National Coalition For Men (NCFM) NCFM is dedicated to the removal of harmful gender based stereotypes, especially as they impact boys, men, their families and those who love them. Thu, 02 Jul 2015 01:41:07 +0000 en-US hourly 1 NCFM update in the case of U.S. Army Major Kit Martin, an abused man Wed, 01 Jul 2015 19:53:50 +0000 sexual assaultLatest Developments in the U.S. Army Major Kit Martin Sexual Assault Case

Following an intensive six month investigation, NCFM posted an article on April 1st along with a copy of a 19 page complaint sent to several people, including Defense Secretary Ash Carter and the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General about the persecution and pending court-martial of U.S. Army Major Christian “Kit” Martin.

Major Martin has been charged with a variety of sex related offenses stemming from a highly contentious divorce, all of which have been discredited. Otherwise, he is a highly decorated Apache Helicopter Pilot with several combat deployments in Iraq and a clean record until he told his wife he wanted a divorce.

As a result of our efforts, the Department of Defense (DOD), Office of Inspector General (OIG) initiated a “whistleblower investigation” into Fort Campbell’s handling of Major Martin’s case, which is ongoing.

One of the many problems with this case involves what seem to be serious ethical and procedural violations by Fort Campbell JAG prosecutor, Major Jenny Schlack-White, who was a member of Major Martin’s prosecution team. Those infractions are discussed in our investigative report. Accordingly, an appropriate complaint was filed with the Commonwealth of Kentucky State Bar.

Senator Kristen Gillibrand (D) New York is the loudest voice calling for reforms in the handling of sexual assault related cases on college campuses and in the military.  She even invited to the State of the Union Address, Columbia University’s infamous and wholly discredited Emma Sulkowicz, otherwise known as “Mattress Girl.”  Senator Gillibrand apparently believes false allegations from delusional victims trump factual evidence. According to an article at, “Gillibrand called Sulkowicz, whose alleged attacker Columbia found not responsible in the incident, “a woman of great courage who got no justice.”

Holding sex offenders accountable is certainly necessary, but not in the absence of evidence or when the accuser’s accusations have been been thoroughly discredited by several investigating agencies, civilian courts, and even school tribunals, as in Major Martin’s case and the young male college student victim wrongly labeled rapist in Mattress Girl’s ludicrous charade, as applicable.

The Federal government is attempting to eliminate the presumption of innocence, the ability to face and cross-examine accusers, and other due process protections in postsecondary education institutions and the military, especially as they apply to allegations of sexual assault, sexual harassment, stalking and domestic violence.  Even if it means destroying innocent men including incarcerating them for crimes never committed.

Unfortunately, resulting overhanded political pressure causes military commanders to violate constitutional safeguards they swore to protect in favor of career protection and advancement.

Consequently, gender divisiveness may be more prevalent now than it has ever been in the military, an observation thundering in no uncertain terms from a Facebook rant (below) targeted at Senator Gillibrand. Among others things, Jenny Sue Schlack says in the post that men she works with refuse to have closed-door discussions with her for fear of being accused of sexual harassment or assault.

The State Bar in the Commonwealth of Kentucky may not revoke Major Schlack-White’s law licence; however if she is Jenny Sue, the Facebook post may cost her military career. Schlack says in the post,  “Senator Gillibrand…single handedly caused more gender divisiveness in the military than I have ever experienced in over 11 years of service… She is an idiot.” Schlack deserves a medal for the Facebook post.

Many military men fear the mere allegation of sexual assault, sexual harassment, stalking or domestic violence will result in their removal from service, a possible court-martial, or prison sentence.  As a result, scores of highly trained and dedicated military men are leaving the service, which may be exactly what the current political regime wants.

Man-bad-woman-good mentality along with the constant hammering in briefings that men are rapists and abusers in wait, have to be adversely impacting military morale and the overall military mission.

On the good side, Major Martin has retained a new civilian and military criminal defense team, to include NCFM Adviser Attorney William L. SummersAttorney R. Tucker Richardson III, and Army JAG Defense Counsel Captain John Shutt from Fort Knox Kentucky.

kit martinMr. Summers has been practicing law since 1969 and is considered one of the preeminent military criminal defense attorneys in the nation.  You can go to Mr. Summer’s website and see a lengthy list of accomplishments to include several famous cases.

Tucker RichardsonMr. Richardson was elected in 2015 to the prestigious American Board of Criminal Lawyers .  He too has a lengthy list of accomplishments.

Hopefully Major Martin’s case and his new legal team will help bring more attention to the wrongful wagging of middle fingers at military personnel, both men and women, in similar situations. Political expediency is no excuse for ruining innocent people, regardless of gender.

schlack facebook post

We believe this post has been deleted from Facebook since we can no longer find it on Facebook.

national coalition for men

Those making false allegations of sexual assault should be held accountable, not their intended victims.

Sexual assault is a serious accusation. False accusers should face the same consequences as those they accuse would if convicted.


Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 0
NCFM Member Major Fubar, UCMJ Rules to Live By, Don’t let the hypocritical bigots get you down Sat, 27 Jun 2015 15:08:15 +0000 military

Especially those in the military.

NCFM NOTE: these rules for the military will be expanded as thought appropriate by Major Fubar. If you have a suggestion for a rule please leave it in the comment section below. If you are in the military, or have loved ones in the military this is a must read article… come to think of it everyone else should read it too to better realize what a few legislators are doing to our military, especially our military men. Military leaders swear an oath to protect us. That oath includes protecting fundamental due process guarantees, guilty even if proven innocent is not one of them.

UCMJ Rules to Live By

By Major Fubar,

Rules to remember:

  1. Once accused, you are GUILTY until proven innocent.

This is especially true for current politically sensitive cases such as domestic violence, sexual assault, and espionage. You are going to a Court Martial- get ready. Even when your accuser(s) are shown to be lying, the military JAG will not admit their fault, nor apologize for screwing up your life.

  1. CYA! Covering their butts is the primary concern of all commanders in the military today and this is continually driven from above.

Hence all the constant, repetitive, and mind numbing training and counseling that inhibits us from training for our real jobs. Consequently if you are accused of anything (per item 1 above) you are guilty and there will be a 20 step mandatory counseling and protection process taken against you to strip you of your rights and protect your accusers (check out your CGs policy letters).

Never put yourself in a position of vulnerability such as meeting/counseling a member of the opposite sex alone. Always have a witness with you and document dates and times, and who your witness was. A small tape recorder can save you too. If you meet someone socially and “hook up,” that person may have regrets later and accuse you of rape. If they’ve been drinking then they are incapable of giving consent!

If the accusation is serious, you are not only guilty, but a psychotic trained killer that’s suffering from PTSD and you can’t be trusted.

  1. Even if you are the one to call the police or MPs, you are probably going to get arrested.

This applies even if they have to pull that frying pan out of your head that your spouse hit you with. I’ve seen this more times than I can count. Remember, you are a psychotic trained killer that’s suffering from PTSD, and you can’t be trusted. Bad news of any type of incident doesn’t get better with age, call your supervisor ASAP.

  1. Your spouse, or almost anyone (check your state’s laws), can file an EPO (Emergency Protective Order) against you at anytime.

Proof is no obstacle. All they have to do is go to a judge and ask for one. The first you will find out about it is when the police officer shows up at your door and tells you to leave within five minutes or be arrested. They will also take your firearms, carry permits, etc. (forget that Second Amendment thing).

EPOs usually last for two weeks so that your “victim” has plenty of time to strip your house of all you own. Be sure to grab your laptop, titles, passport, etc. on your way out. It’s a good idea to photo or video your belongings so you have a record of what was taken from you. If you have pets, don’t leave them behind. There are no allowances for returning to your property, they will starve!

  1. Do not talk or make statements to CID, MPI, CI, FAP, etc. ! ! !

You may think these are impartial organizations that will help expedite clearing your name and revealing the truth, but the reality is that most of the time they are just a tool for the prosecution.

They will usually look for only negative information and consult only witnesses that will help their case against you. They will pick apart what you have told them for inconsistencies. This includes them calling that little sister of yours that doesn’t understand what’s going on, all the while pretending they’re trying to help you, so prep your family and friends to zip it.

This lack of impartiality is counter to even the best interests of the military in terms of time and money, but it is the current reality.

  1. You need to act like your own lawyer, document everything and keep a running timeline.

No one knows your case better than you. Your lawyer has many other clients. Be proactive and organized. Keep a daily log of events and mirroring documents to back them up. This is crucial!

Don’t ever throw this stuff away. Place a copy somewhere else in case of a second EPO.

If you can afford it, and maybe even if you can’t, hire a civilian lawyer as well as having military council. JAG lawyers are all friends/coworkers that are assigned to be a prosecutor or defense council on a revolving basis. Having a seasoned civilian attorney that works directly for you can only help. It’s your future on the line, what’s it worth to you?

  1. The UCMJ process can be briefed as fair and impartial, but it’s not (item 1 above).

I’ve been on both sides, and when it’s turned against you, you see how unfair it can be (depending on your commander). The military can keep you flagged and in an indeterminate status for as long as they want (just like Gitmo). If you decide to opt for a Court Martial over an ART 15, the military has the option (and they will probably take it) to add additional charges to your case. I’m not telling you to just take an Article 15. Just be ready for them to show up unannounced at the doorstep of your family, friends, and enemies digging for dirt.

  1. UCI, (Unlawful Command Influence) is alive and well.

This means if your commander’s pet project for his next OER (evaluation) is, for example, reducing drug use, and that’s what you’re accused of, look out! You’re getting both barrels. There is no standard of punishment per crime, only minimum and maximum sentences, and every rule can be waived. Your commander may also be getting UCI from his boss to “slam” you, I’ve seen this many times in meetings and conversations.

If you are being treated unfairly, you may request a Congressional Inquiry through your Congressman. I have seen this work well for many enlisted Soldiers, but when I did it I unleashed a giant backlash, so just an FYI.

  1. The Family Advocacy Program (FAP) is a farce.

Referral to them is mandatory if there are accusations of domestic violence (and why wouldn’t your accuser want to go all out against you? This is especially true of that ex that just lost all their government benefits).

FAP, is an organization that needs to justify its own existence (and budget). All they have is a hammer and you are a nail. They need to get you in their program and they will hold a secret meeting to determine if you should be there. Oh, by the way, you aren’t invited to attend and speak for yourself and provide evidence and witnesses. Your commander can attend, but he/she can’t vote.

Like an EPO, evidence is no issue, and they will justify their procedures by saying they are not putting you on trial. If they admit you to the program though, and they will, you will be blacklisted for the rest of your career in a secret database, just like the guys at Tailhook. Most FAP counselors are female civilians that act like they are the victims of domestic abuse, or maybe they’ve just seen too much of it, so don’t expect a lot of sympathy or help. Your assigned counselor that’s “there for you” is also your accusers and they have probably already heard and bought into their version of events (see rule 5). Unfortunately, just like politics, it pays to go ugly early.

It doesn’t matter that your spouse cheated on you, stole everything from you, or it has even been revealed they are a felon. You are the service member and you are going through their program, because you are a psychotic trained killer that’s suffering from PTSD, and you can’t be trusted.

  1. The best for last. There is no retribution taken against false allegations made against service members!

This is especially true if your accusers are civilians. That spouse, or even just a one night stand, has the ability to ruin your life. If at first they don’t succeed, they can just continue to add more allegations, even years later; the military will play along.

I hope this helps you. I don’t want my suffering to be in vain. Please pass this on and add your story or lessons.


Major Fubar

…because I am not a psychotic trained killer that’s not suffering from PTSD and people need to know about this garbage, especially young troops new to the military.

Illegitimi non carborundum


Think about it…

(Don’t let the hypocritical bigots get you down)

national coalition for menOur military is under legislative attack.

That attack disrespects falsely accused military members while protecting their false accuser.

The attack has to be stopped before our military is replaced completely with service members disloyal to their oath of office.

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 0
NCFM Georgian Liaison Carl Augustsson, update, men’s rights movement and conscription Fri, 26 Jun 2015 22:46:45 +0000 conscription

You can help. Join NCFM like Carl did several years ago. It takes all of us to make the world a better place for everyone.

Abolishing the sexist nature of conscription is just one of many reasons the Men’s Rights Movement is needed.

Conscription, or as I call it “The glorified national sexist enslavement of young men” is clearly one of the more important reasons.

In fairness of full disclosure, the Men’s Rights movement is not necessarily anti-conscription, but merely opposed to the sexist nature of it.  However, many of us as individuals are probably opposed to it in general.  Since the early 90s, the countries of Europe and Latin America (among other places) have, one by one, abolished sexist conscription policies.

Sadly, the process has hit some recent snags.  Both Austria and Switzerland held referendums in which they voted to keep it.   In the of Switzerland (and perhaps Austria) a majority of WOMEN voted to keep it.  There has even been talk of bringing it back in several European countries.  While it is doubtful that it would be brought back in most, it sadly has been brought back in Lithuania. mostly due to Russian aggression.  Likewise, due to Russian aggression, plans to abolish it have been put on hold in Georgia and Ukraine.

However, now for the good news.  Norway, one of the last Western European countries to still practice this, expanded it in 2013 to include women.  Here are the links:

If this count is correct, the only NATO/European Union countries that still have sexist conscription policies (in addition to the ones that have already been mentioned) are Finland, Greece, Estonia, Cyprus, and Turkey.  Technically Denmark as well, but there it basically exists in name only.  In the case of Norway, this means that the Men’s Rights Movement can no longer oppose their conscription policy.

Carl Augustsson

The biggest example of sexism in the world today, is the ridiculous notion that only one sex has ever been the victim of it.

national coalition for men

Conscription, the glorified national sexist enslavement of young men, is clearly one of the important reasons we need the Men’s Rights Movement.

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 2
NCFM Vice-President Marc Angelucci, Esq., cut them at birth male bashing is fun Fri, 26 Jun 2015 00:27:42 +0000 male bashing

cut them at birth male bashing is fun

Cut them at birth. Bloodstain their prize.
Say it looks better. Ignore their cries.
Tell them to man up. Send them to war.
Say they are privileged. Make them want more.
Give them long hours at dangerous chore.
Tell them they’re lucky b/c they “earn more.”
Push them to marry. Tell them they ought.
Then when it’s over, take all they got.
Ignore their issues. Downplay their pain.
Tell them it’s their fault. They are to blame.
Let them die early. Dig them a grave.
Give them some flowers. Say they were brave.
Misandric humor. Male bashing fun.
And don’t dare say they’re the disposable ones.

national coalition for mencut them at birth male bashing is fun

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 1
NCFM Adviser Michael Conzachi on the murder-suicide of Darryl Hamilton Thu, 25 Jun 2015 23:14:04 +0000  

murder-suicideFormer Major League Baseball Player Darryl Hamilton Dead in Murder-Suicide at the Hands of the Mother of His 14 Month Old Son.

By Michael Conzachi

On Father’s Day, Sunday, June 21, 2015, former major league baseball player and MLB Network Analyst Darryl Hamilton, daryl Hamilton50, was found murdered, shot multiple times, at the home of the mother of his 14 month old son, Monica Jordan, 44, a Houston attorney.  Hamilton had just returned his 14 month old son, Jaxon to Jordan’s spacious home in Pearland Texas, after a father’s day outing.

Hamilton was found just inside the front door, Jordan was found in another room with a self-inflicted gunshot wound and 14-month-old Jaxon was found unharmed, and was turned over to Child Protection Services.  A suicide note was found however authorities are not revealing details.

Hamilton has two sons from a previous relationship or marriage.

According to published reports, Monica Jordan excitedly called her ex-husband Rohaven Richards, whom she divorced, and told him to call 9-1-1 and to come over and “get the baby.”

Monica Jordan had a history of domestic violence and was convicted in 2008 of a 2006 arson, after burning down the home in which she lived with husband Richards.  According to Brazoria County District Attorney Jeri Yenne, Jordan’s level of violence escalated when she believed that Richards was cheating on her.  Apparently, Jordan received a deferred judgment in the case and was sentenced to do community service, but continued to work as an attorney.

Additionally, it was reported Jordan once chased Richards around their home while pouring gasoline on him!

News sources report that Jordan was not punished or sanctioned by the Texas State Bar for the arson.  Apparently, a felony conviction for arson is not enough in Texas to revoke a law license, nor is trying to light someone on fire.

Just two days before the murder suicide, Jordan and Hamilton had been in a family court to work out the arrangements of the custody of their son.

Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred issued a statement;

“All of us at Major League Baseball are shocked and saddened by this tragedy, he was a talented and personable individual, and we were proud to call him a member of the baseball family.  On behalf of Major League Baseball, I extend my deepest sympathies to Darryl’s family and his many friends throughout our game.”

Imagine if the roles had been reversed and Hamilton had been the abuser and Jordan the victim.  And with the history of arson and an incident of pouring gasoline on a spouse, do you think there would have been a different reaction from the main stream press if the roles were reversed?

And we have seen so many times in the past of violence erupting as a result of some type of family law case or contentious and high conflict child custody matter.

We don’t know if Hamilton was aware of Jordan’s violent past before he became involved in a relationship with her and had a son, and we can’t ask him because he’s dead.

This brings back memories of the 2009 murder-suicide of former married Tennessee Titans quarterback Steve McNair by his girlfriend Sahel “Jenni” Kazemi at their condominium in Nashville Tennessee.  McNair was shot four times; twice in the head and Kazemi was found with a single self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head.

Kazemi shot McNair while he was sleeping.

The Tennessee Titans owner Bud Adams released a statement shortly after the murder;

“We are saddened and shocked to hear the news of Steve McNair’s passing(mine: shot four times while sleeping including twice in the head) today.  He was one of the finest players to play for our organization and one of the most beloved players by our fans.  He played with unquestioned heart and leadership and led us to places that we had never reached, including our only Super Bowl.  Our thoughts and prayers are with his family as they deal with his untimely passing.”

Have you noticed the careful language of the MLB Commissioner and the Titans owner over these tragedies?  I am sure that both men were aware of the circumstances of these deaths but chose their words very carefully.  I guess that was to be expected, but there certainly is hypocrisy when the roles are reversed.

We recently remember the vast outrage about the domestic violence incident and arrest of former Ravens running back Ray Rice, but the lack of same involving the domestic violence arrest of soccer star Hoppe Solo, now on the U.S. Woman’s Cup Team and the worlds greatest woman goalie.

I know this is one of the same old stories and scenarios, where the public outrage is contingent on who is the victim and who is the perpetrator.

Maybe some of the outrage will be directed to whoever was the prosecuting attorney on Jordan’s arson case and who allowed her to do some community service, and the Texas State Bar for allowing such a disturbed person to remain a practicing attorney.



national coalition for menDarryl’s murder-suicide would have not happened had his murderer been kept in jail for her earlier crimes.


Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 0
NCFM Carolinas asks that you contact your U.S. Senators and Congressman and tell them you oppose he Campus Accountability and Safety Act (CASA), S.590 / H.R. 1310 Thu, 25 Jun 2015 21:34:17 +0000 S.590 / H.R. 1310

Oppose S.590 / H.R. 1310.

Please, tell your U.S. Senators and Representatives that you oppose S.590 / H.R. 1310. You need to do it soon too, before it is too late to stop another piece of misandric legislation. Our Carolinas chapter is spearheading our efforts to educate people about how bad this legislation is…

The National Coalition For Men Carolinas (NCFMC), a leading men’s human rights organization advocating for the fair treatment of men and young boys with chapters operating across the United States, is asking Congress to oppose S.590 / H.R. 1310 known as the Campus Accountability and Safety Act (CASA) in its current form. There are many problems contained within the CASA legislation as noted in the attached briefings.

NCFM chapters are receiving phone calls from families that have a college-age family member, almost exclusively always a son, accused of sexual assault or sexual misconduct who have experienced what one can only describe as an Orwellian kangaroo court process in the adjudication of the allegations.

Time and again, constituent families have seen the heavy-handed manner colleges use against accused students when an allegation of sexual misconduct is made. The risk of loss of federal funding that colleges face under the directive of the Department of Education overwhelms any reasonable effort to make sure the fair treatment of the accused, particularly with respect to due process, impartiality and the collection of evidence.

We support the need to find an effective solution to the problem of campus sexual assault. Unfortunately, CASA falls far short of ensuring that our college campuses will become safer and that all students will receive fair and equitable treatment. Please support our call for a better and fair approach to this complex issue by contacting your Senator and Congressman and ask them to oppose S.590 / H.R. 1310.

national coalition for men

Please, tell your U.S. Senators and Representatives that you oppose S.590 / H.R. 1310. Do it now please. Sent them an email, a letter, call them, if the office is closed leave a message. Thank you.

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 1
NCFM Adviser and President of the Equal Justice Foundation, superb article, “Domestic Violence Against Men” Thu, 25 Jun 2015 20:43:31 +0000 domestic violence against men

NCFM NOTE: This is masterful truth-telling by Dr. Corry. The article takes the reader through the complex maze of the Domestic Violence Industry and its horrific and wrongheaded hammering of  men. One of the best articles ever written on the subject.

 Domestic Violence Against Men

By Charles E. Corry, Ph.D.


The Domestic Violence Against Men in Colorado web site was first posted in November 1999. There were just five chapters. The early work drew attention and I was strongly encouraged to found the Equal Justice Foundation, which we did in February 2001. At the time we were among a few lonely voices whistling in the wind in defense of abused men and with the temerity to denounce the actions of violent women and the ideology of radical feminists.

Today our Domestic Violence Against Men in Colorado site would total over 2,200 printed pages. To keep that site somewhat Colorado-centric we have added a Global Domestic Violence site that would total nearly 1,700 printed pages by itself. Unlike most other web sites we also include tables of content, lists of tables and figures, a bibliography, and indexes. Wherever feasible hyperlinks are also included in the text.

Our sites include a broad range of articles from a multitude of authors: a law professor, a number of attorneys, police, university researchers, authors, rational feminists, columnists, as well as many personal stories of abused men and women. And to describe what kinds of violence women are perpetrating there are innumerable vignettes describing the actions of violent women throughout the United States.

To my knowledge no rigorous scientific study has ever found valid evidence that intimate partner violence was dominated by one sex. But at the time the radical feminist dogma that all women were “victims” and all men were “batterers” in order to maintain the patriarchy, or similar nonsense, held sway in the courts and legislatures. Unfortunately, due to the unswerving efforts of radical ideologues richly supported by federal and state funds, the science is still largely ignored in those chambers.

But the tide is slowly changing and it is to be hoped that the work of the Equal Justice Foundation plays some small role in swinging the balance of justice back to equality.

Early research

In 1971 Erin Pizzey established a refuge for abused women in Chiswick, London, England, one of the first. Her 1978 book Scream Quietly Or The Neighbors Will Hear brought domestic violence to the world’s attention. From the beginning she found that 62 of the first 100 women to enter her refuge (shelter) were as violent, or more violent than the men they left.

Research dating from 1980 by Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetiz is unequivocal in finding that in intimate relationships women are as, or are more violent than men.

But at the time these were scattered voices crying in their beer while radical feminist battalions relentlessly bombarded the halls of justice and government with their dogma.

My colleague, Prof. Martin Fiebert, has now compiled a bibliography of references examining assaults by women on their intimate partners that includes some 286 references. John Hamel has reviewed the current state of knowledge about intimate partner violence, an effort that encompasses most research on this topic. The consensus is that the rates of female-perpetrated violence are higher than male-perpetrated (28.3% vs. 21.6%).

Research is also consistent in finding that in half the incidents of domestic violence both the man and woman are violent. However, the woman initiates the violence about 60% of the time in these incidents.

In the face of overwhelming scientific evidence for female violence in intimate relationships how are feminist ideologues able to maintain the legal fiction that women are only violent in “self defense” or in response to repeated and prolonged battering by their male partners, the “battered woman defense”?

Certainly well orchestrated parades of tearful women relating pitiful, if somewhat edited and embellished, stories while sobbing away sways legislators. Abused men who attempt to tell their stories are generally met with scorn and contempt. So, for the most part, men don’t tell and everyone’s rights suffer. Worse, the radical feminist ideology only makes the problem of intimate partner violence more destructive. But that suits their objective of destroying the patriarchy and restoring a more primitive matriarchy with the assistance of generous government funding.

Avoid the rush! Get your hogan on the Navajo Reservation now and join a matriarchal society!

Hiding the truth

The paper by Prof. Murray Straus describing the Processes Explaining The Concealment And Distortion of Evidence On Gender Symmetry In Intimate Partner Violence provides the background needed to understand how the fiction that women are predominately “victims” of domestic violence and men are consistently “batterers” is maintained. That ideology is fiercely defended by radical feminists whose funding and beliefs are dependent on maintaining this fiction. Advocacy research is a basic tool they effectively use in maintaining their illusion.

Ideologically driven advocates certainly do everything they can to ensure the “victims” are not cross-examined. Under the mantra of “believe the victim” law was established to issue restraining orders ex parte that take virtually everything a man treasures from him without notice or hearing.

Of course if we “believe the victim” we must presume the accused is guilty!

When a “victim” of domestic violence didn’t show up for trial, and many if not most don’t, the proceeding continued based on other evidence, as in a murder trial. Until the 2004 US Supreme Court ruling in Crawford v Washington defendants were routinely denied their Sixth Amendment rights to confront and cross-examine their accusers. Even today many courts and prosecutors ignore, or do their best to evade this Constitutional stricture when the woman does not show for trial, or is obviously an unreliable witness for the prosecution. A bevy of “expert” witnesses who are paid to testify how domestic violence works according to their ideological model of a cycle of violence is also kept on tap at taxpayer expense.

What is currently considered domestic violence and abuse

One way that radical feminists have managed to maintain the fiction that women are exclusively “victims” and men are always “batterers” is to constantly expand the definition of what constitutes domestic violence and abuse.

The following are current types of violence and abuse reflected in both law and custom. The review is not politically correct or delicate, and is incomplete in the eyes of many radical feminists. The ultra-sensitive should skip this section:

  • Physical — One would be wrong to assume that physical abuse is limited to the use of fists and weapons. Examples are presented below as to the many types of female violence observed.

It is no secret that normal couples argue and fight, and during such arguments they often push, shove, or she slaps him. That suffices for an arrest today as feminist dogma insists that if not stopped immediately by an arrest and reeducation of the male that such violence will inevitably escalate through a cycle of violence to femicide.

Further, dogmatic domestic violence advocates regard even such acts as a pillow fight as physical violence. Nor can couples play, wrestle, or make loud, passionate love without committing domestic violence in Big Sister’s world. And BDSM is definitely abuse though widely practiced. Nor is there any allowance for accidents if she visits a doctor or hospital with an injury. She will be asked if she is safe at home or in fear of her partner by medical personnel, or they may call police on their own initiative without consulting the woman. But a man who reports injuries inflicted by a woman is generally ignored.

Much of the hysteria about intimate partner violence (IPV) is based on relatively rare cases of severe assaults, and even homicides. Examples are presented here of women doing that as well. And apparently the most violent relationships are among lesbian couples. Recently it has even become politically acceptable to publish such stories, e.g., Denver Sheriff Deputy Debra West was arrested for assaulting her wife in December 2014.

But feminists and DV advocates only bring forward male “batterers,” as those are the only ones who exist in their lexicon. That works well with legislators who are congenitally unable to distinguish possibility from probability and thereby incorporate draconian punishments into laws that treat the trivial and cases of life-and-death as equal.

  • Emotional — Emotional abuse occurs today when a man attempts to stop his mate from excessive drinking, spending, exceeding the credit limit on credit cards or, worse, taking them away from her.

He may also cuss and swear, particularly if he is a veteran. Or he may not spend enough time with her due to the pressure of work while he attempts to support her and the kids. And a thousand other reasons she is unhappy…

It is obvious that every woman living with a man today is emotionally abused under these standards.

  • Sexual — Couples usually come together because of a mutual enjoyment of sex with each other. Many couples engage in a variety of sex games, e.g., bondage, and may employ a variety of sex toys. All fun and games until the woman gets jealous, wants a divorce, is seeking sole custody of the kids, etc. Then these games quickly become sexual abuse to be put forward in lurid, one-sided detail.

Then there is the problem of sexual assault. In the lexicon of radical feminists, e.g., Andrea Dworkin or Catherine MacKinnon, every act of sexual intercourse is rape. For example, Cupcake gets drunk and has sex. Now ever since beverages containing ethyl alcohol were invented men have been trying to get women drunk in order to couple with them. But today if Cupcake sobers up and decides she didn’t like the experience she can claim sexual assault (rape) even three or six months later and without any evidence as an allegation will suffice.

Actual rape is an ugly crime and if a woman doesn’t shower, douche, or wash her clothes, and has a rape examination within 72 hours after there is almost always indisputable evidence against the perpetrator today.  But if she waits for months, sends him emails, even has sex with him again, then this isn’t “rape” or any kind of sexual assault by normal standards though such claims are now routinely made.

Of course in the above I’ve assumed a male attacking a female constitutes rape, as that is where the hysteria is generated. But there is evidence that more sexual assaults on campus are perpetrated by lesbians than by males.

The secret for mature women who don’t want to be “victims” is don’t get drunk and have sex. Sober women are seldom raped. The more intelligent ones carry pepper spray or mace ready to hand, i.e., not buried in the bottom of their purse. Even better is a concealed-carry permit for a gun, or a rubber-handled screwdriver with a 6”-8” shank and a thin blade. Those defensive weapons are effective against both male and female attackers if used soberly.

  • Financial abuse — In many, if not most couples one or the other handles the finances. But today if that is the male and he doesn’t give her everything she wants then it is considered financial abuse and controlling behavior.


  • Verbal — During arguments couples commonly say hurtful things to each other that they often regret later. However, anything a man may say today to a woman, particularly if he swears or yells, as men often do, is considered verbal abuse. Nor is there any statute of limitations on anything she may have taken offense to.

No such restrictions apply, however, to whatever she may scream or say.

  • Religious/Spiritual — It is quite common today for couples to be of no or different religious faiths. All is well when love is young but they may differ radically on the education and religion the children are to be raised in.

All is milk and honey if he agrees to attend her church and raise the children in her faith. But should he want the opposite it may now be religious and spiritual abuse.

  • Honor-based violence — Feuds between the Hatfields and McCoys are out. Nor can a father or brother defend the honor of his family.


  • Forced marriage — Used to be if Johnny down the road knocked up Susie there was commonly a shotgun wedding. Mostly the couple worked things out and it provided the child a father. But modern feminists are out to destroy marriage and fathers so this is now abuse.
  • FGM — Female genital mutilation is a cruel practice of a few cults and religions. Most find it repulsive and it appears to be primarily practiced in the United States by illegal immigrants from the Middle East and Africa. But again it only applies to females.

Conversely, male genital mutilation (MGM), or circumcision is routinely practiced and often forced on boys by the State on pain of imprisonment.

  • Stalking and Harassment — What is now termed stalking is almost universally practiced by young lovers, both male and female. Of course it can become annoying if a rejected suitor persists, and criminal if they begin destroying property, e.g., breaking windows, slashing tires, committing arson, killing pets, etc.

Rejected men and women can also harass the other by such acts as phone calls every half hour night and day, calling the other’s employer, making or filing false allegations, spreading malicious rumors, or any other way fertile and passion-deranged imaginations can derive. The problem is action is generally only taken against men who are stalking and harassing a female.

Of course neighbors and even strangers can stalk and harass others but such actions are relatively uncommon and the topic here is limited to domestic violence and abuse.

If the above criteria were put in mathematical terms the problem would be considered overdetermined. And consider that prior restraint is government action that prohibits speech or other expression before it can take place. Clearly, under the above criteria, every action that a man might take in an intimate relationship falls under one of more of these criteria, and by these definitions every woman in the country has been, or is being abused.

The overarching issue is not that the above constraints can’t be taken to extremes but at what point does the State have a compelling interest to intervene? Current laws go far beyond any rational need for intervention by the State. Worse, these laws are based on the false dogma that only men are committing these crimes.

Under the above criteria:

  • Arrests are made without a warrant;
  • Warrantless arrests have become mandatory;
  • Citizens are forced from their homes and children with nothing more than the clothes on their back without even a pretense of due process;
  • Home entry, often forced, and searches without a warrant have become commonplace or even standard;
  • Property is seized without redress often based on nothing more than hearsay and anonymous phone calls;
  • The accused is presumed guilty until proven innocent;
  • Mere allegations now suffice as proof and hearsay may be admitted as evidence;
  • Defendants are denied of the right to confront their accuser and obtain witnesses in one’s defense;
  • The assistance of counsel is often denied and unaffordable;
  • Punishment and imprisonment occurs before a trial or without one;
  • Men are publicly censured for crimes they have not committed;
  • Indentured servitude and often outright slavery are commonplace; and
  • Men are imprisoned for debts they may or may not owe, and more.

These are the acts of a police state and the policies of tyrants.

Experience suggests these draconian policies have only made the problems of intimate partner violence worse.

False allegations

Another problem with current laws and courts is that they invite false allegations. Restraining (or protection) orders are issued ex parte, hearsay is now admissible in many cases, perjury is almost never challenged, and men are punished before a trial or hearing or without one.

All that is required for these actions to occur is that a woman allege that a man has harmed or abused her or children in some fashion. Evidence isn’t necessary, or can be fabricated. State-supported advocates and attorneys stand ready to assist the woman in making these allegations, suborning perjury at every opportunity, and prosecutors and judges are schooled to “believe the victim,” but only if female.

Types of female violence observed

Hyperlinks are provided to selected vignettes as examples of the type of violence described. Many additional examples of such behavior can be found in the Colorado index or the Global index.

Beyond statistics

I wanted to go beyond statistical analysis and one of our first major papers was Controlling Domestic Violence Against Men by Erin PIzzey, Martin Fiebert, and myself. First presented at a conference in San Diego the evening of September 10, 2001, that article has become a standard reference on the topic.

Knowing that women are violent in intimate relationships is only a part of the problem and leaves the question of what kind of violence is the distaff half likely to initiate unanswered? Thus, with help from many contributors I began compiling documentation of female violence in intimate relationships. Although some clear patterns of misbehavior are evident, our documentation was never intended to be a valid statistical sample, simply a survey of female violence and misbehavior.

Power and control

Feminist dogma is insistent that men engage in domestic violence in order to maintain power and control over their female partners. Presumptively that is done in order to maintain the patriarchy. However, in the few cases I’ve seen where men were violent simply to maintain power and control, on enquiry the men haven’t had the education or intelligence to know what the hell the “patriarchy” is. One is reminded of the induhviduals in Scott Adams Dilbert comic strip. So I suggest this is an unlikely hypothesis to explain why some men are violent in intimate relationships.

One more readily turns to vengeance, jealousy, adultery, mental disorders, pimping, and substance abuse (particularly methamphetamine) to explain male violence against females, as well as female violence against males, rather than simply power and control. However, as discussed in the next section there is an undeniable relationship between post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and intimate partner violence.

Conversely, I have observed power and control issues widely in radical feminists, particularly those who put themselves forward as advocates against domestic violence. The common form is some sort of passive-aggressive behavior, especially among those women who have a position that gives them a modicum of power over males, e.g., a feminist bureaucrat or, worse, a judge or lawyer. While their behavior may not take the form of physical violence it certainly meets the criteria for emotional abuse, and may take many other forms such as sexual, financial, and verbal abuse, as well as harassment and stalking as in this example of a black widow.

Incidentally, ladies if you are going to harass and stalk your boyfriend do not do it by trying to climb down his chimney. One female medical doctor has died doing that and in another case the fire department had to tear the chimney apart to free her. But such bizarre behavior seems to go hand-in-hand with power-and-control issues in females.

Hypocrisy also seems to be a handmaiden to power and control. Consider the case of a 5 foot, 125-pound socialite professor at Columbia University who taught conflict resolution to executives in the New York police and fire departments and advocated against domestic violence. Under the covers, so to speak, this cougar had a much younger Boy Toy living with her in her swank West End apartment who she took to beating, claiming he cheated on her.

Domestic violence and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)

The endless imperial wars of the 21st Century have added more than a million wounded warriors to the ranks of America’s disabled veterans. It is becoming ever more clear that upwards of half these veterans have, or will suffer from some level of post traumatic stress disorder (see Endnote for symptoms). PTSD is particularly prevalent among veterans who have been on multiple deployments and among National Guard units.

Note that one distinctive symptom is “a need for unconditional control of almost every situation in order to feel safe.” Such control is essential for survival in combat but in an intimate relationship is seen as “power and control.”

A nation that sends its warriors into hell must not destroy them when they return. As Kipling pointed out “…single men in barricks don’t grow into plaster saints.” For them cursing, swearing, drinking, and fighting are normal, not criminal. When the demons come back and veterans lash out in blind anger; pound on the walls; kick and fight when the nightmares come because they must sleep; hide in terror or go away into flashbacks; these are not crimes but the price a warrior pays and a debt society owes.

Various studies show a close link between PTSD and domestic violence with at least one showing:

“81% of veterans suffering from depression and PTSD engaged in at least one violent act against their partner in the past year; and over half of veterans with PTSD performed one severe act of violence in the past year — a rate more than 14 times higher than the general civilian population.”

As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan drug on more and more women were spread throughout the battlespace in a variety of roles. Thus, we are now seeing more and more female veterans with PTSD. Some evidence suggests women may be more susceptible to PTSD than men but there is no evidence to suggest female veterans suffering from PTSD behave markedly different from males.

Of course there are far more cases of PTSD among the civilian population, notably among police and corrections officers, as well as other high stress occupations. Women who have been raped, assaulted, or survived disasters or accidents also suffer from PTSD and manifest the same symptoms and violent behavior.

Whether men or women suffer from PTSD is irrelevant to the issue of how society addresses this problem. To the disgrace of our society we have made wounds of war a crime and made criminals of accident victims. I think it is clear that treating PTSD as a crime, as presently done, is counterproductive solves nothing, and almost certainly makes the problems worse for both society and the individual.

It is outrageous for society to treat wounded warriors as criminals.

Self defence

A basic mantra of radical feminists is that women are only violent in self defense. Perhaps the primary promoter of this falsehood is Lenore Walker and her advancement of the “battered woman syndrome” as a defense for women in criminal trials. But Walker was by no means the inventor of this idea as a 1911 case demonstrates.

While there is no question that some women are violent in self defense against an abusive partner, in the hundreds of stories of violent women in Colorado and other states describing some of the most horrific and violent acts by women imaginable I have not seen a clear-cut case of self defense.

There are, however, innumerable cases where the woman acted out of a desire for vengeance, jealousy, a mental disorder, or financial gain. It is but a small step for such a woman to imagine and portray herself as a “victim” in these situations and claim she acted in “self defense.” That is particularly true when DV advocates encourage such delusions.

Female serial murderers

Serial killers, male or female, are supposedly rare yet my very incomplete sampling turned up twenty such female cases. Going back in history Ranker lists twenty-one such female monsters. Wikipedia tabulates some thirty-eight female serial killers.

While exact numbers are unknown, I was surprised by these numbers. Typically a serial killer is thought of as male and, in some cases, female serial killers acting in concert with a male partner.

While the total is undoubtedly small, the number of female serial murderers is not negligible and serves as testimony for female violence.

Shooting, stabbing, vehicular assault, other weapons

In reviewing stories of female-initiated homicides in Colorado, and the rest of the country, it is apparent that females have few compunctions about shooting their partners. However, it is apparent that women tend to favor stabbing him about as often as shooting, perhaps because a knife is handy in the kitchen. But, given the opportunity, they will drive over the man with a car, as in the case of an assistant U.S. attorney who backed over her boyfriend, twice. Or the Westminster, Colorado woman who rammed and killed her husband with their car simply because she wanted “the last word.”

One thing that seems evident after the passage of draconian domestic violence laws is an increase in murder-suicides in couples. Typically the reports indicate the man shot his wife or lover and then himself. But is this always true? Take for example the case where teenage daughters found their parents dead in bed in the Denver area. Investigators told the press the husband had shot his wife. But the gun was in her hand!

There are also the very sad cases where a woman kills their children to take vengeance or get back at the father.

Having the police present has not proven to provide safety for men. Witness the case of a University of Colorado professor in Boulder, or a Las Animas attorney, both of whom were shot to death by their wives in the presence of police officers.

There is also the case of a female FBI agent hitting her husband in the face with a shovel. Many a man has had hot grease, boiling water, or boiling oil thrown in his face and males are well advised to stay out of the kitchen when Cupcake is mad.  Women also like to wait until a man is asleep and then attack, e.g., pour boiling water in his groin or chop on his head with a meat cleaver. So one sees a variety of weapons used by women in attacking men and usually taking them by surprise.


Even more astonishing are the admittedly rare cases of cannibalism by females; Consider the case in Alamosa, Colorado, where a woman butchered and cooked her boyfriend. I have now found three cases of female cannibalism to two for males. Of course when a man talks about eating his girlfriend he usually has something entirely different in mind.

Murder for hire

In our sampling, when women do set out to kill their intimate partners two favored methods are by poison or hiring a hit man. I have tabulated over eighty cases of women either hiring a hit man or attempting to. Overall the success rate for this method seems to be rather low but that may be an artifact as unsuccessful plots are more likely to come to light.

There are many reasons a woman tries to hire a hit man to kill her husband or lover. For example, consider the case of the Greeley, Colorado woman who wanted the insurance money. In another case a Newton, Kansas, woman tried to hire a hit man to kill both her husband and her lover’s wife. Custody battles for children also turn deadly. Take the case of a Gilpin County, Colorado prosecutor whose Israeli ex-wife tried to have him killed in order to gain custody of their child. She also filed false allegations of domestic violence against him in order to gain citizenship and was smuggling diamonds and working as an “escort,” i.e., a prostitute, to pay for her activities.

Sometimes it appears the murder-for-hire plot was a success, as in the case of Aspen, Colorado, socialite Pamela Phillips, who hired a hit man to blow up her ex-husband in his car at a country club north of Tucson, Arizona, in 1996. She lived the high life on his $2 million insurance policy for 13 years but was arrested in Austria in 2009, convicted in 2014, and sentenced to 25 years to life in prison.

Clearly women who intend murder and mayhem for a man in their life are fond of the idea of hiring or seducing another man to kill the poor sod who has angered them, or who carries a large insurance policy they might well profit from.


Antifreeze (ethylene glycol) is the most common poison used in cases I’ve seen as it is readily available and easily administered in coffee, tea, orange juice, etc. Arsenic has also been used, as this tale of a serial murderer demonstrates, but it is a bit more difficult to obtain as it is no longer used in rat poison. But when used, arsenic is best served with watermelon and croton oil.

In one case a deputy sheriff was served foxglove in his salad. Methamphetamine and overdoses of other drugs have also been used by women to poison their lovers. In another case insecticide was used by a jilted lover to poison her ex and his new girlfriend.

Thallium, widely used in rat poison and coyote traps, was used to poison a Meeker, Colorado, man in 1969 whose wife was having an affair with a prominent state legislator and rancher.  But the murder wasn’t discovered until 1996 and the rancher brought to trial in 2004 after the adulteress was dead. So some cases of poisoning go undiscovered for many years and others are probably never discovered.

Perimenopause, the change of life

From personal experience I am all too aware that women going through perimenopause can become violent. Unless they have a hysterectomy women will normally go through a change of life sometime between the ages of 35 and 50 before entering menopause, i.e., the cessation of their menstrual cycle. This period is called perimenopause and is characterized by changes in the woman’s hormone levels, notably estrogen. The average age at which a woman’s estrogen levels begin to decline is 43 and perimenopause typically lasts about seven years before the onset of menopause around age 51.

In an early attempt to quantify the relationship between age and extreme violence by women a volunteer tabulated the age of 183 women who had committed murder, attempted murder, arson, poisoning, and similar crimes before she became nauseated with the evil these women were capable of. We plotted this data and it shows a clear peak in age for extreme violence between 35 and 44 that correlates with the age of onset of perimenopause. In a March 2011 report Crime and Justice in Colorado 2008-2010 the authors note (p. 46) that the largest proportion of females convicted of crimes (24% of total) are in the age range of 35 to 44, providing further evidence for a peak in female violence during perimenopause. The case where rancher Kathleen Denson was out of estrogen and she had a gun so her boyfriend died, is an example.

However, most cases of violence by women during perimenopause are not so extreme. Consider the erratic and dangerous behavior of Colorado Springs mayoral candidate Justine Herring during her 40’s. And is there a better reason why Navy Captain Lisa Marie Nowak (née Caputo), a Naval Academy graduate (Class of 1985), naval aviator, NASA astronaut, and mother of three, at age 43 had an affair with another astronaut and stalked his new girlfriend?

While correlation does not imply causation, after accumulating hundreds of vignettes about female violence it is clear that a very large percentage of female violence occurs during the years they are going through the change of life. Thus, it is reasonable to infer that the erratic and often violent behavior of these women is induced in large measure by changing body chemistry associated with perimenopause.

Restraining/protection orders

Probably the most pernicious, yet clever weapon neo-Marxist radical feminists (redfems) have implemented in their battle to destroy the patriarchy are “protection” orders.

They have also managed to require that such orders be issued in court proceedings where one of the parties has not received notice and, therefore, is neither present nor represented, i.e., ex parte, so the male under attack has no warning. Due process has thus gone out the window and hearsay is allowed to blow in. Perjury and subornation of perjury are standard practice as well. Nor does there need to be any factual basis for issuance of such orders that routinely take away everything a man has dreamed and worked for, and too often his life.

Restraining, or protection orders are almost exclusively issued against men and are commonly issued on any pretext a woman, the prosecutor, or DV advocate might invent, e.g., “fear” or “emotional harm.”  I have witnessed a magistrate handing out these orders at the rate of one a minute to women, yet men with obvious issues needing a protection order were denied.

No actual evidence of violence or harm need be produced in order to obtain an eviction, or restraining order against a man. There is no penalty for making false statements when filing for such orders, or for the subornation of perjury in advising or helping a woman to get a restraining order. And such orders magically transmute into criminal charges if any violation of the order is alleged, leaving the man to attempt to prove a negative.

A personal example will illustrate the insanity that often lurks behind women’s requests for a restraining order. In May 1996 I gave a lecture on solid state physics to faculty and students at MIT. Later my then wife and I went to dinner with the professor who sponsored my talk. Some months later she obtained an ex parte temporary restraining order against me, then at the hearing to make the order permanent she claimed she was in fear of me as a result of this lecture and dinner. Both the MIT professor and I are former Marines, i.e., “trained killers,” and we had discussed our extensive use of explosives and swapped sea stories. Thus, she was left in “fear” of the dangerous men she was with. Fortunately the magistrate didn’t find her “fear” sufficient grounds to issue a permanent (lifetime in Colorado) restraining order against me and dismissed her case.

The situation has not improved in the decades since as innumerable stories from men testify to.

Not content with voluntary participation of women who want to destroy their families, marriage, and children, increasingly we are hearing from women who are told by DV advocates (redfems) that they cannot get any help if they don’t agree to file a restraining order against him, or are threatened with charges of perjury if they refuse to cooperate and testify against him in domestic violence cases.

It has long been noted that a restraining order is but a piece of paper and offers no real protection from any individual bent on violence. Conversely, because of the draconian impact on a man of such orders, they may actually serve as a catalyst for violence. I’ve tabulated fourteen examples of women and one man who were murdered shortly after obtaining a restraining order against their attacker. Although I know of many other such cases, these examples make it self evident that taking out a restraining order may well increase the danger for an individual rather than provide protection. And the Castle Rock v Gonzales case reaffirmed once again that the police are not obligated to provide protection for individuals.

Despite the obvious danger a restraining order is the weapon of choice for a woman seeking a divorce, involved in a custody battle, or seeking vengeance or revenge against a man. As a result the abuse of these orders is incalculable. Worse, subornation of perjury by advocates helping women get these orders is standard and protected by law and the courts. However, with ~2 million such orders issued every year in the United States these orders are serving the redfem goal of destroying the patriarchy admirably.

Family law attorneys and judges estimate that charges of domestic violence or abuse are used to gain advantage in at least one third of divorces in Colorado today. But in such actions the man is driven from his home, his children, and all he possesses without prior notice, and virtually no recourse or rights. Once the father is out of the house it is almost certain mother will get custody of the kids and the house in the divorce. But this is all too often the beginning of a downward spiral for all concerned.

If the woman is vindictive or seeking vengeance, once the restraining order is in place she can likely put him in jail as well by alleging violations of the order. And now she has a place to live as the man can’t go near his home.

Shelters for battered women

Billions have now been spent establishing shelters for battered women. Such shelters can presently be found in virtually all metropolitan areas. However, there are increasing questions about their effectiveness both in terms of cost, results, and credibility.

Few begrudge money spent to provide a safe haven for women and children in distress. Since long before the sinking of H.M.S. Birkenhead, our society has put the safety of women and children first. Indeed, any society that is to survive must make the safety of pregnant women and children one of its first priorities.

Today, despite every indication that crime in general is dropping, e.g., see Crime and Justice in Colorado: 2008-2010, we are met with a barrage of propaganda indicating that domestic, now intimate partner violence is an ever-growing problem. Factoids such as “One in four of American women reports that she has been physically abused by husband or boyfriend.” “One third of all emergency room visits by women are the result of domestic violence.” And the list of abuses seems to grow exponentially until every man is a “batterer” and every woman a “victim.” Common sense has disappeared in mass hysteria. Ever-broadening definitions in the law of what constitutes domestic violence and abuse are noted above and under those definitions the factoids are claimed to be real data.

When the source of such hysteria is sought, one primary origin keeps showing up: Women who operate shelters for battered women. And underlying their utterances is an ever-increasing appetite for public funding by which they make their living.

The same appetite for public funds can be seen in other such laudable enterprises as scientific research, flood relief, or most charitable organizations. However, the bureaucracy resulting from such public funding always becomes bloated and drifts ever further from its intended purpose, whatever the original problem. So in part we are dealing with human nature.

It is our belief that a woman, man, or child should be able to call the police and expect to receive help and succor. But commonly we hear from women whose lives are destroyed by the police and “justice” system after they ask for help. Under current laws calls for help are all too frequently used by ideologues to destroy families, or as a weapon of vengeance by individuals.

Because child abuse is a common add-on charge in domestic violence cases, draconian DV laws are used to fuel child “protection” services with the tears of children. Never in the radical feminist literature do we find the follow up of what happens to the children after their father, or mother, or both, are taken from their innocent young lives with no notice, often no warrant or court order, and little pretext except an often-anonymous phone call.

In women’s own words

You needn’t take my word for this tyranny. We have posted numerous stories In Women’s Own Words that describe their personal experiences under the regime of Big Sister.


Any country that has tried to create a political solution to human problems has ended up with concentration camps and gulags.

Erin PIzzey

The evidence is in! We are all humans, men and women together. We are roughly equal in our desire for love, family, children, good health, and happiness. And men and women both experience jealousy, rage, hate, vindictiveness, stress, brain injuries, mental disorders, hormonal imbalances, etc. about equally. The expressions may be different between the sexes but in toto violence in intimate relations is a human problem, not a gender one.

Unfortunately, based on false neo-Marxist ideology, a massive industry has grown around the hysteria surrounding domestic violence and abuse. Fed by federal, state, and local funding, draconian laws now reach into every relationship and family.

Following precedents set by the War on Drugs, domestic violence laws were passed circa 1994 at both the federal and state level that disposed of due process and other protections of the Bill of Rights.

To keep the money flowing it has been necessary to continually expand the definition of domestic violence and abuse. At present there is virtually no action a man can take in an intimate relationship that cannot be construed under current laws and feminist dogma as intimate partner violence and abuse. The resulting injustice is particularly destructive for veterans suffering from PTSD or other wounds and injuries.

Laws and ideology have virtually destroyed marriage and families and every year the marriage rate sinks lower. Social scientists and economists dance around the causes while ignoring the facts that with “no fault” divorce, corrupt “family” courts, and the ease of making false abuse allegations, under current laws a man has to be functionally insane to marry and a drooling idiot to sire a child.

Men today are all too aware of the underlying truth to the Cinderella fable: for every Cinderella there are two wicked stepsisters. Far too many men, or their close friends have made the mistake of marrying one of the stepsisters and then been dragged through the “family” courts, lost their children, their homes, their jobs, and far too often their lives, for there to be any mistake as to the reason men are not getting married today.

Unfortunately, no evidence suggests the underlying issues of intimate partner violence have been solved, improved upon, or even rationally addressed. As a result, “domestic violence” is now the most common crime in Colorado. Of course if the DV industry were to actually solve the problem the money tap would dry up.

This is a massive human tragedy as many families need help dealing with issues common to raising a family and marriage. However, the radical feminist ideology insures that whenever possible the family be destroyed in order to end the patriarchy. The fact that patriarchal families are the building blocks of civilization is ignored.

It is of interest to note that I have not found a matriarchal society that has advanced beyond Stone Age technology. Say goodbye to dishwashers, microwaves, vacuum cleaners, etc., if radical feminists win this cultural war. Worst of all, under current laws and practices children frequently lose their parents and all data show they perform poorly throughout their lives afterward. So the chances of today’s children reversing the societal degradation underway today are diminishing.


Hundreds of vignettes about violent women in Colorado and other states put life into the statistics and demonstrate conclusively that many women are just as malicious, vindictive, evil, sadistic, corrupt, deranged, and money grubbing as their male counterparts. With intimate partner violence we are not dealing with a gender issue but a human one.

Some modest suggestions

The question then is how to deal with the real cases of intimate partner violence without the false ideology and the draconian laws so destructive of children and families?

Reducing the number and complexity of laws is certainly advisable. Perhaps it would help if the crime of domestic violence was limited to cases of actual violence between partners who are currently intimate? Restraining orders would also benefit from restoring due process and ending the ex parte orders so beloved of radical feminists who don’t think evidence is necessary.

Certainly more laws will only make the problems worse by destroying ever more children and families. Mental health problems do not lend themselves to micromanagement by legislators, courts, or bureaucrats. In most cases these problems were dealt with within families for millennia and could be again with a modest amount of assistance rather than criminal sanctions.

The proper use of science rather than advocacy research and ideology is also advisable. But that would require DV advocates to actually have a science education and use the scientific method rather than the dogma, emotions, and feelings currently in use.


Summary of symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) observed in local veterans:

  • Sleeplessness (probably the most common and the first thing one notices);
  • Dissociation from actual events and no memory of them is diagnostic;
  • Nightmares often accompanied by kicking, fighting, or choking a partner in one’s sleep and are much more persistent and disturbing than what Grossman and Christensen (2007, 2nd, p. 156-157) call the Universal Warrior Nightmare;
  • Impotence in males;
  • Irrational anger or irritability accompanied by emotional or violent outbursts;
  • Anxiety and a need for unconditional control of almost every situation in order to feel safe;
  • Panic attacks and hyperventilating (veterans are known to put on their body armor in such cases);
  • Social withdrawal and fear of crowded places (often will not leave house or go shopping until early morning hours);
  • Difficulty concentrating, focusing, or remembering (short-term memory loss);
  • Hypervigilance often expressed as a fear of crowds and a need to do a reconnaissance before entering an area or building, e.g. Wal-Mart;
  • Flashbacks to the event(s); and
  • An exaggerated and often violent startle response.

For a comprehensive diagnostic description of post traumatic stress disorder see the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-5 pages 271-280.

To officially fall within the diagnostic guidelines the symptoms must last for at least a month.

About the author

Charles Corry

Dr. Corry is a Senior Fellow of the Geological Society of America and an internationally-known earth scientist whose biography has appeared in Who’s Who in the World, Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in Science and Engineering, among others, for seventeen consecutive years.

He has been doing research on domestic violence, particularly abused men, since 1997.

In 2008 he and former EJF Director Robert Alvarez began pushing for a veteran court in Colorado Springs. That court is now up and research continues on veteran arrests.

After service with 1st Marines Dr. Corry became involved with the early space program in 1960, doing preflight testing and failure analysis on Atlas and Centaur missiles, including all the Project Mercury birds. In 1965 he switched to oceanography and did research at both Scripps Institution in San Diego and Woods Hole Oceanographic on Cape Cod. He has also taught geophysics and field geology at university and worked as a research manager for a Fortune 500 company.

Among other pursuits he has climbed high mountains, been shipwrecked and marooned on an unexplored desert island, ridden horseback through Utah, Arizona, and Colorado, and enjoyed many other adventures during his long career.

Presently Dr. Corry is president and founding director of the Equal Justice Foundation.




NOTE: If you would like to be removed from our mailing list please respond to this message with REMOVE in the subject line. Comments or criticisms of our policies or Web sites should be sent here or to the address below.

You are receiving this message because (1) you asked to be added to our mailing list; (2) you sent the EJF an e-mail or requested help from us; (3) you are known to work on issues related to human rights; (4) you are known to be interested in civil liberties and equal justice; (5) your name and address appeared as an addressee on email sent to us; (6) you are a member of or contribute to the Equal Justice Foundation, or (7) you are on a distribution list that forwards EJF newsletters.

Most prior EJF newsletters are archived here after a few days.


Help Keep A Veteran Out Of Jail — Funds are needed to complete analysis of five years of veteran arrest data and integrate arrest data with court outcomes in order to develop more effective interventions than current “catch, convict, and release” practice that destroys so many veteran’s lives.


Please help support the EJF by going to Amazon Smile and choosing the Equal Justice Foundation Inc as your favorite charity. Amazon will then donate 0.5% of your purchase to us at no cost to you.


The Equal Justice Foundation (EJF) is a non-profit 501(c)(3) public charity supported entirely by members and contributions. Dues are $25 per year and you may join here or by printing and mailing in an application. Contributions are tax deductible and can be made on the web or by sending a check to the address below.


  Issues of interest to the Equal Justice Foundation are:


Courts, Veteran Courts, and Civil Liberties

Domestic Violence

Domestic Violence Against Men in Colorado

Emerson case (2nd Amendment)

Families and Marriage

Prohibitions and the War On Drugs

Vote Fraud and Election Issues


Equal Justice Foundation

On Facebook

455 Bear Creek Road

Colorado Springs, Colorado 80906-5820


The good men may do separately is small compared with what they may do collectively.

Benjamin Franklin


national coalition for men

If domestic violence against men is as prevalent as domestic violence against women, then why do women get services and men get jail?

Domestic violence against men is just as wrong as domestic violence against women.

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 0
NCFM Chicago Chapter President Tim Goldich, the Intrinsic Value Gap, Man Against the Wall Thu, 25 Jun 2015 02:32:03 +0000 wage gapNCFM NOTE: Beyond the discredited wage gap, the intrinsic value gap, Goldich’s best…

His fourth video in a series and each one gets stronger and stronger. So to is our movement because of many good-hearted caring men like Tim. The “wage gap” pales in light of the intrinsic value gap, the IVG, which contributes to the imbalance between men and women. This is a powerful video which all can benefit by. Please share it as much as possible. Send the link to your legislators, maybe one or two of them with actually get it…understand the reality and work toward balance instead of the superiority of women over men.

national coalition for men There is no systemic wage gap based on discrimination against women. Only feminists, politicians, and those who don’t really care believe there is one, which is way to many people.

wage gap

Click on book cover to read reviews and order the book.

The intrinsic value gap is much more than simply a wage gap, much much more…

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 0
NCFM Member John Erwin, former foreign service officer, “The Silent Violent Stereotype” Wed, 24 Jun 2015 01:57:49 +0000 murdererNCFM NOTE: …no words, just tears…murderers either way…

The Silent Violent Stereotype

by John Erwin

I had to check twice, but it was true. The first eleven spots had been awarded to women, the 12th place to a male author. Oh well, women write; men do math and science, right? Oh, I should not have said that. Does the gender matter?

That is how I calculated as I sat solemn in the courtroom. The prosecution dragged on and on; the defense dragged on and on: the prosecution repeated itself. For months it had been like this, sitting next to me my wife who thought the legal drama would help her heal; it did nothing of the sort. She cried each evening and then fell into silence. Her partial utterances always echoed a similar trope: that man, that man killed our daughter. Yes, he did, and many others, all in one spree of brutal anger and shotgun despotism. Our children did not stand a chance. The murderer’s child, too, was a member of the dead. His former wife had gained custody of their son in family court a few months earlier. She had so hated her now ex-husband, she made things difficult for him; she made it hard, nearly impossible, for him to see their son; additionally, she had accused him of behavior he swore he had never committed, and for which there was no evidence. His rage eventually boiled over and enveloped the entire classroom one wintry day where our daughter sat in her school uniform studying not far from his son, and other sons and daughters, and a teacher. I think it was a history lesson. He just walked in.

And so here we sit, months later, as the trial drags on, and I am distracting myself in the courtroom with a book of winners from a short story competition, noticing the first 11 spots were awarded to women, the 12th to a man. I am disgusted. I am disgusted listening to the evidence trickling out before the jury like a constant mist of uncertain facts: the murderer was ‘this’; the murderer was ‘that’. All I could think of, besides the constant pang that this murderer had shot my daughter in the back of the head, was an equally sharp counter-pang, realizing how unfairly this man had been treated by the family court. His pleas to see his son ignored by the judge; told to pay alimony, pay child support, told to ‘figure it out’ or there would be consequences. Seeing this man’s former wife take the stand made you understand a bit of the ‘why’ of his behavior. She had an aura of vindictiveness about her that her surface expression of horror at what her ex had done could not supplant. Oh wait, of course, she is the victim; I should not have said that.

My wife sits besides me. She spends most of her time staring at the floor, listening, just listening, never looking, as if she were a member of a different species than Homo sapiens, one which relies on sound waves, not sight, for its survival. She did not know my mixed and tortured feelings toward this murderer, sitting with his back towards us not more than ten feet away. My wife did not know that I too was not quite human anymore. The loss of our daughter tore at my bowels and mostly I just wanted to die. My heart, however, had already been mutilated by years of hiding. The irony of sitting there listening to the defense lawyer narrate a litany of humiliation imposed on the father by the family court system brought to the forefront my own feelings from my own past—hidden, from even my own wife.

I understood this murderer. I hated him; but I understood him. Twenty years earlier a woman had ruined my career and nearly brought me to the abyss by falsely accusing me of things I would never do. It is the isolation, the humiliation, the fear, the ostracism, and, worst, the fact that the system around us condones the false, the lies, and the hearsay: merely because she is a woman, and I am a man. Oh, yes, I understood this man’s rage at its core. Unlike him though, I buried my past and moved forward, but, then again, also unlike him, I did not have a child with the woman who falsely accused me.

Enough of that, this man murdered my daughter. Shot her right in the head. And all these talking heads in the courthouse corridors are spouting out about ‘gun control’ and the like. I know, in my heart, any one of them would be crushed and brought to brink if they endured what this man had endured. Hypocrites. None of them individually had a clue what they would actually do staring into an abyss; if they did, they would stop talking so much. They relied exclusively on their uncritical groupthink without individual experience.

I suddenly wanted this murderer strapped down and ended. I suddenly wanted him annihilated.

Or, do I not instead want the system that created this man annihilated? Or, if I am honest, really honest, should not his wife be equally annihilated, or that spineless and cowardly family court judge annihilated, or the talking heads spouting ‘solutions’ ceaselessly around me annihilated?

No. God no. I just want my daughter back.

I want a man to receive better than 12th place in this stupid writing contest. The 12th place winner had written a better story than the first place; it just was not politically correct enough, or so it seemed as I read 1st through 11th.

And I want my personal secret not to be a secret anymore.


On second thought, in this day and age, better to silence myself.


Better to let the murderer rot.

Better to stay quiet.

Better to just be content with 12th place and hope my wife recovers and we might have another child; another daughter who may be more enlightened than the current generation of women regarding causes—and effects.


I am an American male, what other choice do I have?

Shhhhhhhhhhh, shut your mouth please. Let the women speak; they know best.


*John Erwin is a former Foreign Service Officer with the U.S. State Department.

national coalition for menMurderer…sometimes by gun, sometimes by family court.

Murderer either way.



Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 4
NCFM President Harry Crouch Father’s Day letter Fri, 19 Jun 2015 21:43:34 +0000 father's day

I’m the last one standing. If you click on the picture you will be offered a chance to join NCFM, which is a pretty good deal if I say so myself.

As usual, I’ve waited until the last-minute to wish us all a Happy Father’s Day, not sure why, too many thoughts perhaps.

I spent much of last Saturday with my son, grandson, daughter-in-law, and good friend Julie B. at the San Diego County Fair in Del Mar. Carter, my grandson is almost five. He runs to me with open arms when he sees me. I love that. I can still pick him up, barely. Every time I do, it is a bit harder, he is bit heavier, a bit taller, and I am a bit older, weaker. I know someday soon I will not be able to pick him up anymore. Each time reminds me of when I could pick up my son Wyatt. Cannot do that anymore either, he’s a few months short of retiring from the Army. He hugs me each time I see him. Sometimes I get a kiss on a cheek. I love that too.

Here I sit, 10:24 p.m., eyes burning, to much computer screen, feeling a bit guilty because of procrastination and too many thoughts, perhaps about the many Dads who won’t be able to see their grandson run with hugs or grown son who still might otherwise give his Dad an occasional kiss on a cheek.

I passed over an article today about some women’s group trying to horn in and usurp Father’s Day for their own purposes. I did not read it. Such self-absorbed women think every day is their day, even the one day each year just for Dads and all children running to them open arms for a hug.

A few minutes ago, I checked emails. One of our NCFM advisors authored a six-page letter for FOX News trailing Megyn Kelly’s hard-hitting reports about Amherst’s horrific treatment of its student John Doe, a sexual assault victim thrown out of college just before graduation because he has a penis and his perpetrator does not. I cut the letter down to a page and sent it back to him for swearing and comment. He wrote back, “Well Mr. Harry, I compliment you on your hearing.  I said so many swear words that I have to go to confession tomorrow, and I was in such a groove and typing so fast, I set off the smoke alarm.” I thought he was agnostic. He has a son in Afghanistan and daughter in college stateside. He donates hundreds of hours each month to our efforts for the love of his children and their future. He is a very good man, father, and someday grandfather who can almost out swear the angriest radical feminist.

Amherst’s President, Carolyn “Biddy” Martin, in 1991, was promoted to associate professor in the Department of German Studies and Women’s Studies Program at Cornell. She was the first openly gay Chancellor of a university. I wonder if she has children or grandchildren who run to her with hugs, love, and kisses on the cheek. I am thinking that if she did and if her children and grandchildren were male she would probably think and act much differently. I am thinking were that true, Amhert’s John Doe would have his college degree and his despicable female perpetrator might be washing dishes in prison, or at least be picking up roadside garbage wearing an orange jumpsuit. Radicalized Amherst students may even have a rally on Father’s Day supporting the woman. I bet Amherst did not refund John Doe’s tuition either.

Several NCFM members including the President of our Carolinas chapter and two Advisers sent emails about NBC looking for a male victim of domestic violence. Apparently, the network is producing a television special. Four alleged female victims already included. The producer is looking for an abused man for balance, albeit lopsided. She wrote, “Given the stigma of stepping forward as a man who has been abused, the hardships around negotiating social services that have historically been put in place for women, and the fear of going to law enforcement, we feel like this issue could use more light in the media. So the producer is “super excited” that we may have some folks interested in talking with them. Ok, but NBC will never do a story on Amherst’s John Doe, Biddy’s relationship with the White House, or women groups exploiting Father’s Day. Maybe the producer needs a hug too. If you are an abused man and interested please send an email to .

NCFM Adviser Charles Corry, Ph.D, Equal Justice Foundation President, cautions of possible, if not probable, retaliation if you have an open court case. He rightly notes, “We have seen vindictive retaliation by judges, attorneys, social workers, as well as men’s former partners.” NBC’s producer’s observation of abused men fearful of going to the police is indeed correct.

Another NCFM member sent a good news email about Sweden opening a rape clinic for men. Not a bad Father’s Day gift, especially if you are a male sexual assault survivor in Sweden.

Got some sleep, and got up looking forward to a hug from my Grandson, a kiss on the cheek from my son, and another hug from my daughter-in-law along with Grayson, grandson number two, expected in October. I am so lucky. Many fathers are not.

There is more good and bad news from NCFM Adviser Gordon Finley, Ph.D, Professor of Psychology at Florida State University. Good news, he was on a Wallethub panel of experts for 2015’s Best and Worse States for Working Dads. Wallethub did the study as a Father’s Day hug of sorts to all of us. The bad news, California, the “progressive” state in which I live, flunked; it is the 41st worse state for working Dads, where chivalry and elitist feminism hug, kiss, and couple in bizarre legislative hanky-panky.

Early yesterday morning one of my emails was from a man in Idaho whose mother kidnapped their children. The mother has serious mental disorders, including multiple personalities and a borderline personality disorder. She is unpredictable, manipulative, abusive, dangerous, and has no business parenting. A court ordered her to return the children. She refused, crossed state lines, moved in violation of the order. Police investigated, a District Attorney pressed charges, the FBI was involved, federal charges of kidnapping dropped, it all stopped. An Amber Alert recently issued in Idaho for children in a very similar situation. The kidnapper was the father of the children rather than the mother. There was no Amber Alert for the children of the father who sent the email. My heart goes out to him and many more like him. No hugs from their children this Fathers Day, no kisses.

100615 NCFM NorCal Fathers Day meme by Terri StoddardThis weekend our Northern California Chapter is running a large ad, designed by NCFMNorCal member Teri Stoddard, in several newspapers for Fathers Day and noncustodial Dads who want to be hands-on parents.

NCFMNorCal Chapter Member Jeanne Falla, — a driving force for common sense, fair treatment, and unifying like-minded groups — will be in San Mateo for the 13th Annual Dad and Me @ the Park Healthy Kids Healthy Families event. NFMNorCal will have a booth replete with banners, lollipops, and literature about NCFM. Lots of fathers, families, and children will be at the event having a good time with hugs, kisses, and smiles. If you are in the area, please stop by our booth and say hello to Jeanne. She works hard, sacrifices many hours, all unpaid, to be there for you, as do other NCFM members.

It just occurred to me that I have no plans to see my son or grandson this weekend! Here I am blessed with a son, grandson, with one on the way with no plans to see them. Even if we do not get together, I have no complaints. I get hugs and kisses on the cheek regularly. It breaks my heart thinking about the hundreds of fathers I talk with each year that have not seen, heard from, or know their children, all too often because of government systems that favor substance abusing, mentally impaired, irresponsible mothers over drug free, sane, and responsible fathers.

I just took another phone call from a distraught father in Pennsylvania. The mother is a meth addict, abusive, on parole, and unemployed. She absconded with the children, was awarded full custody in a neighboring county, and gets free legal representation. He cannot afford an attorney, the courts will not grant him one, and he is worried sick about the children. He does not even know where they are and no one will tell him.

I am thinking unmarried women with no children or grandchildren with access to the White House are unqualified to help set policies affecting men, fathers, and even children, especially those who facilitate the persecution of innocent men. Millions of men and thousands of women gave their lives or limbs to this country in defense of freedom, not tyranny. Father’s Day is a celebration of good men. Go outside, look around at the buildings, roads, utility lines; what you see men built, which is pretty much everything, except that which nature made.

Men risk even more of their lives and limbs hanging high steel, setting cranes, and precariously swaying from safety belts constructing buildings hundreds of feet high. Buildings in which egocentric women groups meet, risk nothing and can discuss in comfortable conference rooms how to usurp Father’s Day, how to keep children from decent fathers, and how to legitimize women who make false allegations of sexual assault, relationship violence, and child abuse.

150617 NCFM NorCal lollipops

Click on the lollipop for more information and directions to the to the San Mateo event.

To all of us, even those self-absorbed women and their misguided chivalrous male cohorts, we wish a happy Father’s Day… Most of all, we wish the best to all fathers whose children rest lovingly in their hearts, even if not in their homes.

To our NCFM members across the globe, good men and women, thank you for letting me be a small part of your lives. It is truly a pleasure knowing you. I look forward to working with you helping others make the world a better place for all of us. I’m sending each and all of you a Father’s Day hug…though you’ll have to get the kiss on the cheek from someone else. You’ll have to go to San Mateo to get an NCFM lollipop…

Harry Crouch

President, NCFM

P.S. I just checked my emails again. Got one from my daughter-in-law. We’re having breakfast together this Father’s Day. How very lucky I am.

national coalition for men

Father’s Day is a celebration for Dads.

Father’s Day is not for the benefit of women groups.

Happy Father’s Day, best wished to all good Dads.

Happy Father’s Day

Happy Father’s Day

Happy Father’s Day

Happy Father’s Day

Happy Father’s Day

Happy Father’s Day

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 5
NCFM Adviser Gordon Finley, Ph.D, picked for Wallethub panel of experts for “2015’s Best and Worst States for Working Dads” Fri, 19 Jun 2015 03:57:37 +0000 dads

NCFM Adviser Gordon Finley

Wallethub studies the worst and best cities for things like families, having a baby, finding a job, and so on. For Father’s Day they decided to find out which states were the best and worst for working Dads. Minnesota is the best and Mississippi the worst.

“Male parenting is not what it once was. Fatherhood has long abandoned its 1960s definition. Back then, families relied on a single income — that of the dad, who spent much of his week at work while the missus stayed home to care for the kids and handle the chores. Today, 60 percent of family households depend on two incomes. And the contemporary dad no longer fits neatly into the standard of the married male breadwinner and disciplinarian.

Regardless of the changing identity and priorities of the modern dad, fatherhood remains an undisputedly tough job. And a father’s ability to provide for his family is central to his role. In fact, nearly 93 percent of dads with kids younger than 18 were employed in 2014, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But in some states — where economic opportunity abounds and quality of life is emphasized — dads have it better than others.

In light of Father’s Day, WalletHub analyzed the work-life balance, health conditions, financial well-being and child-rearing environments for working dads in the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia across 20 key metrics. Our data set ranges from the unemployment rate for dads with kids younger than 18 to male life expectancy to day care quality.”

To read the rest of the article go to . You will also find fascinating and very revealing charts, an explanation of the methodology, and comments by 16 “experts,” including our own Gordon Finley. Surprisingly, “progressive” states like California are rated poorly.

Well worth the read. Bookmark it as a resource.

national coalition for menDads are important. Thank you Wallethub.



Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 0
NCFM South Africa Member Jason Dale sends complaint to Ocean Basket re male shaming advertising brings success! Wed, 17 Jun 2015 20:21:47 +0000 Ocean BasketUPDATE:
So, how powerful can one complaint be. Well, here’s Ocean Basket‘s delayed response to Jason:

Here is Ocean Basket‘s response:

Hi Jason, thank you for bringing this to our attention and for being so patient with the delayed response. We do appreciate your feedback on the campaign and our marketing team have taken your comments into consideration for future print media. If you would like to take this further please private message us your contact number and email address via Facebook Private messaging so we can address your concerns regarding the campaign which has now ended. Thank you once again for your patience and your comments.”

The “delayed response” can be translated as “we were originally ignoring you, but now we have decided to take you seriously”.

All the same, it seems as though my complaint has made a positive difference.

NCFM: Yes, it does! Congratulations. One well crafted complaint may have changed the wicked ways of a large corporation. Nice job Jason, good work. You too, whoever you are, can do similar things when you see man stupid advertising, just send the perpetrator a polite and concerned complaint. Who knows, they may actually listen and change their wicked ways too.

Here’s the original post.

NCFM NOTE: Men are stupid advertising raises its ugly head in South Africa, but NCFM Member Jason Dale shows restaurateur Ocean Basket that their advertising smells like rotten fish; and that his writing is substantially better than that of their advertising agency. For those of you in South Africa offended by Ocean Basket’s ignorant advertising, please boycott their restaurants. Anyone can click on any Ocean Basket picture here to go to the “Customer Care” page on their website from which you can send them a polite complaint. Please do. Clearly they don’t much care for half of their potential customers…


ociaOcean Basket Central HO
Customer care: compliments/complaints dept.
07 December 2014

RE: Complaint about “RESISTIBLE man but IRRESISTIBLE R69 Mediterranean Feast” billboard Ad

ocean basketDear Sir/Madam,

As a former customer of your Ocean Basket chain of restaurants, I would like to bring to your attention an advertisement that I recently saw while driving down Musgrave road in Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. This particular advertisement consists of a series of billboards designed to be viewed in succession by passing motorists and pedestrians alike, and it left me feeling so disgusted that I seriously doubt I will ever visit another Ocean Basket restaurant again.

On the first Ocean Basket branded billboard in the series; we see a man whom I would guess to be somewhere in his forties with the word “RESISTIBLE” emboldened in a prominent white font next to his picture.  The next billboard features a lavish picture of an “IRRESISTIBLE” pan-served dish consisting of chips, rice, fish and prawns with lemon and sauce. Finally, we see a third billboard which delivers Ocean Basket’s attempt at a punchline – The “Mediterranean Feast” is priced at R69.

Just for the record, would you mind telling me exactly what you find so “resistible” about this man that you think his appeal and value in society is not even worth a plate of food? And “resistible” according to WHO? For lack of any other logical explanation, are we to assume that it must be something about his appearance? Or is it because it’s safer to bash and ridicule men? (Kind of like the “UN-Steve” yourself campaign that FNB is currently running).

Your marketing team (together with the shallow and superficial human mediocrity) might defend this advert as harmless humour and all in good fun – but they clearly didn’t stop and think about the sinister underlying message that it broadcasts, and after reading the inspirational story about Fats Lazarides and his wife raising Ocean Basket from the stormy seas of hardship and difficulty, I am shocked and stunned that moral sea monsters like this could come from a business culture that should have known better.

Shame on you, Ocean Basket. You have lost me as a customer, and potentially many others.

Jason Dale 

national coalition for menTell Ocean Basket to change their advertising.

Tell Ocean Basket to treat their male customers with respect.

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 0
NCFM sends opposition letter to U.S. Senators concerning the “Campus Accountability and Safety Act” Fri, 12 Jun 2015 22:13:02 +0000 CASA

National Coalition For Men (NCFM) – OPPOSES The Campus Accountability and Safety Act (CASA), S.590 / H.R. 1310

  • The language of CASA is consistently hostile to due process – for one glaring example, the bill uses the words “victim” and “accuser” interchangeably. However, just because one makes an accusation does not make the accusation true or the person making the accusation a victim.
  • Due Process Protections are nowhere to be found – There is no specific language addressing due process rights for the accused.Ifcollegesaregoingto be required to adjudicate sexual assault allegations,thenschoolsmustprovide accused students basic due process rights including but not limited to:
    • the right to have counsel present during the hearing
    • the right to effectively cross-examine
    • timely access to written complaints and evidence
    • timely and adequate notice of actual charges
    • elimination of gag orders which impede the ability to talk to witnesses and gather evidence
    • the exclusion of hearsay evidence and
    • hearing panels composed of disinterested, objective, well-trained fact finders.
  • CASA establishes “confidential advisors” for the accuser but not for the accused – Advisors investigate, advocate, and advise those alleging to be victims. Both the accuser and alleged perpetrator deserve the same support since allegations are not proof.
  • CASA mandates subjective sex assault surveys with no intrinsic value – This advocacy research will do nothing to combat sexual assault but will likely reinforce anti-male ideology.
  • SUMMARY: The proposed CASA legislation is deeply flawed and ignores established due process procedural safeguards for both accuser and the accused.


The National Coalition For Men is a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) nonprofit human rights organization dedicated to ending harmful discrimination against boys, men, their families, and the women who love them. See for more information.

national coalition for men

STOP The Campus Accountability and Safety Act (CASA), S.590 / H.R. 1310
STOP The Campus Accountability and Safety Act (CASA), S.590 / H.R. 1310

STOP The Campus Accountability and Safety Act (CASA), S.590 / H.R. 1310

STOP The Campus Accountability and Safety Act (CASA), S.590 / H.R. 1310

STOP The Campus Accountability and Safety Act (CASA), S.590 / H.R. 1310

STOP The Campus Accountability and Safety Act (CASA), S.590 / H.R. 1310 !!

National Coalition For Men National Coalition For Men National Coalition For Men National Coalition For Men National Coalition For Men National Coalition For Men join us

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 6
NCFM Member Anonymous “I RAPE” Thu, 11 Jun 2015 23:03:43 +0000 rapeI  RAPE.

By National  Coalition For Men Member, Anonymous

I’m searching for prey. I am a hunter by nature. And while consuming the young, the weak, the lost, is “wrong”, it’s a wrongness that fuels my desire. To know that if I were to be detected, I would be the one hunted, adds to my enjoyment. My true nature is known to no one but my fellow hunters. I make my victims thank me for feeding upon them. The ones that don’t, I twist them with fear. The re-enter life different, shamed, deprived of the freedom to speak. They may never see me again, but I still control their every move and thought.

I am experienced. With each preparation, I breathlessly watch and wait. I observe a sea of potential victims every day. I have honed a sixth sense, a sexual radar. It wasn’t always this way, in the years and months I spent developing my craft. But today, I see beneath my victims’ exteriors. Inside crowded rooms, my prey is easy to identify. I watch from a distance and observe how they speak to others. I note every body movement, understanding its language with practiced fluency.

I prefer someone who appears sweet, clean, and virginal. I’m not usually interested in heavier or larger targets. I like small, short, or slim types, the ones who are looking for a little care. My favorite sort is the inexperienced bookworm. With the right preparation, my choice prey will smile into my face, and be consumed.

I can see what other people cannot. Every time, I notice something in the eyes. It triggers a sensation inside me within a micro-second. I feel a flutter deep inside of me when I glimpse their spirit. A gentle soul will make my pulse throb. I can sense a true child spirit, one which obeys mother, fears father. Better yet, one who grew up fatherless, like me. My mouth waters as I sense a pliant will, like a draft in the room. Might this one become frightened or fight back? That excites me more. Does this one obey authority? When I sense a resolve that is weaker than mine, I’m attracted. I feel my fingers ache and tingle.

Sometimes I’m in the school lunch room, library, or walking the halls. Occasionally, I sit with a couple friends, and we furtively scan the room while talking about benign matters. When my friends and I prowl together, we know the secret rules to setting the trap – how to humiliate, to isolate, to become the only remaining lifeline to the rest of the pack. We work as a team. Each of us knows what to say and do around our collective target. Our teamwork is stealthy and intuitive. Tactics unfurl unspoken, but flawless, like a pack of lions. We are soundless mongrels, chasing down an invisible trail. We excel at our craft.

But mostly I hunt on my own. When I find my target, I wait. At the right moment I flash a smile. My social skills are unsurpassed. No one detects my hunger. I don’t frighten my target or anyone else around. I remain pleasant and aloof. My attitude is one of benevolence. But I know how to send forth a laser beam of animal energy, straight into their loins.

I am a master of this game. No one has any idea that I’m a panther in heat. My prey doesn’t even know that I am psychically caressing their flanks. Should they blush or appear vulnerable, my interest peaks and my heart races. That’s when I feel the dark craving swell and deepen within my gut. It’s a starvation, a growling for fresh meat, a bloodlust. Even among my friends, no one knows the extent of this hunger. I disguise it with a mask of friendship and, most of all, charm. This is the kind of challenge that I relish. Every vulnerable movement my prey makes, every weakness betrayed, I am further empowered. When they appear like a wounded fawn in a trap, I move in. I always know the next step to take.

This one I’ve been watching. I smile. Nervous eyes catch mine. I wait, and finally, when no one else is around, I move closer and speak. “Hi.”

“Hello,” he replies.

I let his uncertain movements and feelings fuel my appetite. I know he can feel my soul pressing up against his own, but he doesn’t know what to make of it. My nerves quiver. “You know, you’re one of the very best students in my class.”

“Thank you, Mrs. Johnson. I like history,” Eduardo says, as his shoulders curl forward.

I like his boyish ways. They’re romantic. I am a 33 years old, more than 15 years older than him. “You’re smart. Do you have a girlfriend?”

His eyes dart away, but I detect a furtive smile. I adore him, as I smile down and again meet his gaze. His chin drops to his chest, and his face flushes. “Not really.”

My chest thrums. His shame is exposed. I feel sorrow and strength. His vulnerability and cautious trust tells me to take my time. He’s inexperienced, but I’m sure he likes the attention. I hold my gaze at his crotch. Warmth spreads through my body. I look into his eyes and smile. “That’s okay. You want one, don’t you?”

I hold my breath. He’s cute, and I feel myself liking him more and more each moment.

“Well, I think about that a lot.” He smiles.

I exhale. “Ha ha ha. That’s good, don’t you think?” I wink at him. He melts. I thrive at this response. I own the power.


“Anytime you need to talk, I’m here. We can talk about anything, okay?”


“Visit if you have something on your mind.”

I think my trap has sprung, and I feel him in my clutches.

“Okay, see you later,” he says, leaving the room with a little wave.

The next week, he hangs around in the hall after school. I see him and beckon him over. My classroom is empty, and he enters without hesitation. “Eduardo! How was your day?”

“Good.” I notice the leftover accent from a mother tongue learned from immigrant parents.

“Are you having problems?”

“Umm.” He cocks his head to one side. A boy like this slips beneath many people’s notice. His skin, the color of his hair, his clothes probably inherited from an older sibling or two, nothing escapes my notice. But no one else notices. No one is watching this boy.

“Why don’t you close the door and come here. Did you want to talk?”

My stomach whirrs. Without any words, he shuts the door and moves closer to me. I scoot aside in case someone else should walk in. He stands close as I sit and look at him eye to eye.

I lay my hand on his thigh – a comfort, a seduction. “What is it? Can I help you?”

He bites his lip. “Well, I’m afraid of women.”

A taboo! And so soon! I allow him to confide in me, to speak words unspoken to any other person. I learn the important details. His parents speak only Spanish, the old country language he is starting to forget. He can’t ask for help from them in the language of his few peers here at school. But here, his race, his poverty, his sexual ignorance, all serve to drive him farther from his peers. He can’t make a friend, let alone a girlfriend. I let myself fill a void. I let him need me.

After three such afternoon meetings, I am overwhelmed by his presence, his scent, which I would now know anywhere, so close.

“Maybe I can help teach you?”

Eduardo smiles. “But I’m 15.”

“Age is just a number.”

This maneuver takes planning and execution. But now that I am here, I am fully alive. I know other teachers do this, too. I know some of them by name. For every single male teacher loving a female student, there is another FIVE female teachers making men of their pupils. Today, I move my head over the top of his in our first deep embrace and slowly inhale his fragrance. Up close, I feel his naïve manliness. I’m entranced by my man-boy.

Within another week, I take full advantage of him in my locked classroom after school. This first time, I take the lead. I’m careful, strong but encouraging. Soon his neck tendons stiffen, veins bulge, and eyes turn unfocused. This expression when he climaxes is everything. It is all I need. I will remember it forever. The sensation of having conquered washes over me. It’s like the moments when I achieved my life’s greatest victories. This is as good or better than when I graduated from college, the day I got married, and when I gave birth to my own son.

This first time with Eduardo is far better. The tickling of secret sex lingers. It is beyond simple ecstatic emotion. It’s better than any adrenaline rush. I have never felt this with anyone else, even my husband. Is this love? A new sort of fresh adoration is coursing through my veins. Yes, I must be in love. Hereafter, we have sex as often as possible. He always lets me be the aggressor. But I teach him everything I know. And he has fallen in love with me.

We keep our romance cloaked from the outside world as the months pass. I fall deeper in love. Eduardo and I talk marriage. I’m considering leaving my husband and marrying Eduardo. I plan for him to be my one and only true love. Of course, I’ve been here before. And I’ve discarded the remains in favor of a new hunt. But today, I let myself forget that I always toy with my prey before I finish it off. I forget that this love is a room I’ve locked myself in for only a short time. Soon I will walk out again. And I’ll walk out alone.

And so it goes. There is a pandemic of predatory female teachers raping underage boys in our middle and high schools. [i] There is also an epidemic of female guards sexually assaulting boys inside juvenile detention centers.[ii] [iii] Our society has no outrage for these atrocities, because they don’t fit our framework for what rape is. Adult females raping boys is looked at very differently than when adult males rape girls.

Most believe that boys are not harmed by female rape. This is just another lie. Rape of boys by female teachers makes us uncomfortable. Some would even grin and sweep this matter under the rug, congratulating a boy for a job well done. But this is a misunderstanding of the student-teacher relationship. As long as boys are left vulnerable to female education predation, these acts will go unreported and unpunished. And boy after boy will be scarred and stunted, victimized and alone just as he’s entering adulthood. This form of rape must be recognized and stifled, or it will only continue and grow.




national coalition for men


Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 2
NCFM Chicago Chapter President Tim Goldich, Intrinsic Value Gap – Man Against the Wall – versus the “wage gap” Mon, 08 Jun 2015 04:00:10 +0000 national coalition for menIf there is a wage gap it has little or nothing to do with discrimination.

Women simply have more choices than to men. Not only that, in many occupations women start at a substantially higher wage for no reason other than they are women. What do you call that, a wage gap?

wage gap

Click on book cover to read reviews and order the book.

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 2
NCFM Australia Liaison Greg Andresen must read report on the One in Three’s continuing efforts to educate legislators about domestic violence and abused men Fri, 05 Jun 2015 18:46:48 +0000 domestic violenceReport on One in Three’s involvement with the Federal Senate Inquiry into Domestic Violence

In July 2014, the One in Three Campaign lodged our written submission to the Senate Standing Committees on Finance and Public Administration’s Inquiry into Domestic Violence in Australia. Some ten months later, our dealings with the Inquiry have finally concluded and we are able to talk about our experiences. This has been an eye-opening experience for the men and women of One in Three. We were prepared for rigorous questioning and challenging of our views, but not for the levels of direct, unsubstantiated and unprovoked attack by some members of the Senate Committee and other organisations appearing before it. What follows is a detailed account of our experiences, and is unfortunately lengthy. However we feel this level of detail is necessary for reasons of transparency.

On 30th July 2014 we lodged our first submission to the Inquiry. The submission wasn’t controversial in the least and merely outlined the data on male victims of family violence in Australia while calling for more services and support for male victims than are currently provided by Australian Governments and NGOs.

On the 4th November 2014, Greg Andresen and Andrew Humphreys from One in Three appeared in person before the Inquiry’s Sydney hearing. You can read a transcript here. Unfortunately the Official Committee Hansard document linked to above is not an accurate transcription of what was actually said at the hearings. You can read an accurate transcription here with changes highlighted in yellow. You will note that certain phrases were removed, affecting the reader’s impression of the tone of events at the hearing.

At the Sydney hearing, White Ribbon Australia and ANROWS gave testimony that directly attacked the work of the One in Three Campaign. This, along with questions asked by Greens Senator Larissa Waters, and the opportunity to provide further clarifying information to the Committee, necessitated the lodging by One in Three of a Supplementary Submission on 24th November 2014. Some highlights of this submission are as follows.

At the Sydney Hearing, Senator Waters asked, “so the legacy of gender inequality, how is that addressed, if not with an approach that focuses on women?”

We are concerned that this comment could mistakenly be taken to mean that:

  1. The social inequalities suffered by women in the past are justification for denying men services and protection under the law today, and that


  1. Re-victimising men who have experienced family violence would somehow address that legacy or promote equality in the future.

We have at no time suggested that there should not be family violence services made available to women only. We have argued instead that family violence services should not exist only for women. Generalist services should service the needs of men and women together where appropriate, and gender-specific services should exist for both men and women where necessary.

At the Sydney Hearing, Senator Waters stated that One in Three was “quite disparaging in [our] remarks and in [our] submission about ‘feminist-run services'”.

We do not understand this statement. Our actual claims are that:

  1. Feminist ideology, specifically that ‘family violence is perpetrated by men against women for the purposes of patriarchal control’ is unsupported by evidence, creates discrimination against men, and often fails to assist women


  1. Programs, such as Duluth, that base their treatment model on this ideology rather than empirical evidence are failing to address the real causes and presentations of family violence, which may be a reason why the prevalence of family violence hasn’t fallen despite 40 years of these programs.

We do not believe that debate about the effectiveness of publicly funded policy and programs is ‘disparagement’ or that such programs should be exempt from review and critical analysis, especially when they appear to be failing to address the problem and failing to protect Australians from family violence. We do believe that publicly funded family violence services need to implement much more rigorous standards for reporting and measurement of outcomes. We do not believe it is the role of the Australian Government to fund the promotion of ideology or to discriminate against Australian citizens because of their sex, but to fund empirically proven interventions that protect and serve all Australians.

At the Sydney Hearing, ANROWS claimed that, “Organisations like One in Three… talk about gender symmetries… they say violence is equal between men and women”

We have never claimed gender symmetry, nor that violence is equal between men and women. We would have thought that the title of our organisation – “One in Three” – would have made this clear! We hope ANROWS will retract this claim accordingly.

ANROWS also stated, “I would also suggest that in a pool of limited research funding where we cannot even fund all the projects on violence against women, it might not be the best use of resources to investigate a problem that we do not even have any good indication actually exists in significant numbers.”

The best and most equitable use of limited funding would be to direct it towards those who need it the most, regardless of their gender. The current gendered approach to family violence funding is not only a waste of resources, it leaves many victims without the support that they need.

Almost exclusively funding family violence services that are only available to females has led to a disparity between male and female victims, with males who have experienced severe forms of family violence missing out, while such services are readily provided to women who have suffered equal or much lesser levels of violence.

A triage system available to both genders that prioritised making services available to those persons most affected by the most severe forms of family violence would be the best and most equitable use of limited resources. This would bring the family violence sector into line with every other service sector in Australian society.

No-one argues that all suicide prevention funding should go to preventing male suicide just because males commit suicide at four times the rate of females; or that all occupation health and safety funding should go to preventing male deaths and injuries in the workplace just because men make up 95% of workplace fatalities. Yet Australian Governments and NGOs do this in the family violence sector just because the majority of victims are female.

It shouldn’t matter what proportion of family violence victims are male (or rural, or low-SES, or young, or disabled, or LGBTI, or ATSI or CALD, for that matter). Social justice and human rights frameworks dictate that all victims of family violence have access to the services and support they deserve.

At the Sydney Hearing, White Ribbon Australia stated, “We find that the tactics and strategies of One in Three to derail the White Ribbon campaign and to undermine the evidence that exists and the statistical evidence supporting our claim of men’s violence against women to be very disrespectful of the campaign and of the space it occupies.”

All our activities are clearly on the public record. The only activities we have undertaken that have involved White Ribbon Australia have been attempts to correct factual and statistical errors used by the Campaign on their websites, printed materials and in research efforts.

We believe the public has a right to be aware of the correct, up-to-date data about family violence. We have always supported efforts to reduce men’s violence against women. We have not, however, remained silent when violence against men is denied, downplayed and diminished by the use of incorrect and misleading facts and statistics.

White Ribbon further claimed, “We know that there has been a link between the two organisations [A Voice for Men and One in Three], which is quite concerning for us… White Ribbon as a campaign has not used similar strategies to discredit [One in Three]”.

One in Three have no links whatsoever with A Voice For Men. We would hope that White Ribbon Australia withdraws this misleading statement to the Committee that appears to be an attempt to discredit One in Three by association.

As One in Three’s Supplementary Submission mentioned other organisations, the Senate Committee gave those organisations a chance to reply to our Submission. You can read the responses by White Ribbon Australia and ANROWS here and here.

During the second Melbourne hearing of the Inquiry on 5th November 2014, evidence was given by Mr Rodney Vlais, Acting Chief Executive Officer of No To Violence Male Family Violence Prevention Association Incorporated. After he had presented his evidence, Labor Senator Claire Moore asked,

“Could I quickly put a question on notice? Yesterday, we had evidence from an organisation called One in Three that made comment about male perpetrators and the approach. The Hansard of that evidence should be available within a couple of days. If you have the time, and I know you are both very busy, it would be useful if you could look at what was said there in that exchange about male perpetrators.”

In response to this Question on Notice, No To Violence put together this document which not only failed to answer Senator Moore’s question, but was a direct attack upon the work of One in Three. Unfortunately the Senate Committee didn’t give us a chance to respond to the attack by No To Violence in the same way they gave White Ribbon and ANROWS a chance to respond to our material.

Nevertheless, we drafted a detailed response to the No To Violence document and submitted it to the Senate Committee on 16th December 2014. The rules of Senate Inquiries prevented us from sharing this document until it had been considered by the Committee. Due to some ‘clerical errors,’ and despite monthly phone calls from One in Three to the Committee Secretariat, the Committee didn’t consider our response until 14th May 2015 – some 5 months after it was lodged! Instead of publishing our response on the Inquiry website as it did with No To Violence’s attack on us, instead the Committee,

“decided to accept your response to No to Violence’s answers to questions on notice as correspondence. This means that the senators have been supplied with your response and can continue to access it, although it won’t be published on the website.”

Highlights follow from No To Violence’s attack upon One in Three, and our rebuttal.

No to Violence stated, “From our perspective, the belief by the One in Three campaign that women’s domestic violence services should be available and accessible to men comes from a space of male entitlement-based expectations, and male righteousness, that the One in Three campaign does not appear to be aware of or understand.” “The One in Three campaign appears to have little or no understanding of why women-only spaces, and services exclusively for women, are required.”

One in Three has never argued that women’s domestic violence services should be available and accessible to men. We have simply argued that male victims need services too. The claims about male entitlement and righteousness made by No To Violence come from an inherently sexist attitude that has no basis whatsoever in evidence (and none was cited). This attitude casts disparaging stereotypes upon men and boys. The perspective One in Three takes is based upon global human rights frameworks where no one should be denied a service based upon their gender, race, sexual preference, religion, etc.

No to Violence claimed, “There is significant research supporting the need to be cautious in automatically assuming that a man assessed by police or another referring agent as a victim of domestic violence truly is the victim.”

While it is quite true that some male perpetrators can perceive themselves as victims of family violence, the same is true of female perpetrators. The two studies cited by No To Violence only examined claims of male victimisation / female perpetration because of their one-sided approach to researching family violence. If they had also examined claims of female victimisation / male perpetration, it is likely that a similar proportion of female “victims” would also be found to most likely be the perpetrators of violence (or that the violence in their relationship was mutual – the most prevalent form of family violence). Domestic violence pioneer Erin Pizzey discovered in the 1970s, when she opened the first domestic violence shelter in the UK, that many of the women approaching her shelter as victims were as violent as their male partners.

The gender profiling of male victims recommended by No To Violence, like racial and other forms of profiling, is a clear violation of the human rights of victims of violence.

No to Violence stated, “Michael Flood has provided possibly the most detailed and exhaustive review of studies focusing on gender issues in domestic violence. His paper can be downloaded from

The paper by Dr Flood cited by No To Violence is not actually a detailed and exhaustive review of studies focusing on gender issues in domestic violence. It appears to have been produced primarily to attack and undermine the work of Men’s Health Australia and One in Three using claims about the organisations that are are untrue and completely unsubstantiated/unreferenced. It is a seminar paper which has not been peer-reviewed. It has no bibliography, so the references cited are unable to be verified easily. Nevertheless, we are happy to respond to some of the points raised by No To Violence below.

No to Violence claimed, “Studies that employ methodologies to measure domestic violence in its true meaning – coercive control as a pattern over time and across a range of violent and controlling behaviours and tactics – generally find that women are the victims in 90-95% of situations.”

Dr Flood’s paper did not actually cite studies that employ methodologies to measure domestic violence in its true meaning. It instead references a single peer-reviewed journal article by Michael P. Johnson, titled “Gender and types of intimate partner violence: A response to an anti-feminist literature review.”

Dr Flood applied the findings from the Johnson article on the typology of intimate partner violence to the data from the 2005 ABS Personal Safety Survey. From this calculation, Dr Flood came up with the 90-95% figure quoted by No To Violence. However, Flood appears to have both misread Johnson’s findings and miscalculated the numbers involved.

A correct reading of Johnson, and a correct calculation using the more up-to-date 2012 ABS Personal Safety Survey data, finds that there were some 45,000 male victims (26%) and 128,000 female victims (74%) of severe/chronic violence during the past 12 months.

We have attached a full critique of Dr Flood’s paper as Appendix A to this document.

Johnson’s paper also contains the following findings:

  1. Johnson’s findings support the One in Three position that the causes of family violence are extremely variable and include personality disorders (matters of attachment in particular), violence in one’s childhood home, substance abuse, couple communication issues, poor ability to manage relationship conflict and/or poor control of anger.

For more than a decade (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000) my feminist colleagues and I have incorporated Holtzworth-Munroe’s work into our analysis of intimate terrorism, work that centers on matters of personality in general, and attachment in particular. And my work with Alison Cares demonstrates the relationship between violence in one’s childhood home and male intimate terrorism (Johnson, 2008; Johnson & Cares, 2004), a central tenet of the learning approach to understanding intimate partner violence. As I have noted above, and in a number of published pieces, substance abuse and couple communication issues are central to any analysis of situational couple violence (Johnson, 2006b, 2007), and my analyses of situational couple violence have always emphasized the extreme variability of its causes.

A simplistic reductionist view that “gender” is the cause of family violence will fail to reduce the levels of violence in the Australian community.

  1. Johnson’s findings support the One in Three position that the best use of limited resources is not to provide services to female victims and exclude male victims, but to put in place a triage system to identify the most severe cases of violence and abuse, so they can be treated appropriately:

courts and other institutions need to use all of the assessment tools at their disposal to identify what type of intimate partner violence is involved in each particular case in order to decide on an appropriate course of action.

The dramatic differences among intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence make it essential that the family courts make these distinctions in order to do the right thing with respect to the adults involved, and to serve the best interests of the children.

Current research provides considerable support for differentiating among types of intimate partner violence, and such differentiations should provide benefits to those required to make recommendations and decisions about custody and parenting plans, treatment programs, and legal sanctions

  1. Johnson acknowledges that women’s violence is a serious social issue which must be addressed.

women both initiate violence and participate in mutual violence and that, particularly in teenage and young adult samples, women perpetrate violence against their partners more frequently than do the men

repeat, severe violence against a non-violent intimate is symmetrical by gender

I and others have always noted that situational couple violence

(a) is far and away the most common form of intimate partner violence,

(b) is perpetrated about equally by men and women, and

(c) can be extremely consequential.

The members of the One in Three Campaign are saddened that gaining support for males affected by family violence has become so mired in unnecessary and destructive gender politics. We are working towards a future where all people will be given the recognition and support they need to reclaim their lives after experiencing family violence, and where family violence is reduced as the result of effective primary prevention and early intervention strategies.

national coalition for menOne day, soon, the Domestic Violence Industry will have to recognize violent women and the men they abuse.

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 0