Integrity Awareness Rally — Say No to Circumcision!

          NCFM Helps Major Women Event Avoid Major $$ Sanctions

          VENTURA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES v. V.F. – another judge finds paternity fraud ruling unjust

          NCFM Complaint Against Assistant DA Mary Kellett

          NCFM Member Greg Andresen gets DV statistics corrected by the Hobart Mercury newspaper in Australia

          Categories

          Select Category Action (7) Activities (31) Los Angeles (1) National (14) San Diego (4) Washington, D.C. (3) Issues (8) Discrimination Against Men (1) News (16) Child Custody (2) Child Support (2) Domestic Violence (7) Press Release (3) Uncategorized (55) 1-888-223-1280 ⇔ CFC# 17785 (US, International Combined Federal Campaign) ⇔ US IRS 501(c)3 non-profit status ⇔ US EIN 112592580.

          Copyright © 2011 National Coalition For Men (NCFM). Header photo credit: Garcia. National Coalition For Men

  22. Mike Mac on April 6, 2011 at 1:02 AM

    High ground. My arm would hurt if I used it like you guy do to pat myself on the back.

    Your usage of that image is illegal. Rights to the use of an image lie with the rights holder. I'm just doing you a favor by telling you. Be a real shame to see all of your good work come crashing to the ground as a result of one athlete justifiably leveraging a suit against your organization for illegal representation.

    • Marc A. on April 6, 2011 at 1:50 AM

      Oh we don't need to pat ourselves, Mike. We have enough people thanking us that's it's not necessary. The igno-reacto furor is old news. We've seen it for years and it's so amusing. I wouldn't want your arm to hurt but I do invite you to write a letter citing the law like NCFM did in its letter. Either way, I'll pass on your frightening threat.

      • Mike Mac on April 6, 2011 at 5:26 AM

        But it's not a threat. I'm just doing you a favor. In the same spirit of altruism that you did Sea Otter a favor.

        You seem to place a great deal of stock in adhering to the law. Do you mean to imply that unless cautioned by an attorney that the laws governing image rights don't hold the same sort of value to society and aren't worthy of compliance by your organization?

        What's an igno-reacto? To me it seems to be a patronizing term used by your organization to describe those who may hold an opposing viewpoint from your own.

        • Marc A on April 6, 2011 at 5:44 AM

          Well Mikey I'm sure you'll be delighted to know that Sea Otter just gave us permission to use the image. Thanks so much for the warning.

          An igno-reacto is an ingorant reactionary who angrily initiated personal attacks rather than substantive discussions. I'd say about 90% of the posts here that disagree with NCFM fit that description, while another 10% make a sincere effort to discuss the issues.

          • Mike Mac on April 6, 2011 at 6:51 AM

            I'm not angry. I'm baffled. You keep comparing this to the exclusion of blacks, women, (insert historically oppressed group here) as if it were an apples-to-apples comparison, then your default defense is "It doesn't matter, discrimination is discrimination." Is your collective psyche so fragile that a promotion designed to break down some very real barriers to entry in what's universally acknowledged to be a male-dominated sport offends you to your core? I mean, it's not as if we're talking about spousal abuse or the outdated concept of a woman being awarded elevated custody rights based on outdated judiciary mores, are we? Here's an idea – simply vote with your wallet and don't attend.

            And you JUST received permission to use the image? Seems that the enlightened road would have been to ask prior to breaking the law. Aren't you an attorney? You must be. I mean, per your admission, you've sued all of those bars…and won! Image rights would seem to be like low-hanging intellectual fruit for someone in your profession. Me, I'm just a meathead too thick-witted to understand that my rights as a man are being trampled upon, but even I know THAT.

            And for what it's worth, I'm not angry. Not at all. You amuse me. Although I think that it's sad that you've bastardized what at times must be a necessary adaptation of the legal system to address real inequities. You though, you seem angry. You and your point-by-point dissection of the responses from your detractors. That debating strategy has long been known as a hallmark of people who consider themselves persecuted (the reality of which may be mutually exclusive). Moving the debate from central themes (the possibility that this strident application of the law seems silly to the very group you claim to protect, in this case male cyclists, who by the way, overwhelmingly don't want your protection) to sentence-by-sentence counterpoints serves only to further debase the dialogue.

            I'll leave you with this; concocting a term to describe those who hold an opinion disparate from your own says far more about you than it does those you would label. Yes, you've been called some names within these forums, but for the record, not by me. Your use of the terms igno-reacto and the use of the affectionate iteration of my name when addressing me signals a lack of respect, a propensity for overreaction and a streak of immaturity matching those who disparage you with name calling of their own. If yours is truly a higher calling my advice to you is to be a worthy messenger of that calling.

          • Marc A. on April 6, 2011 at 7:11 AM

            "universally acknowledged to be a male-dominated sport offends you to your core?"

            No, it doesn't "offend to the core." But it's discrimination, and as I said before, it is NCFM's position that when males are routinely treated in discriminatory ways like this (having to pay more, having bailiffs tell only men to remove hats, etc.) it teaches men that discrimination against me is ok, even in larger ways. Men have historically acquiesced to their own discrimination, such as when men drafted the Forced Labour Convention of 1930 that exempted "able-bodied males" from the ban on slavery. But thankfully that is slowly changing. More and more people are speaking out against anti-dad discrimination and, eventually anti-male discrimination in any form, including these allegedly harmless ones that violate the Unruh Act. We don't agree they're harmless. They oppose it, and we challenge it when we see it. No, it doesn't make us as offended as the bigger forms of it like in family court, but we still oppose it. That's it.

            "vote with your wallet and don’t attend."

            That doesn't change anything. Letting them know it's illegal does. And in cases where they disregrad the law, suing does. And we have stopped discrimination against in literally thousands of places, both government and private, by suing. So we'll keep doing it, no matter what some people think of it.

            "And you JUST received permission to use the image?"

            Yep.

            "concocting a term to describe those who hold an opinion disparate from your own says far more about you than it does those you would label."

            So does making a straw man attack, which is what you just did. I said an igno-reacto is one who relies on personal attacks, not just anyone who disagrees. I appreciate those who disagree. I respond to them, but I appreciate them too. I haven't called anyone here a reactionary or anything else except those whose argument are personal attacks, which is about 90% of them.

            I see nothing wrong with a part-by-part response to something I disagree with. You find it comes from people who feel "persecuted"? Well that interesting, I don't.

            BTW, when did I use "igno-reacto" toward you? I said the igno-reacto furor is old news, and I said that when mentioning the other posts on here. If I said that toward you, please show me so I know.

            Yes, I do compare it to other forms of discrimination. I think making men pay more than women is like making one race pay more than another, no matter what races they are, and is like making women pay more than men. I think the analogy of the salon and dry cleaner is a perfectly good analogy, because it responds to those who say "Sea Otter was only trying to bring in more women." Salons do the same when they charge men less, they're just trying to bring in more men. So what? It's discrimination. I disagree that it's not analogous, and I find it hypocritical of anyone to attack NCFM for objecting to sex-based pricing at a sporting event while not attacking women's groups for objecting to sex-based pricing in solons, etc. If someone criticizes both NCFM and the women's groups for that, then I at least respect their consistency. But every time I ask the objectors here whether they also attack the women's groups for that, they don't answer. So, to me, they're hypocritical. In adddition to angry, childish and reactionary.

            Hence, "igno-reactos."

          • Marc A. on April 6, 2011 at 9:47 AM

            Oh I overlooked this one: "And you JUST received permission to use the image? Seems that the enlightened road would have been to ask prior to breaking the law."

            Wow, Mike, it is astonishing the stretches you'll take just to get a stab at NCFM. So let's look at what happened by comparison.

            When NCFM wrote to Sea Otter, NCFM knew Sea Otter might not know the Unruh Act, and that's why NCFM wrote the letter. When Sea Otter replied with an announcement that men will be able to participate free, NCFM's accepted that and did not press them further with nonsense like "and you didn't know that before???" like you do with NCFM out of obvious spite, regarding the image.

            So first, a nonprofit can use things like that under the fair use doctrine for educational purposes if it's not for financial gain, which is the case with NCFM, so the legality of the image is not clear from the start (whereas the illegality of sex-based pricing is). And second, the person who posted the image is not an attorney. Third, once notified of possible illegality, NCFM obtained permission from Sea Otter and even offered to remove the image if they wanted NCFM to.

            And now you in a desperate desire to attack NCFM push on and on about how NCFM disregarded the law by posting the image. Now that's some serious desperation there isn't it? You might as well resort to name-calling for that matter.

            Anyway thank you again for warning NCFM about the image. I'm glad it's all resolved and Sea Otter gave permission, all thanks to you good man!

  23. Annoyed on April 5, 2011 at 2:34 PM

    Wow you guys at ncfm really don't get it.

    You stand for everything wrong in the US of A. You have nothing better to do than attack a festival trying to promote a very under serviced community?

    How about going after every crappy bar who gives free cover charge to the ladies? Or how boys can't join Girl Guides?

    You guys are pathetic.

    • Marc A on April 5, 2011 at 2:54 PM

      "You have nothing better to do than attack a festival trying to promote a very under serviced community?"

      Attack? How was it "attacking" to warn them that they're violating the civil rights laws by discriminating? I hardly consider that "attacking." NCFM could easily have sued, but chose to give a warning instead.

      "Under serviced community"? How are women "under serviced"? Are they so prevented from biking that they need illegal discriminatory pricing to help them out? And when feminist groups sued salons and dry cleaners who charged women more than men, were you just as angry at them for that? Did you go to their sites and name-call like an angry child?

    • Marc A on April 5, 2011 at 10:50 PM

      I think you’re the pathetic one for being sooooooo “annoyed” about equal rights. Wow. Had the event offered discounts to men and NOW objected (as they have for similar discrimination), would that annoy you.

      “How about going after every crappy bar who gives free cover charge to the ladies?”

      Annoyed you may want to do research before assuming things. NCFM has sued hundres of those Ladies’ Nights places. Here is an example. http://ncfm.org/2011/01/uncategorized/ncfms-huge-landmark-sex-discrimination-case-now-final/

      • Judge Cannon on April 6, 2011 at 8:30 PM

        I find it interesting and sad that a number of commentators want society to treat women as if they are riders on the short bus.

  24. JIll on April 5, 2011 at 1:49 PM

    I especially appreciate how the "Coalition for Men" (sorry, just gives me the giggles every time) team is studiously ignoring my comment though replying in an exhaustive manner to all of the men.

    I find this whole thing entertaining beyond all belief. You guys really think you are doing some sort of public service here. Yeah! You successfully blocked Ladies' Day at the Sea Otter Classic! You interfered with an event meant to promote health, fitness, and the outdoors for all citizens! Round of high fives, bros!

    • Marc A on April 5, 2011 at 2:07 PM

      Uh, Jill? I've been replying to your posts, despite how dumb they are.

      Oh, and please don't fake laugh. You're not very good at it. Get some smelling salts before you collapst. It mike help you ride better among all those terrible men who now can ride for free along with the women.

      Don't you just love it?

    • Judge Cannon on April 6, 2011 at 9:58 AM

      What's so strange about stopping a Ladies' Day that favored women bikers over men bikers by giving women free admission to the festival and charging men $10. Wouldn't it be equally admirable if a women's equal rights organization stopped a Men's Day that favored men bikers over women bikers by only giving the former free admission to the festival? What part of equality does Jill not understand. Seems kinda simple to me.

  25. El Man on April 5, 2011 at 12:43 PM

    NCFM just broke the glass ceiling for women cycling… the sponsors will not be happy as this means there will be protests to stop all events where women and men participate and women receive unequal prize money but pay the same entry fees… doh! I am sure this will force events to be canceled and men to feel angry that the good ol days are gone!

    • JIll on April 5, 2011 at 1:33 PM

      Oh rest assured, NCFM will be leading the charge to ensure that prize money is equalized in sport everywhere! I can't wait. I'm going to become a pro bicyclist after all now that NCFM has my back and will make sure that I win just as much money as the men when I podium. This is great news.

    • Brad Laesch on April 5, 2011 at 1:44 PM

      NCFM, pls give me a break. Of all the incredibly important issues in the world, this is what you're chasing– Ladies Day at a bike race 99.5% of Americans have never heard of? I agree with El Man that sponsors are going to be chuffed that to achieve gender equity the payout needs to be the same, perhaps the number of competitors in each field needs to be equal (have you ever been to a bike race? do you know how few women participate in this dangerous sport?). Can you get NASCAR to get some gender equity while you're at it?

      • Marc A on April 5, 2011 at 1:52 PM

        NCFM addresses all forms of discrimination against men, large or small. That includes fathers' custody rights, paternity fraud laws, DV laws that exclude male victims, circumcision, false allegations, and – yes – discrimination against men at public events that violate the Unruh Act. And if NASCAR discriminates by sex, I'm sure NCFM would like to know about it.

  26. Sea Otter Classic v. National Coalition for Men « bicycles can save the world on April 5, 2011 at 12:54 PM

    [...] spun it as ‘helping this event avoid huge potential monetary lawsuit’, but given this ‘subsequently deleted yet saved [...]

  27. Dylan on April 5, 2011 at 8:38 AM

    NCFM,

    I have to say that as both a working male professional in the legal community and an avid cyclist and amateur bike racer I am very disappointed in the efforts made by your president against the Sea Otter Ladies' Day. I believe that such actions by Mr. Couch have seriously undermined whatever honorable objectives the NCFM may have had with respect to gender equality.

    The entire point of Ladies' Day was to celebrate the growing entrance of women into the sport and promote that influx. Making it a special day for women was a specific show of gratitude and support. It was a one-time event designed for nothing else than to promote the increase of females into a sport that for so long has been dominated by men.

    Nevertheless, President Couch saw fit to sound the alarm and treat this matter as if it were the gender equivalent of Brown v. Board of Education. Threatening legal action against a cycling event for giving away free admission to one day of the event to women seems hardly like the scenario that the Equal Protection Clause was designed for. The event did not raise ticket prices for men, make free women admission a standard or even refuse to admit men. Instead, it attempted to celebrate women cyclists, a less nefarious plot I have not seen in the trenches of the fight for gender equality.

    The problem with this situation is that it sets a negative precedent for gender politics. People tend to care less about movements when the public battles are manufactured and contrived. This is exactly why Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are more of a punch line to mainstream America than sage counselors.

    As an attorney who deals with discrimination as part of my job, I am not immune to the slippery slope of small concessions that have the potential to erode our national character and view of self. I have also seen in my own personal life how the scales of justice and equality too often slant away from my gender. The frustration I feel when defending an exceptional father in a custody battle or divorce proceeding, the unspoken skewed admission standards for colleges and indefensible promotion practices in neo-corporate America are real and constant.

    With so much inequality present in society, organizations such as yours should be spending time on the real problems not the make believe ones. Cosmetic issues are just that- superficial and cosmetic. I am saddened by not only by the NCFM's actions, but also its headline and article on the matter. Writing an article that you helped an event avoid a lawsuit indicated that you were part of the solution to a problem. However, to claim the high ground, you actually need to have the high ground. Whether you agree with my position or not, we can all agree that sending litigation propaganda and implying a lawsuit over an event that most people did not even know about for the purposes of scoring a cheap win is most certainly not the high ground.

    To be honest, I was not even aware of this organization until this issue was covered in another news media. After reading the postings about this article, seeing the letters and information sent to Sea Otter and browsing your website I cannot in good conscious promote or align with such an organization, especially if I want gender ethics and equality to be taken seriously in this country.

    • Marc A. on April 5, 2011 at 9:26 AM

      "The entire point of Ladies’ Day was to celebrate the growing entrance of women into the sport and promote that influx."

      Ok, that's fine. But NCFM made a warning that if they discriminate, it is illegal. What is wrong with that?

      "Nevertheless, President Couch saw fit to sound the alarm and treat this matter as if it were the gender equivalent of Brown v. Board of Education."

      No, he did not. He treated it as discrimination against men, period. Women have rightfully sued when they were excluded from public events. To suggest men should not do the same is a sexist double standard. In fact, this type of "harmless" discrimination conditions males to accept discrimination as "normal," and it feeds into larger forms of systematic anti-male discrimination such as in child custody, parenting rights, criminal sentencing, military conscription, domestic violence laws that neglect male victims, forced labor laws and more.

      "Threatening legal action against a cycling event for giving away free admission to one day of the event to women seems hardly like the scenario that the Equal Protection Clause was designed for."

      It's the California Unruh Civil Rights Act that applies, not equal protection. And if you would do your research you'd find that the California Supreme Court has written entire decisions supporting men who sued where car washes and night clubs charged women more than men using "Ladies' Day" discounts. The court stated it is discrimination per say and that sex discrimination is harmful, period. Look up Koire v. Metro Car Wash (1985) 40 Cal.3d 24 and Angelucci v. Century Supper Club (2007) 41 Cal.4th 160. In fact Jerry Brown raised the penalty from $1K to $4K years ago because some mechanic's were charging men more than women for oil changes, and that's in the legislative history. So, yes, it was definitely designed to stop discrimination against BOTH sexes, even seemingly minor forms of it.

      "The event did not raise ticket prices for men, make free women admission a standard or even refuse to admit men."

      Oh I see. Imagine: "the event didn't raise prices for blacks, it just gave white people free entry." Or, "the event didn't raise prices for women, it just let men in free." Sorry, that's still discrimination.

      "With so much inequality present in society, organizations such as yours should be spending time on the real problems not the make believe ones.J"

      We address ALL forms of anti-male discrimination. If you did your research you'd see that we have successfully sued the State of California for excluding male victims of domestic violence from state-funded services, and we got the law declared unconstitutional. (Woods v. Shewry). You'd find we introduced and influenced legislation to protect paternity fraud victims, organized rallies at the courthouses, helped many men get through very difficult and unfair legal situations, donated to homeless programs, and much much much more. Instead, you choose to assume things, reactively, without knowing what you're talking about.

      • advid cyclist on April 5, 2011 at 11:39 AM

        Try and catch a hockey game and maybe drink a beer or two….lighten up francis………if you actually attended a bike festival you too would be asking for more female participation. Keep your opinions to yourself and get a girlfriend instead of a boyfriend ……….

        • Marc A on April 5, 2011 at 12:38 PM

          I don't know who francis is, but I do have a wonderful gf and she rides with me, so I don't care much about the gender ratio at bike festivals as long as there's no sex discrimination. Thank you for that, NCFM.

          • JIll on April 5, 2011 at 1:36 PM

            This is my FAVORITE comment because you can always predict it. The complete chauvinist ALWAYS falls back on 'well, I have a hot girlfriend so I MUST be OK!' to legitimize his misogynist leanings.

            I like it a bit better when it's his friends who post it, like they're circling the wagons or something.

          • Marc A on April 5, 2011 at 1:55 PM

            Wow, supporting equal rights makes me a "chauvinist" and "misogynist"? Well then so be it.

            Oh, and I said I had a gf because some dummy like you here told me to get one, and somehow assumed I had a boyfriend. I didn't say it because it means I "must be ok." I couldn't care less about accusations like yours. But if the dummy-like-you tells me to get a gf, well I'm gonna say no thanks I have one already.

      • Cyclingforall on April 5, 2011 at 11:40 PM

        Marc, you are a complete idiot. You probably have nothing to do all day but research how men have been discriminated against. Your comments are pathetic and you do nothing to help a cycling event in a sport that you could care less about.

        Cycling needs more women and this was one event that helped promote that cause….I would know, as a male cyclists traveling to many regional cycling events.

        Meanwhile, keep your stupid, lame chauvinistic opinions to yourself and do something worthwhile with your life!

        • Marc A. on April 6, 2011 at 1:41 AM

          Actually I'm very busy, but it's so fun and amusing to read the anger from reactionaries like you who are soooo mad when men and women get treated equally, and I find it fun dto respond too. Can't resist! hahaha!

          "Cycling needs more women and this was one event that helped promote that cause….I would know, as a male cyclists traveling to many regional cycling events."

          That's great, so bring on more women. Just don't discriminate, or you might get sued. Salons have charged men less because they feel they need more male customers, but women's groups sued to stop it. Did you explode in a rage and go on their sites to make the same reacto comments?

          "Meanwhile, keep your stupid, lame chauvinistic opinions to yourself and do something worthwhile with your life!"

          Well as long as you taking the time to write misandrist, idiotic, reactionary comments I'll have some fun responding and smelling our mephitic anger through the screen hahahahaha!

    • kira on April 8, 2011 at 2:19 PM

      thank you dylan, for the most intelligent, thoughtfully written letter on this entire thread. you took the high ground and unfortunately it went right over the heads of many NCFM members, but it was a worthy try.

      i think it's sad, pathetic, and somewhat insulting that marc is comparing a women's bike festival to racial discrimination, but after reading the other ridiculous responses here, i sort of expected it.

      hope to see you out at the races sometime. i'm done here.

  28. Jill on April 4, 2011 at 6:13 PM

    Excellent! You did your part to even up the immensely pro-woman (read: anti-men) sport of cycling! This is amazing. And the way you worked so hard to make sure that all those little girls have to pony up the same cash the little boys do in order to skateboard! It’s just heroic, that’s what it is. Imagine if little girls continued to have so many unfair advantages in sport. Pretty soon the idea of a male doing a sport would be laughable! Gear companies would finally drop all pretense and stop making men’s gear (breathing a sigh of relief, no doubt) and FINALLY races and sports teams will be able to stop making up for the disparity by paying male athletes all those hundreds of millions of dollars extra over what they pay women. Wow. Harry Crouch, despite your unfortunate name, you are truly a humanitarian and, as everyone’s favorite warlock would say, just a WINNER. Nothing says winning like doing your part to make sure it’s even harder for women to participate and compete in male dominated sports. You go, Harry!

    • Marc A on April 5, 2011 at 1:57 PM

      "even harder for women to participate and compete in male dominated sports"

      Yeah, it's sooooooooo hard for women to ride at bike festivals that they need a discount to get them to do it. I guess a discount will make it easier to ride, right Jill? Makes you feel special?

  29. Mike Mac on April 4, 2011 at 2:56 AM

    Noting your devotion to the letter of the law I'm certain that you've negotiated usage rights for the athlete pictured in the image you used for your article. You guys probably got the OK from Sea Otter to use their image, right? I mean you guys being sticklers for the law and all…

    • Marc A. on April 5, 2011 at 9:30 AM

      NCFM is a stickler for the law when it comes to sex discrimination. The issue you raise is not about discrimination. So I hardly buy the "hypocrisy" denotation. But anyway, if that's illegal, please write NCFM a letter saying so and explaining why, just as NCFM did with Sea Otter.

      • Andre on April 5, 2011 at 10:50 AM

        Please ensure that before you send your letter that you also invent some hokey organisation dedicated entirely to the eradication of the heinous crime of unauthorised image usage so as to validate the contents of your correspondence. Perhaps the National Organisation Against Usage Rights Mis-Appropriation or NOAURM. Sounds catchy – where can I join!

        • Marc A on April 5, 2011 at 1:00 PM

          That's right. Maybe "Igno-Reactionaries Angry at Men's Rights Activits" (IRAMRA). And to really make it like NCFM, be sure it has been around for 35 years, wins an award from Enclyclopedia Britannica like the one at the bottom of http://ncfm.org/lead-with-us/awards/, has members in every state and several continents and chapters all over, has academics on its board from various respected universities, has letters from judges and public figures praising its work, has successfully overturned unconstitutional statutes, has passed laws protecting people from paternity fraud, has had people like Ed Asner and the late Gregory Hines as members, and has lots of people throughout the world saying "thank you" for its work. That's not hard to do. Just give it time.

      • JIll on April 5, 2011 at 1:54 PM

        Hm. You value the law for one particular pet issue but not for any other issue? That is, in point of fact, absolute hypocrisy.

        And I'm pretty sure Mike just wrote you to tell you that using that image without permission is in fact illegal. It doesn't have to be on a letterhead for it to be true, you know that, right?

        • Marc A on April 5, 2011 at 2:00 PM

          "You value the law for one particular pet issue but not for "any other issue? That is, in point of fact, absolute hypocrisy."

          Uh…no Jill. As a men's rights organization NCFM's focus is men's rights, and that's where NCFM's activism is. But as I said, if NCFM has broken a law, they would like to know about it.

          Boy Jill and your ilk sound so upset. Would you like some smelling salts? It might help you ride better, y'know.

          • Matt on April 6, 2011 at 1:46 AM

            "Boy Jill and your ilk sound so upset. Would you like some smelling salts? It might help you ride better, y’know."

            Marc, you don't have to be a complete douche. The NCFM pissed off a lot of women who had the best intentions. The promoters were trying to encourage women to join in on an activity that has had a positive impact on a lot of people. As many people have said already, there are a lot of causes worth fighting for, and this isn't one of them.

            The proper thing would have been to point out a potential legal issue, and offer suggestions; possibly offering free entry to first time participants, regardless of sex. It's men like you that give the rest of us a bad image.

          • Marc A. on April 6, 2011 at 7:47 AM

            Pissiing people off has always come with the territory when you combat discrimination. We've been doing it for years and we're used to it. It has become alot of fun. Even when we get called names by reactive idiots.

            People's "intentions" don't justify discrimination. Again, the salons who charge women more don't do it to exclude women, but to attract men. Doesn't matter. It's discrimination.

  30. harry on April 1, 2011 at 7:34 AM

    This is a good thing. It helped the Sea Otter Classic whether they would agree or not.

  31. dave on April 1, 2011 at 6:47 AM

    I think NCFM should be applauded. They could have just as easily sued the promoter. Instead they took the higher ground. A lesson can be learned.

  32. Mary Anne on April 7, 2011 at 10:38 PM

    Taylor, you watch a lot of porn on your computer, don't you?

  33. Ray on April 8, 2011 at 7:32 AM

    After reading that, I'd never let Taylor into any mountain bike event that I sponsored. I'd be afraid he'd go "off the cliff" at the first opportunity. :-)

Leave a Reply

See NCFM Wayback

waybackmachineOver the years millions of people worldwide have visited a National Coalition For Men website. Also over the years the site has changed dramatically, been taken down, moved, and otherwise uprooted. In those processes much information was lost, not recovered, and does not appear on this site. However you can see earlier versions and many of the extraordinary accomplishments of NCFM back to 1996 by using the WayBackMachine. In the search box type www.ncfm.org

Attend if you can!!

national coalition for men

Are Things Really Equal?

Girlwriteswhat on ideological feminism and its impact on our society and culture

campus hate speech

More on the war against males in education

Bookmark this site if you are a college student or parent who cares about the children regardless of their age…

a voice for male students

sexual harassment on campus

sexual harassment DOE

Interview with Erin Pizzey, the women who started the domestic violence shelter movement

Click on the picture below for Erin’s website

Other MUST WATCH Videos

 

realsexism.com

sexism

Men on Strike

Dr. Helen

Protect yourself! Get the book!!

Great Resources for Abused Men

 
  • Dometic Abuse Hotline for Men and Women, based in Maine, offers 24-hour hotline: 1-888-7HELPLINE (1-888-743-5754) and may be offering shelter services.
  • Valley Oasis in Lancater, CA has offers shelter and other services for men and their children. 24-hour Hotline: (661) 945-6736.
  • Family of Men Support Society, Calgary, Canada, shelter and support services.
  • Male Survivor, Overcoming Sexual Victimization of Boys and Men
  • probono.net, provides resources for pro bono and legal services attorneys and others working to assist low income or disadvantaged clients.
  • LawHelp.org, helps low and moderate income people find free legal aid programs in their communities, answers to questions about their legal rights, and find forms to help with their legal problems.
  • Shared Parenting Works has parenting plans and other resources.
  • Walk a Mile in HIS Shoes resources for abused men in Canada.
  • One in Three Campaign resoures for abused men in Australia.
  • Stop Abuse for Everyone, one of the most comprehensive and oldest sites dedicated to victims of domestic violence. The site was recently upgraded with the assistance of NCFM. The site includes an interactive map of north America for helping to find shelter services that might or do help abused men.

More great resources for men and those who care about men. Ask your elected officials if they do.

Men's Health Network

File a Federal Complaint

If you have specific instances of discrimination against male domestic violence victims by any government-funded DV program anywhere in the U.S., please send all evidence you have to the following federal agencies as a complaint, and state that this violates United States Code, Title 42, Section 3789d(c)(1). Give them as much evidence as you can. They are supposed to investigate it. After several months you may get a letter back saying there is "insufficient evidence" and that they need more information such as dates and times of the discrimination, names of the programs and contact info, names and contact info of witnesses, documents or records, and a detailed chronological narrative. So, re regarding evidence, the more the better. You can send the complaints by email, mail, or both. Send them to: Office of Civil Rights Office of Justice Programs U.S. Department of Justice 810 7th Street, NW Washington, DV 20531 Office of the Inspector General inspector.general@usdoj.gov oig.hotline@usdoj.gov

%d bloggers like this: