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, 21 May 2015 23:42:00 +0000 en-US hourly 1 NCFM Chicago Chapter President, Tim Goldich fourth video in the series “It all Balances Out” Thu, 21 May 2015 23:41:46 +0000

The Story goes that Man has the power and Woman is the victim. It’s the story you get when you compare conditions for the average woman against conditions for the élite male. It’s the story taught in school and radiated throughout every facet of human culture. Even so, it is only half the full story. And only half of all human facts and truths support it. The omnipresence (and exaggeration) granted those select facts and truths will make it seem as if our belief in The Story is based on fact and truth. But it’s not. If it were, contradictory facts and truths—no less factual and no less truthful—would not be so rejected.

Men have the power, women are the victims: it’s a sentimental version of gender reality—and we believe it religiously. Why’s that bad? Because The Story is one-sided, which is why it’s false, which is why it’s toxic. It’s a story that maximizes inter-sex rancor, resentment, victim, and vengeance motives. And it has escalated the Battle of the Sexes into something like a “war.” The Story’s poetic but poisonous.

This video ponders how our world might be transformed if we believed a different story—a story that includes the other half of gender reality? What if we shook off the primitive instinctual, and the gender ideology that sprang from it, and believed instead what our deepest intuition tells us is true? In the benefits enjoyed and in the liabilities suffered, in the power and in the victimization, in the freedoms and the constraints, the joys and the sorrows, the good and the bad, It All Balances Out between Woman and Man—and it always has.

Tim Goldich, author of Loving Men, Respecting Women: The Future of Gender Politics.
Get the book here:

Transforming Gender Politics: It All Balances Out, part 2:

national coalition for men

What do you think? Does it all balances out?

National Coalition For Men

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 0
NCFM Adviser Charles Corry, Ph.D., needs help to complete an analysis of arrest data of Veterans Fri, 08 May 2015 23:34:35 +0000 veteransNCFM NOTE: Dr. Corry does exemplary work for all of us but especially for veterans and men. We send our young ones to war, mostly men, many of whom come home to situations worse than the wars from which they came. Many end up in the criminal justice system because we fail them without viable alternatives. The study discussed here is important, extremely important, and will help us help those who are now having difficulty helping themselves and their families after coming home after war.

Funds are needed to complete analysis and publish results of veteran arrest data collected over the past five years and integrate arrest data with court outcomes of the arrests.  The GoFundMe link for the Equal Justice Foundation’s veteran arrest project is The results of our work to date, with current  reports, is at  Probably the best explanation of why our study is so important and funding is needed is Jeff Wright’s article When Johnny Comes Marching Home Again…He Goes To Jail.

As Jeff states in his introductory paragraphs”

“The single most damning thing about our wars of opportunity and empire is the damage done to our young, active-duty military and veterans when they come home and attempt to re-integrate into American society. Instead of helping them with their injuries and nightmares we just expand the problem by throwing them in jail.

Recently, I spent a disturbing couple of days reviewing a 120+ page Analysis of arrest, conviction and incarceration data of active duty and military veterans. The Analysis was compiled, collected and published by Dr. Charles Corry and Dr. David Stockburger of the Equal Justice Foundation in Colorado Springs. The Analysis should become the landmark study in this area and the benchmark from which we stop harming our soldiers, sailors, airman and marines even more, once they come home.

Reading the report, to say the least, I’m more angry than ever at my faux-patriotic, complacent fellow citizens, the Chickenhawks and Warmongers who promote and support our endless wars. Just reading the abstract to the Analysis should serve as an indictment and a Bill of Particulars for Impeachment of the elected and appointed officials, judges and prosecutors responsible for this tragedy.

Talk about “Blowback!” Saying “ignorance” is to blame is to excuse the all-too-apparent and readily observable. However, most Americans are behaving in their usual “eyes-averted” mode, when it comes to the added harm veterans receive, from the “Global War on Terror.” The direct damage done by the wars is bad enough. Piling-on through the criminal “justice” system is even worse.

Drs. Corry and Stockburger and the Equal Justice Foundation have done a remarkable job trying to find justice for wounded, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Traumatic Brian Injury (TBI) afflicted veterans returning from Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan. It should astound and anger every American why it is that a small, non-profit has stepped up to perform such an analysis. One guess would be the VA or DoD dare not perform such a in-depth review due to the local and national tragedy it exposes. The Administration and military may seek to ignore or whitewash the implications of findings in the EJF report. It’s happened before.

The Americans who supposedly “support the troops” by waving their little flags and wanting the parades of returning “victorious” young men and women in uniform should instead hang their heads in shame. As soon as the parades end, apparently, so does any real concern for the real welfare of the soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen who served, or their families. Somebody else should take care of ensuring that, right?


It should also be noted that our veteran arrest study is unique both in magnitude and duration.

An average of 8 veterans a day are arrested and jailed in El Paso County, Colorado. About half of them are derelict or become derelict because of the arrest. If they aren’t already. Homelessness soon follows, and  an early death or suicide are predictable. Or they drive drunk and kill or maim someone else.

Of the ~8,000 veterans arrested and rearrested during our study, to date only ~250 have been admitted to our veteran trauma court (VTC). And one veteran in the VTC has been rearrested and jailed 18 time in five years. Others in the VTC have been jailed 6, 10, 12 times during our study. So the current veteran court isn’t effective but we can’t make changes unless we can show what isn’t working with the present system. As always, funding is needed to go beyond simply tabulating arrests to enable us to do the additional data acquisition, programming, analysis, and publishing required.

So your help is extremely important!  If you would also be so kind as to pass this along to any mailing list you may have it would be greatly appreciated and probably help save a veteran’s life. And contributions are tax deductible.

Thank you!

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.
Please help support the EJF by going to AmazonSmile 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

Veterans deserve our help.

Most Veterans are men, they don’t belong in jail.

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 0
NCFM Member Dan Perrins and friend Jeb walk 75-miles to raise awareness about suicide and the need for support services for men Thu, 07 May 2015 02:21:34 +0000 suicideSuicide, “Men-Tell Health Because Silence is Deadly”

Hamilton to Toronto Fundraising Walk for Men’s Health and Welfare

Two days ago, NCFM Canadian Member Dan Perrins and close friend Jeb (the furry one with four legs) were scheduled to begin their 75-mile walk from Dundas, just outside of Hamilton toward Toronto. It is Canada’s National Mental Health Week. Dan and Jeb are making a blistering statement about and equally blistering issue of male suicide and societies disinterest in helping men in crisis.


Anthony and Jeb

He is walking in memory of his brother Anthony Perrins, who committed suicide on May 8, 1982, and close friend and long time men’s human rights advocate Earl Silverman who killed himself on April 26, 2013.

Earl was a longtime friend of mine, and an NCFM Liaison. Over the years, NCFM worked with Earl to help him keep up his home as a shelter for abused men. For whatever reasons neither Anthony nor Earl could take it anymore, whatever “it” is. I do not know how Anthony died, but Earl dangled himself from a rope in his garage until dead. I was told he left a package on the seat of his truck for me, a package confiscated by the police, a package I have never been able to find.


Harry (me) and Earl at 2006 Sacramento conference about abused men

Dan reached out and found corporate sponsors. Hamilton Police Chief Glenn De Caire was to in support with Dan from City Hall to Central Police station. Chief De Caire knows all to well problems associated with suicide, especially from working with families of officers who killed themselves.

Dan is familiar with the mental health system in Ontario. He has Post Traumatic Stress disorder (PTSD. By walking, Dan hopes to encourage men to reach out for help when in crisis, and bring attention to the lack of resources for men. So he called his walk, “Men-Tell Health Because Silence is Deadly.”

Dan and Jeb have already stopped at city halls of the municipalities along the way to hand deliver letters highlighting the necessity and urgency for an increase in mental health services for men. He hopes to cover the 75 in five days, will be staying in each city for a few hours each day likely around 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. He will be staying in each city for a few hours most likely around 10 am – 2 pm to talk to people each day too.

suicideThe Canadian Centre for Men and Families is a fantastic organization doing wonderful things for men in Canada and elsewhere. Dan hopes to raise funds for the Centre. Donations will help programs for men running at the centre, such as counseling, peer support, mindfulness meditation and legal resources, and help to create a larger variety of services to serve a wider population.

To support men’s mental health, click here to give now. Be sure to name the donation to the “Men-Tell Health Walk (Because men not asking for help is deadly)” fund.

Dan is also inviting all those who support men’s mental health to join him for legs of the walk. If you are anywhere near, where Dan and Jeb are walking, please wish him well and keep them company. Men are worth it, so are Dan, Jeb, and the effort they are making to help the world become a better place for the rest of us.

The world sorely needs more Dan’s and Jeb’s. Maybe they’ve started something. I have several pairs of good walking shoes… Bless you my friend, and Jeb.

Harry Crouch

President NCFM

national coalition for menMen complete suicide over four times more often than do women…over four times.

How come suicide is not considered an epidemic? It kills ten times more often than does domestic violence.

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 0
NCFM Member Vernal Hegenbart, Idiots Among Us Ain’t Us, Darwin story sent wrong message Sat, 18 Apr 2015 21:38:40 +0000 idiotsIdiots Among Us Ain’t Us,

Darwin story sent wrong message

NCFM NOTE: You may recall the controversy surrounding the LA Times article Proved at last: Men really are idiots. NCFM member Vernal Hegenbart saw it in his local rag the LaCrosseTribune. He rightly took offense and fired of the following response with ran in the LaCrosseTribune January, 2015. The only idiots here are the author Melissa Healy and the LA Times. Other newspapers that published the article shouldn’t be trusted either. Whenever confronted with anyone who suggests men are idiots ask them is they can see anything a woman built. Notice it wasn’t “paid for,” but “built.” This news came to us by snail-mail which takes us awhile to get to. Here’s his response:

Darwin story sent wrong message

“Proved at last: Men really are idiots” hysterically screams a headline in the Dec. 14 Tribune. According to the story, since 1995, incidents involving 413 people who engaged in idiotic, risky behavior resulted in 318 being verified as qualifying for so-called Darwin Awards, with 88.7 percent being male.

The Darwin Awards, founded by a woman, and the article, written by a woman, declare that the award winners performed a public service by dying and removing themselves from the human gene pool.

Conspicuously absent from this article and the study is any mention of the millions of men who have engaged in incredibly risky behavior by serving in the military. Far too many bled and died so that malcontents can use a tiny number of incidents to prove that misandry is alive but acutely sick.

War on women? It is clear that the real war is both literally and figuratively on men. I am personally offended, and any man worthy of the name should be, too. You can imagine the uproar if some study resulted in headlines that blared that “women are idiots.”

Fair-minded readers will wonder why such an idiotic article got published. Men are owed an apology. Not alibis, excuses or rationalization, but a genuine, sincere apology, with assurance that it won’t happen again.

national coalition for menYou know things have gone to far when dumb people accuse half the population of being idiots.

Hence, the idiots among us ain’t us.

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 4
NCFM PR Director and President of Attorneys for the Rights of the Child, Steven Svoboda, Esq. announces the filing of a federal lawsuit to protect the rights of Chase Hironimus Fri, 17 Apr 2015 22:05:12 +0000 circumcisionSTOP Circumcision!

On April 13, 2015, the attached complaint (which is also posted at

was filed by attorney Thomas Hunker pursuant to a federal lawsuit on behalf of 4-year-old Chase Hironimus, alleging civil rights violations. Chase has been caught for many months in the middle of a custody dispute, with his mother trying to protect him from his father’s attempts to have him circumcised. In January 2015, ARC, Intact America, and Doctors Opposing Circumcision sent a joint letter to all Florida urologists warning them not to circumcise Chase.

Steven Svoboda

Attorneys for the Rights of the Child

national coalition for menSTOP CIRCUMCISION!

Stop the circumcision of 4-year-old Chase Hironimus!

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 0
NCFM Member Naomi Evans, STOP Paternity Fraud, Open Letter to Washington Residents of All or No Political Party Fri, 17 Apr 2015 21:45:08 +0000 paternity fraudSTOP Paternity Fraud

Open Letter to Washington Residents of All or No Political Party

Dear Washington Residents,

After two years of my life spent toiling away on Legislation to relieve men wrongly established as “Fathers” of non-biological children – Legislation mind you that has failed to pass either Republican or Democratic majorities – I wanted to take a moment and ask all voters of Washington, regardless of any party affiliation, how you feel about this issue.

I have written several articles now on different arguments in support of this reform and how Washington men and their families have been and continue to be impacted by the egregious practices of “mis-identified paternity” aka “paternity fraud”.

Note: Paternity Fraud occurs when a woman mis-identifies the biological father of her child, when she has knowledge that the identified male is not or is likely not the child’s father, but for reasons such as monetary gain (child support) has failed to declare all possible fathers of her child in order to obtain an unwitting acknowledgment of paternity, default adjudication of paternity, or presumption of paternity from an innocent man, that results in his legal and financial entrapment under RCW 26.26 without his right to challenge such mistake regardless of DNA evidence to the contrary.

The last two years attempt at this reform was sponsored by a Republican Legislator in the Senate (2014 & 2015) and a bipartisan effort in the House (2015).  In both years, the Senate Bill managed to be voted through committees, with the primary support of Republicans; and get to the Senate floor before it was stalled out by legislators (even with a Republican Majority) and allowed to die, where as this year’s House Bill never made it past the first Judiciary Committee vote after it showed such promising bipartisan support.

During this year’s Legislature a group of us victim supporters of SB 5006 and HB 1524 attended several lobby appointments and contacted all Washington State Legislators via email and phone calls asking for support to pass these bills. In the end there was too great of a partisan divide with a handful of Republicans opposing, and a majority of Democrats opposing this reform.

I have not identified with one party over another for the last several years; except for saying I am conservative in nature because I do not like the government telling me how to run my life.  I believe we all have unalienable rights as our State and National Constitution’s dictate. The issue of Paternity Fraud is easily black and white to me on a basic moral principle.  No matter how the mis-identified paternity occurred, there is always one simple truth to me.  No one should be forced to be responsible for another person’s lie or deception…period.

Paternity Fraud is one of the few cases of Fraud I have seen in which the innocent party somehow becomes the evil doer after they discover they have been victims of a crime, and nothing about this “crime” of paternity or a man’s desire to seek justice for himself and family should be looked at in a light of Political Party Affiliation and/or belief.

I am certain that regardless of political affiliation, that if you stop for one moment and imagine yourself being forced to adopt and pay for another person’s child, often denied a relationship with that “adopted child”, and knowing exactly where the child’s biological parent resided but was helpless to remedy this injustice; that you would be outraged if your legislators continued to ignore your cries for help because they wanted to continue collecting 2 dollars for every 1 dollar you were forced to pay in support.

This is exactly what is going on now in our state!  Yes you heard me right… Under the Social Security Act Title IV-D our state DSHS is given incentive money at the rate of 2-1 for money they are able to collect from child support obligors; regardless of the existence of mis-identified paternity, or any proof thereof. (Talk about a Ponzi Scheme!)

Unfortunately there remains the existence of citizens who simply do not understand this issue and the facts surrounding it.  Our legislators have gone out of their way to teach many that the acceptance of Paternity Fraud is supposedly in the “Best interest of the Child” because “someone needs to support the child” so it might as well be an innocent man.  Our law makers have convinced unknowing “charitable” citizens to believe that the innocent children would be permanently damaged if innocent men were allowed to stop paying another man’s support obligation.

This false ideology is in truth a deception upon ignorant people, who like most of us, love our children more than life itself and would never want to see any “innocent child” be emotionally, physically or otherwise harmed.  It is this “deception” that must be exposed to save all of our children’s futures.

The TRUTH of mis-identified paternity/paternity fraud is this:

  • For every 1 non genetic child that is being financially provided for by an innocent man; there are 2 or more biological children dependent on that man (their father) for support that are being deprived financially and emotionally. Those biological children are never considered by the court or legislators when they make claims of “best interest of the child”.
  • In about 90% of these cases, the innocent man never had a close emotional bond with the child they are forced to pay for. In the smaller 10% of cases in which a man may have previously bonded with the child, the state courts and/or mother have used the discovery of non biological ties to legally sever all visitation and/or emotional connection between man and child, while still requiring continued financial support with claims of “best interest of the child”. There are no laws preventing a mother from allowing a man she had wrongly identified as her child’s father from continuing periods of visitation if he were allowed to terminate legal obligation. Ask yourself how often extended family members are forced to pay for their relationship with a grandchild, niece or nephew.
  • In approximately 90-95% of these cases, the biological father’s identity and location are known to the mother, innocent man and even the judicial system.  Unfortunately the current laws will not support or allow any parties to petition the court to establish the correct paternity after the first four years of establishment. In fact there is only 60 days in which a man may challenge proceedings to establish paternity without being denied; whereas judges are given broad discretion within the following 4 year statute of limitations to deny DNA testing or appeals, which is the primary reason many men have fallen victim to this fraud.
  • Although there is a statute of limitations on the ability to Dis-establish Paternity in Washington State, there is NO statute of limitations on Establishing Paternity! These laws are grossly inequitable and give rise to many fathers being denied parentage and bonding with their children during the early years, while subsequently ending in tens of thousands of dollars in back support debt for a child they were denied a relationship with.  This same statute would allow the re-establishment of biological paternity after a “duped dad” was allowed to terminate legal obligation to a non genetic child. Washington Legislators continue to ignore the fact that the real fathers are available emotionally and financially for their children if reform was agreed upon.

With these facts in mind, I would ask all of you to ponder the question of why this issue has our Legislators so politically divided.

This issue should be a simple matter of equal justice for Men, Women and Children’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but seems to have become Republican’s vs. Democrats from what I have seen within the Washington Legislature.

If you are a Washington resident/voter, regardless of political view/affiliation, I would ask you to support this vital family reform, and to tell your Legislators that it is no longer acceptable to hold innocent families accountable for false allegations. That it is no longer acceptable to force adoption and child trafficking upon unwitting victims.  It is no longer acceptable to monetarily reward women who make false claims of paternity or to deny these children access to their true parentage for the sake of federal funding.

I ask you all to come together and support the rights of families everywhere; to exercise your rights to address your grievances with your law makers and to let your voice be heard so that your children and grandchildren will not someday be faced with this issue or have their rights violated by a government more concerned with their own financial gain, than that of the rights of its people.

Thank you!

Naomi Evans and Family (Victims of Paternity Fraud)

national coalition for menSTOP paternity fraud!

Those who commit paternity fraud are criminals.

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 0
NCFM PR Director Steven Svoboda, Esq., book review of Sexual Impolitics: Heresies on Sex, Gender,and Feminism – don’t miss this masterpiece Wed, 08 Apr 2015 18:47:18 +0000 feminismSexual Impolitics: Heresies on Sex, Gender and Feminism

By Neil Lyndon. Kindle: 239 pages. $4.43.

British journalist Neil Lyndon has published a book that for the first time reprints the “original, uncensored, unexpurgated text” of his classic 1992 book No More Sex War: The Failures of Feminism. While directed to the UK, the great majority of his analysis and conclusions is also applicable to the US, in some cases with some minor adjustments. The litany of injustices relating to No More Sex War with which the author opens his book may make it hard for some readers to sympathize with him or like him.

This would be a shame because the book is as refreshing and illuminating to read now as it no doubt was more than two full decades ago when it first appeared in its unfortunately modified form.

Lyndon is a more trenchant observer of the gender wars than virtually all other authors to address the overall “battle of the sexes” in broad strokes; so far as this reviewer can recall, the authors’ only possible competitors in this regard are Warren Farrell and Tim Goldich. Lyndon shows that many years on from when the National Organization for Women first got started, we now are frankly confronting an ideological battle for supremacy between feminism and common sense.

The author comes across as simultaneously reasonable and radical, justifying his description of feminism as a “reactionary” force through which “we have all, women and men, been harmed in our personal lives and in our political potentialities…” by quoting chapter and verse of its effects on males and indeed, on all of us.

Lyndon has a great feel for the ease with which, using one hand, we condemn “men” while simultaneously, with the other hand, taking back our claims for supposed exceptions such as our spouses, good friends, fathers and sons. By the beginning of the 1990’s, the author writes, “Men as a generalised whole (not your husband nor hers, bien entendu) had become useless and the unspeakable evil, the object of a light smirk of dismissal and the irredeemably condemned for whom, as I am about to show, no imprecations, no damnings, no luridness of language was excessive.”

The author takes Rosalind Miles to task for demonstrably false claims she made that men’s most common doctor’s visits relate to impotency and that physical violence is a uniquely male phenomenon and accordingly “it is to masculinity itself that we must look for the answer to its origins and for any hope of its remedy.” Why, Lyndon queries, “do feminists of all persuasions and shades of opinion want to insist that men share universal characteristics of behaviour and habits of thought? Why are they so unwilling to acknowledge similarities between men and women and differences between men?”

Lyndon eloquently, passionately contests the common claim of a uniquely female way of working, suggesting instead how remarkably unchanged professions have been by women’s entrance into them en masse over the past few decades. Perhaps even more to the point, men’s suggested sense of entitlement or comfort in the workplace is nothing more than a myth. “Anybody who assumes that men discover and enjoy in institutions a comprehensive sense of belonging which women lack has not been listening to men or must willfully be ignoring realities for the sake of a fictitious account.”

The author makes a very passionate and generally persuasive argument that the single most important event in women’s “emergence into public and commercial life on equal terms with men” was the appearance of the pill and of available, legal abortion. He also points out that feminists largely ignore the critical roles played by these developments. Lyndon also provocatively shows that several government-brokered and important gains by women in the UK in the sixties—doubled university enrollment, greatly expanded access to legal abortion, and divorce reform—occurred without significant opposition and did not result from feminist campaigning.

Only a few nits can be picked with this superlative, even exciting, book. Periodic lapses into obscenity do not strength his case. The repeated misspellings of Naomi Wolf’s and Ashley Montagu’s names do not inspire confidence. I also think Lyndon concedes far too much when he writes, “It is beyond argument or dispute to say that all post-nomadic societies have confined women in one form or another of domestic ghetto, usually without material rewards or rights. Nobody can deny—why should they want to?—that in all Western societies down to the present age, political and economic powers, honours and distinctions, titles, perks and pride of ownership have been the sole property of men.” Finally, the book’s structure is a bit unfortunate, with several essays from subsequent years simply reprinted following—and duplicating some of the material from–No More Sex War. It should however also be said that these essays contain many penetrating insights and much original thinking bringing together ideas from a wide range of disciplines.

On the other hand, this is perhaps the best book regarding gender that manages to contextualize pertinent issues within the larger society and within broader concerns not directly related to sex. So it is that Lyndon interestingly posits that the critical factor is not sex but class. “The evident and incontestable truth… is that very great numbers of women in the West have taken pleasure in commercial competition, in acquisition and in domination… They have flung themselves into those roles and styles with abandon and gratification.” The diminution in recent years of—in Germaine Greer’s words–“social provision for the very young, the very old, the imbecile and the outsider” proves that “it is simply pea-brained cant to say that, if women were running the world, a better and more humane set of priorities would be established and care would be sympathetically provided for all who need it. As far as the administration of the social welfare institutions is concerned, women already have a very big hand in running the world.”

Lyndon also writes trenchantly and with robust common sense in debunking claims than almost half of women have been raped and showing how flirtation and wooing naturally introduce unclear situations not susceptible to post hoc political analysis. In short, “The storm of hysteria which envelops the subject [of rape] may well be taken as an indication of the falsehood with which it has been willfully endued by the sisterhood. They cannot permit a calm discussion of the evidence because the evidence is so plainly contrary to their declared analysis and aims.” Lyndon takes some risks when he goes on to discuss in some detail just how rarely rape in fact occurs, as this clearly flies in the face of feminist mythology, yet as usual his analysis is refreshingly down to earth. The author then goes on to provide an analysis of domestic violence that complements his discussion of rape, concluding that “the issue of domestic violence has been comprehensive blown-up for polemical purposes.” Lyndon crowns his achievement by pointedly comparing what may be fairly called our overreaction to the relatively modest numbers of women and children forced to seek refuge from domestic violence with our almost complete lack of concern with the vastly greater numbers of homeless men. “I count this extraordinary discrepancy in sympathy and ineptitude in political practice among the cardinal failures of feminism and of the style of politics feminism has promoted.”

national coalition for men

Sexual Impolitics: Heresies on Sex, Gender and Feminism, a good read.

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 0
NCFM Member Mr. Brown, investigative report memorandum of findings in VAWA immigration fraud case – false accusations for free ride Mon, 06 Apr 2015 23:36:01 +0000 immigration fraudThis report about immigration fraud from CSI Consulting and Investigations LLC clearly establishes the foreign born national United Arab Emirates Jane Brown-Ali (alias) defrauded the Unities States Government, local police authorities, local court systems, and U.S. Citizen John Brown (alias).

The fraud occurred through a series of manipulations (becoming pregnant, making false allegations of abuse, and disregarding various aspects of the law) to protect and enhance her legal status in the United States through the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) immigration provisions.

“Throughout this report, John BROWN is referred to as SOURCE and Jane BROWN-Ali is referred to as SUBJECT.   This report is broken down into three parts: Timeline, Analysis, and Conclusions. Timeline information was supplied by SOURCE.”

The use of “SOURCE” AND “SUBJECT” takes a bit of getting used to. Something like “JB” and “JB-Ali” would have made for easier reading. Nonetheless, the report clearly and precisely reveals the extent of JB-Ali’s (SUBJECT) deceit, plotting, and indifference to the laws of the United States and, most particularly, to the damage she does to JB (SOURCE).

Moreover, the report explains why pursuing a VAWA visa is preferable to other types of visas, albeit why marriage is the fastest way to permanent residency.

The Vermont Service Center processes I-360 Self Petitions that aliens can file alleging abuse by a U.S. citizen, like a spouse, real or contrived. The report explains that the Vermont Service Center’s VAWA unit receives the petitions but “does not conduct interviews, does not investigate, and does not accept any information supplied by the US citizen spouse of an alien alleging abuse or cruelty, adjudicate this petition.” Nor, to our knowledge does anyone else.

The report explains, “filing an I-360…effectively prevents the US citizen spouse from contesting the allegations of domestic violence or abuse. In fact, allegations of abuse or cruelty can be placed in a US Government file accusing a United States citizen of domestic violence or abuse, or extreme cruelty, and the US citizen is not even notified that such allegations have been made, much less given the due process right of contesting those allegations.”

The investigation concludes with, “In short, given the totality of the documented evidence obtained, it is my opinion that SUBJECT never intended to establish a life with SOURCE and used him simply to obtain status in the United States, a status she would otherwise not be eligible for. She used the marriage to SOURCE as a means by which to circumvent, evade, and avoid, the immigration laws of the United States. In order to do so, she had to have fraudulently induced SOURCE into marrying her. It is my opinion that she used her pregnancy as part of that inducement, and to try and establish the “bona fides” of the marriage.”

Again, here, as in tens of thousands of other cases, it is the falsely accused who is the victim. This woman should be either in prison or on a plane back the United Arab Emirates.

Please recall, your Congressman may have proposed, authored, co-authored, and voted for the recent re-authorization of VAWA. Perhaps you should re think who you vote for in the upcoming election.

Click here to read report: 150407 J Brown VAWA immigration fraud 3

national coalition for menThose who commit immigration fraud against U.S. citizens through VAWA belong in jail.

Immigration fraud is a crime and those who commit it destroy innocent people. How our government allows it escapes us.

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 0
NCFM Member Timothy Patten, Rape Culture IS Deceiving America Fri, 03 Apr 2015 20:57:35 +0000 rape cultureRape Culture IS

Deceiving America

The notion of a “Rape Culture” is used to coopt public empathy, command social power, and bilk money from governments, supporters, and taxpayers.

A 19 year old college freshman was removed from his institution, banned from campus now and forever. A female student filed a claim stating that she has nightmares because he looked similar to a man who allegedly raped her. She felt uncomfortable, and so the young man with a dream for his future is ruined. He joins thousands of others who’ve been fed into the man-eating jaws of political correctness in academic, media, and social circles. There is enormous power granted to any woman who claims to be a rape survivor, whether or not the claim is based in fact. “Rape Culture” is a bogeyman which uses a distortion of reality to illicit power. Women who wield it in such a way destroy men and influence society in harmful ways.

Women’s studies proponents invented and defined Rape Culture in the 1970’s. It was a way to emotionally blackmail society. Rape Culture ignores logic and uses terrifying propaganda to convince governments and executives to relinquish power and dish out millions of dollars for campaigns of dubious efficacy. Today, anyone can get in on the action. But what is Rape Culture?

rape culture message

It is not uncommon for women to label men as liars and cheats. To these labels they may now add the new tag: rapists. Clearly these Rape Culture messages are exaggerated and used to fleece desired behavior from gullible targets, like governments and campus administrators. Women’s groups have manufactured anger towards men by embellishing statistics and lying by omission. Not one of Rape Culture’s facts can be traced to a credible survey or verifiable source. As Mark Twain once wrote, there are “lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Rape Culture proponents manipulate statistics to obfuscate reality and oppress men into second-class citizens. But there is hope.

American Women are fishing for money in our lake of humanity, using ‘rape’ as their bait. They sell books and films about the horror of rape. They cite the neurosis of Post-Traumatic Stress among those raped. Civil careers are launched on rape. Politicians use rape-busting, women-protecting rhetoric to win elections and pass laws. Administrative jobs are created and well-paid lecture contracts are signed. All these benefit the champions of Rape Culture. Rape in America is a multi-billion dollar industry. We must never end rape, because that would destroy the money stream! The “Rape Culture” crusades on campus must continue!

We’ve all seen how female organizers hold brash protests with disgusting images in front of millions of impressionable college students every year. Women’s studies spreads its fear of men and rape terrorism, mixed with statements of patriarchal oppression and offensive Rape Culture theatrics of the absurd. Wrongly, Rape Culture builds “fairness” for women on the backs of men. Instilling anger and hysteria is Rape Culture’s greatest weapon.

rape culture

Despite the hoax of Rape Culture, people are raped. Notwithstanding this reality, Rape Culture ideologues are ethically bankrupt. But there can be legitimate solutions! Men and women really are criminally assaulted and the criminal justice system must intervene so that laws can be maintained and justice provided. Victims must be taught to contact law enforcement and not chase after campus justice. Unfortunately, instead of contacting local police, college campuses are mandating guidelines and procedures to solve crime with campus vigilantism. It’s a scheme full of legal glitches. Campus administrations nationwide struggle to rescue all their women students from being assaulted on campus but, Rape Culture is turning higher education into a flawed and amateur legal system. The impact on campuses is far reaching.

rape culture

Rape generates money. Hundreds of millions of dollars are granted to colleges and thousands of rape support centers around the country. Women’s organizations also pander to millions of sympathetic contributors for tax-free donations. There are rape education web sites and documentaries funded by the government and well-intentioned supporters. Some of these organizations are effective, but others are simply mining money for selfish purposes. The rape industry employs thousands of women. Despite this, rape is still an epidemic, they say. But it can be unraveled without employing cynical campaigns or grabbing power and money from the larger society.

By not referring campus rape crimes to the real Criminal Justice System, we’ve undermined the legal system and empowered a form of vigilante “justice”.

Sexual assault is an act of power, one person over another. It’s not likely to disappear anytime soon. Exerting sexual dominance in this way likely finds its origin from events encountered in childhood. Our relationships with mothers and fathers, or lack thereof, are often the culprits which inspire criminal activity, especially rape. It is unlikely we will end sexual assault by any sort of communications on college campus.

Rape exists. Men and women are assaulted. Both can act as the aggressors. It is as old as human civilization, but it finds no acceptable place in America’s modern world. Despite its existence, and its negative effect upon society, rape must not become a political tool that divides the sexes. Viewed as an aberration by all, and dealt with by legitimate law enforcement, rape can come out of the shadows. Doing so will help ensure that fewer women and men are victimized by the specter of rape.

With great power, all influential organizations are expected to benefit the greater good. In Rape Culture there is no broader social responsibility than the demonization of Rapists and the Culture that produces them. Rape Culture will selfishly exploit this indiscriminate violence over and over. It will gain more power and more money. Rape can be reduced, but to achieve this end, we will have to look to other organizations whose activities benefit the greater good, organizations headed by some of those lying, cheating, raping men. Damn those bastards!


By NCFM Member and author: WHY I CHEAT

national coalition for men

Our society does everything it can to prevent rape culture, which is relatively easy since no such culture exists.

There is no rape culture.

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 0
NCFM Member John Erwin, a prosecution of Cimex lectularius — feminism and bedbugs Thu, 02 Apr 2015 21:13:59 +0000 feminism

“Dear Feminist, There are those of your kind that commonly try to sell me the notion that Feminism is a force for good. They would claim to continue in the tradition of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony all while raising funds for campaigns that imply that all men are rapists and that you aren’t a real feminist unless you believe in Patriarchy Theory, Rape Culture and Free Bleeding. “But not all feminists are like that,” you exclaim, “Those Feminists aren’t True Scotsmen.” From Francis Roy’s Blog to whom we attribute the “The Theft of Moral Authority” picture. We added the bedbug bites.

NCFM NOTE: “satire, noun: the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.” If you are one of those who believe any criticism of “feminism” is tantamount to rape, please stop reading now because you are an idiot. This website is for people who can think past their brainwashing. If nothing else, take this as a compliment to feminism‘s resiliency, to its tenacity, its enduring infestation. Feminism is the glass half full of good and bad like many other “isms.” To be clear, we support the part of feminism’s glass that has done great good, the part that embraces all of us in pursuit of making the world a better place for all of us. It’s the other part that concerns us, the  haughty, character disordered, misandric part. No matter how you see it we hope this read makes your thinker itch for the truth, its only skin deep…

A prosecution of Cimex lectularius, bedbugs and feminism

I was wondering how a person might galvanize action against another species by utilizing feminist tropes of victimhood and violence. Bed bugs are making a serious comeback these days on the world stage, especially in so-called developed countries. The U.S. CDC (Centers for Disease Control) is too underfunded to do much about the critters other than produce research: for instance, grants given to the University of Florida’s entomology department has produced some great information on bed bugs (see below). Other than that, there is not much the CDC may do, unless bed bugs provably develop into a disease vector (like the mosquito and malaria).

Alas, then, the burden of bed bugs is placed squarely on the hapless American who happens to randomly brush up against them, which may happen pretty much anywhere. So, in the spirit of feminism, how might I galvanize Americans across the country to exterminate this pest and give the country a clear conscience about it? Justifying annihilating insects is not too difficult to accomplish: you simply create a public hygiene campaign.

The National Socialists did it; Stalinist Russia accomplished it; the American Feminists are also quite good at it.[1]  The rhetorical formula is rather straightforward: that is, associate what you want to exterminate as something non-human, insect-like, and use as many tropes of violence and victimhood as possible, juxtapose them over and over again, ad nauseam and ad infinitum.

So, here is my example. I have put the bed bug on trial in a fictitious American courtroom. The prosecution is about to speak: listen carefully, if you will, this is how feminism functions rhetorically in America. Plus, there is just some useful information there about bed bugs. I have been told there are two types of people now in the developed world: those who have had bed bugs infest their homes and those whose homes will be infested. After reading it, replace bed bugs with men: voilà, the American feminist formula is complete.

Somewhere in the U.S. Fourteenth Circuit, February 25, 2015

(Note: fictitious, of course: there are only 13 judicial circuits in the United States.)

Cimex lectularius (Bed Bug)

Cimex lectularius has been closely associated with humans for thousands of years (it is one of several cimicid species for which humans are the primary host).”

― Encyclopedia of Life

In 2015, there is an estimated______bed bugs in the world.

For the Prosecution (of the bed bug):

If I may, Honorable Judge _____, this representative of Cimex lectularius, or the Bed Bug, as an embodied proxy of the entire species, must be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Its pestilence knows no bounds. “Bed bugs have plagued mankind since the beginning of recorded history” (Cooper et al. 2014). “After a nearly 50 yr absence, beginning in the late 1990s, bed bugs returned in an unexpected and dramatic fashion, sweeping across North America, the United Kingdom, and Australia” (Cooper et al. 2014). Resurgence is due to “widespread insecticide resistance, human population growth, and increased international travel” (Adelman et al. 2013). We assumed our stocks of “pesticides such as DDT and malathion” eradicated them (Adelman et al. 2013). However, “insecticide resistance is increasing in field populations of bed bugs” (Goddard 2014). Although, purportedly, the bed bug does not carry disease, we are unable to verify that for certain (Adelman et al. 2013). Living as it does so intimately in our beds—hiding in the mattress seams, the crevices of the box springs, the spaces under baseboards (Cooper et al. 2014)—mating in the most repulsive of ways (I will not burden the court, Your Honor, with the details of the male bed bug’s ‘traumatic insemination’ of its female counterpart, albeit to say “repulsive” may not adequately characterize the lowliness of its depravity [Pereira et al. 2013; Harraca et al. 2010]). Juvenile “nymph sexual harassment” is barely deterred; it is only the young female’s “alarm pheromone” which protects her from the male bed bugs desire to “mount any moving object of the size of a fed female bed bug” (Harraca et al. 2010). When it is not mating—if we may call such an act matingCimex lectularius feeds on us like vampires in the middle of the night when we, its hosts, are most vulnerable, most unconscious, and thus most unable to grant consent (Pereira et al. 2013). Their blood-sucking bites cause our skin to react and may damage both our physical and psychological health (Reinhardt et al. 2009; Pereira et al. 2013). They have invaded and may now be found in all public places—where we work; where we entertain ourselves; and all places of public transport (Pereira et al. 2013). The poor among our species are the worst hit, potentially contracting disease since human populations living with “long-term bed bug infestations” such as those inhabiting “refugee camps, homeless shelters, migrant worker camps,” to name just a few, will be most vulnerable if the bed bug develops into a disease vector (Adelman et al. 2013). The cost on the poor to exterminate them is prohibitive (Cooper et al. 2014; Adelman et al. 2013). “Scent dogs” are not as accurate as generally believed in detecting their presence—“false positives” are common (Cooper et al. 2014). Only heat treatment and some pesticides (e.g., Dichlorvos resin strips: Nuvan Prostrips®) are known to be effective (Lehnert et al. 2011; Benoit et al. 2009). Your Honor, we must strike this parasite from the earth, or at the very least consign it to the primordial backwater from which it hails, keeping our women and children safe, keeping our lives clean. The Prosecution rests Your Honor.

John Erwin is a former Foreign Service Officer with the U.S. Department of State. He witnessed all kinds of shenanigans working for the U.S. government, and mindless bias against men was definitely one of them.


[1] For some excellent, brief discussions of the technique, please see:

(1) Hugh Raffles. Insectopedia. Pantheon 2010, 146.; (last accessed March 27, 2015).

(2) Peter Sloterdijk. Terror from the Air. Trans., Amy Patton & Steve Corcoran. Semiotext(e) 2009, 43. (last accessed March 27, 2015)

national coalition for men


Feminism, The Good, The Bad, and The Bedbugs!

Had the Equal Rights Amendment passed there would be no need for feminism or it’s critics.

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 1
NCFM sends letter to Department of Defense re discrimination against men in the military and the persecution of Major Christian Martin Wed, 01 Apr 2015 23:42:13 +0000 major christian martin

Apache Helicopter Pilot Christian Martin

After an extensive investigation taking hundreds of hours by several people, which included but was not limited too reviewing hundreds of documents and numerous interviews in several states, NCFM composed the letter below about discrimination against men in the military, especially as it relates to the prosecution of Major Christian Martin from the 101st Airborne Division, Fort Campbell, Kentucky. We concluded that due to a number of factors Major Martin’s Court-Martial results from a vindictive ex-wife and political correctness runamuck facilitated by overbearing unlawful command influence. It’s a fascinating story and well worth the read.

In a related Military Times article about training, Army Staff Sgt. Alexander VanArsdall said the military’s sexual harassment and assault prevention training has been “one-sided, and overly focused on painting men as aggressors and women as victims.” “A common thing among male service members, when they head into the training, is to say, ‘It’s time to learn what a racist, sexist, intolerant bastard I am,’ “ VanArsdall said, “That’s what it feels like. We start to get a little indignant and upset, and feel persecuted in our own right.”

Here, it all starts with a salacious false allegation… persecution dead centered on 58 years in prison for one Major Christian Martin…

 Click here or on the picture to read the full article.

national coalition for men


 Join NCFM if you’d like to see more work like this.

The NCFM is in its 38th year and still going.

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 2
NCFM invites you to participate in the “Bubbles of Love Campaign” to end parental alienation Tue, 31 Mar 2015 15:41:26 +0000 In California join us in Sacramento and anywhere else where people care about parental alienation and the best interests of all of us. Bubbles are cheap, life is precious. Help us make the world a better place for all of us.

Members of The Fathers Rights Movement California (TFRMC), National Parents Organization (NPO), National Coalition for Men (NCFM) and other groups will be at the Parental Alienation Awareness Day Bubbles of Love Campaign event at the State Capitol in a few weeks.

We urge you, particularly those in the Sacramento area, to circulate the attached flyers, bring your friends, and join us at the Capitol on April 25th. You can copy the pictures, resized them in your favorite graphics program, and print out as many as you like!  

parental alieanation

parental alienation

Parental alienation harms everyone over time, but especially children.

national coalition for men

You can help stop parental alienation by supporting NCFM too. If you are not a member please become one.

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 0
NCFM Members Bruce Kanter and Harry Crouch, The Real Criminal in the University of Virginia Rape Hoax Wed, 25 Mar 2015 23:11:37 +0000 rapeNOTE: you might want to read or re read the November 19, 2014 discredited Rolling Stone article “A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA” before reading the article below. The Rolling Stone lead sentence is, “Jackie was just starting her freshman year at the University of Virginia when she was brutally assaulted by seven men at a frat party. When she tried to hold them accountable, a whole new kind of abuse began”…

The Real Criminal in the University of Virginia Rape Hoax

Should Jackie the female University of Virginia student, who falsely claimed she was gang raped by members of a fraternity, be penalized?  Mainstream media seems to think not. It blames Sabrina Rubin Erderly for poor journalism, Rolling Stone for publishing Erderly’s story, even the person who revealed Jackie’s real identity. It blames anyone but Jackie, and her miscreant behavior.

Suppose a male University of Virginia college student made up a story along the lines of Jackie’s story, alleging seven sorority sisters broke into his room and robbed him at gunpoint, punched him in the face and held him down on glass shards from a coffee table broken in the scuffle, while other sorority sisters cheered the women on. They then left him bruising and bleeding, unconscious on the floor.

What if he also alleged his close friends convinced him not to go to the hospital or police because armed robbery by sorority girls is so accepted on campus that complaining about it could keep them from getting into Greek life, though in reality his friends encouraged him to involve police.

Next, he claimed college administrators showed little interest in his case or other armed robberies by sorority girls of male students. Because of a current college armed robbery by sorority sisters media feeding frenzy he gives the story to a national magazine, let us say, Rolling Stone.

To recap, a male student makes wild allegations; libels a sorority, its sisters, a college, and women in general and tells all to a major national publication. Should he be held accountable? What should his punishment be? Since his distortions come close to mirroring Jackie’s, the answer is obvious. He should not be punished at all.  Should his identity be revealed? Certainly not, no decent person would reveal his identity and expose him as the criminal he is. Doing so might embarrass him, put him at risk, (re)victimize him, and protect others from future attacks.

Earlier this month, racist references to rape and lynching’s in a North Carolina State University fraternity pledge book caused the fraternity to be suspended. What Jackie did is arguably worse. Jackie also claimed there were two other rapes at the same fraternity. Imagine the incalculable damage to the fraternity, its members, and others if Jackie’s falsehoods endured. The unacceptable pledge book references grievously harm normative sensibility but destroy no one. So, why is not Jackie suspended and labeled dangerous misandric liar?

Could it be that false rape allegations are so rare that punishment is unnecessary?  In the Rolling Stone article, Sabrina Rubin Erderly wrote, “studies show that false rape reports account for, at most, eight percent of reports.” Many others in the media have made similar claims. One can simply google “Wikipedia False Rape Charges” and find a range from 1.5% to 90%.[i] Eugene Kanin, Ph.D., in his 1994 study False Rape Allegations, found that 41% of participants admitted their allegations were false.[ii] In addition, the study was done before women could sue civilly for rape. Thus, they had less incentive to lie than in the present.[iii]

Citing Kanin’s study, Harvard lawyer Alan Dershowitz observed, “objective data show that the percentage of false reports in rape cases is considerably higher than the percentage of false reports for other violent felonies.[iv] One reason for this disparity is that the police rarely prosecute [sic] women who deliberately file false rape reports. Indeed, even the identity of such false accusers is often kept secret.”

The media printed false accuser Chrystal Magnum’s name in the horrific Duke University Lacrosse Team debacle. Like Jackie, Ms. Magnum was not charged with crimes or otherwise sanctioned. Ms. Magnum is now in prison for second-degree murder. After Duke, she committed more violent crimes, including killing a boyfriend, none of which would have happened had she earlier been sent to prison for her sensational crimes against the Duke lacrosse players.

Jackie never went to the police and falsely charged people with a crime like Ms. Magnum did. She did claim the ringleader of the fraternity assailants was an attractive junior, who worked as a lifeguard at the campus pool. Fortunately, nobody fit that profile. Her actions do not rise to the evil of Ms. Magnum’s false allegations. Still, what she did was seriously wicked.

To my knowledge, Jackie has not retracted her story, despite what appears to be overwhelming evidence that she lied. According to the Associated Press, the four-month police investigation into Jackie’s alleged gang rape, “produced no evidence of the attack and was stymied by the accuser’s unwillingness to cooperate.” March 24 Headlines in The Monitor read, “No evidence of gang-rape at University of Virginia”. Should we feel sorry for her because she may have mental issues? Should not her name be widely publicized with the hope other young men can avoid destruction from her vivid imagination and need for attention? Should not Jackie be punished, perhaps as the fictional young man above surely would be?

False allegations make it harder to believe real rape victims. Consequently, women rights activists should demand imposing sanctions for Jackie and others like her for their life altering falsehoods. With vigorous vengeance, women rights groups would demand it of our fictional male victim.

[i]  A Rape on Campus, Sabrina Rubin Erderly, November 19th 2014, Rolling Stone magazine

[ii]  False Rape Allegations, Eugene Kanin, Archives of Sexual Behavior, Volume 23, No 1, 1994.

[iii] See “Wikipedia False Rape Charges.”

[iv] When the Rape is Phony, Alan Dershowitz, Aug 10 1994, Commentary, The Washington Times

national coalition for menReal rape victims need truth, not lies.

Rape victims are harmed by false claims of rape.

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 0
NCFM Member John Erwin, what were we all thinking, the end of due process, witch hunt and Y-chromosome extinction Tue, 24 Mar 2015 19:05:39 +0000 due process

Click here to become a member of NCFM and help us wake up others!

What were we all thinking, the end of due process, witch hunt and Y-chromosome extinction

I was watching CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360° tonight.[1]  Cooper was interviewing Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart, who made the prediction, no doubt accurate, that in the future our society will be abhorred and ashamed of the way we currently lock people up in jails, in much the same way that we are abhorred and ashamed today at how we locked people up in asylums fifty years ago.  Of course, as Dart is well aware, most of the people “deinstitutionalized” from asylums in the 1950s became part of the prison system soon thereafter: mental health issues do not simply go away because of the abhorrence and shame of society; it takes something more.

What was curious about the prison news story Cooper covered is that it aired directly after a short summary of the University of Virginia rape controversy.  Cooper was cautious with his on-location news correspondent in reporting on that story: definitely no statements about how in the future our society will be abhorred and ashamed of the way we handle sexual allegations of misconduct on American campuses.  Virginia Police Chief Timothy Longo was quite careful with his language on the subject, juxtaposing two lines in quick succession, namely:

“All I can tell you is that there is no substantive basis to conclude that what was reported in that article happened,” he said.  But Chief Timothy Longo said it did not mean “something terrible didn’t happen” to the student known as Jackie.[2]

Who knows what actually happened to Jackie.  No one will probably know for certain.  One thing I am certain about (although someone like Anderson Cooper would never have the audacity to echo my certainty, career-ending as such a pronouncement would undeniably be in the current American political environment) is that our society in the future will be abhorred and ashamed of the way we have treated an entire generation of undergraduate men in universities across the country on the issue of false allegations of sexual misconduct.

Along those lines, I am constantly on the lookout for voices, female voices in particular, who “get it” – that is, who genuinely understand that what is now institutionalized across the country as an adjudicatory process for handling sexual allegations of misconduct on university campuses approaches the intellectual base and backward level of how human beings (mainly the poor or mentally ill) are conveniently locked up in prisons across this country.  When I say “base and backward” in the context of university tribunals I mean denying men (they are mainly men) Constitutionally assured due process rights and a basic assumption of innocence and human dignity until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  Of course, to add insult to injury, the standard of guilt is currently determined merely by a preponderance of the evidence: a state of affairs which should only add to the shame and abhorrence future generations will hopefully feel in retrospect, looking back on our generation and saying quite candidly, “what were all of you thinking?”  I did indeed find such a female voice writing for the Harvard Law Review, Janet Halley, in her article, “Trading the Megaphone for the Gavel in Title IX Enforcement.  Backing off the hype in Title IX enforcement.”[3]

Now, it is not like Ms. Halley digs deep enough to really uncover the historical antecedents of the current feminist-inspired witchhunt, which goes by the name of government-sponsored Title IX.  The historical antecedents are, however, aptly summarized by Robert Pippin when he civilly though firmly mocks feminism’s intellectual foundation—academic so-called ‘critical theory’—throughout his keynote address at a recent conference on “Interdisciplinary Futures” at Emory College.[4]  Pippin sums up the “well-known dizzying series” leading to contemporary critical theory as thus: “the main phases of the sequence have become excessively familiar—radical social protests in the late 1960s; deconstruction in the 1970s; ethnic feminist and Marxist cultural studies in the 1980s; postmodern sexuality in the 1990s—and rampant careerism from beginning to end.”[5]  This “dizzying series” is what gives contemporary feminism its lifeblood and dogmatic feel.  Much good has undoubtedly come from critical theory’s historical progression, though Title IX as it is currently conceived is definitely not one of those goods.

Additionally, do not expect Ms. Halley to shed light on the uncanny way in which critical theory suppresses, for instance, the truth about the Y-chromosome: that is, critical theory latched onto the idea that the Y-chromosome was “stagnating” or heading toward “eventual extinction” during the 1980s and 1990s, when in fact it is the fastest “evolving” part of the human genome and its hallmark “now turns out to be renewal and reinvigoration, once the unnecessary burden of X-related genes has been shed.”[6]  This discovery occurred because of research into the Chimpanzee chromosome vis-à-vis the human:  “Natural selection is shaping the Y and keeping it vital to a degree that is really at odds with the idea of the last 50 years of a rotting Y chromosome…It is now clear that the Y chromosome is by far the most rapidly evolving part of the human and chimp genomes.”[7]  Most people do not know this.  In fact, just as an example, try reading this popular blog entry, “Women: Parasites or Saviors?”, by Marcel Côté from his blog, eatbees blog, where he succumbs slowly but surely to the same tired formulaic script that has long dominated modern discussions of gender in America, ending in the banal (and utterly misinformed) statement: “Did you know that the male Y chromosome is far less complex than the second X chromosome in women? In fact it’s decaying over time, throwing away genetic material it used to contain.”[8]

This aside, Ms. Halley summarizes the problems associated with adjudication of sexual allegations of misconduct on American campuses by stating it in a way no male would dare to, namely:

One justification for biasing the system to favor women and disfavor men is a perception that, in the campus drinking culture, men have more power than women, along with a social-change intuition that a rule shifting bargaining power over sex decisions from the former to the latter, precisely through the threat of predetermined victimhood and guilt, will be an effective way to change that culture. This logic makes sense: get them by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow. But it is not cost free. It entails a decision to impose a serious moral stigma and life-altering penalties on men who may well be innocent. Doing this will, in turn, delegitimize the system. And it entails a commitment to the idea that women should not and do not bear any responsibility for the bad things that happen to them when they are voluntarily drunk, stoned, or both. This commitment cuts women off — in theory and in application — from assuming agency about their own lives. Since when was that a feminist idea?[9]

Every time I read this paragraph (and, indeed, the article itself which I highly recommend to the reader), I am both delighted that she “gets it” and concurrently stupefied that she employs a phrase that no American man would dare employ without risk of lawsuit, or worse.  That is: “This logic makes sense: get them by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow.”  Does this mean, in the spirit of gender fairness—which I assume Ms. Halley is advocating in her own way—I may write, say, here, advocating the advancement of men’s rights by flipping Halley’s verbal construction, something along the lines of, “This logic makes sense: get them [women] by the ______ and their hearts and mind will follow.”  No, contrary to having my article published in Harvard Law Review I would probably be interviewed by Anderson Cooper in the Cook County jail system if I said something along those lines.

And this is the problem at its very core: I am not interested in Ms. Halley speaking for men, because by having individuals like Ms. Halley speak for men, this allows her to employ misandric language like “get them by the balls”: language which is power-hungry, ignorant of men’s feelings, and presumes I have no right to respond to such language on the same level: which apparently I do not.  The only right I have is a secondary right: namely, agree with Ms. Halley and hope other women, not only agree with her, but also implement what she is saying before it is too late: before future generations look back and say, “really, Mom, Dad, that is how you handled your problems, by infantilizing women and brutalizing men?”

You see, even by succeeding and finding an intelligent woman who “gets it”—she does not really “get it”—not really.  She may talk all she wants about how infantilizing women and brutalizing men will potentially “delegitimize the system” but what that really amounts to is that future generations of Americans will look back on our generation and be ashamed and abhorred at our behavior: what good will that do any of us who live now?  What good does it do those men and women who suffered horrifically in asylums in the 1950s—whose legal standing as human beings was annihilated by a barbaric government system—if I feel “ashamed and abhorred” now?  In other words, you either do something now—right now—or do not bother doing anything at all, for it will not matter 50 years hence to wag your finger at all those spineless academic bureaucrats imposing in 2015 America, to borrow from Halley, a “serious moral stigma and life-altering penalties on men who may well be innocent.”  Those spineless academic bureaucrats will retire and forget all about it and say something banal to their children, for instance, “I was just doing my job” or “that was the atmosphere then, you know:  Get them by the balls”.


John Erwin is a former Foreign Service Officer with the U.S. Department of State.  He witnessed all kinds of shenanigans working for the U.S. government, and mindless bias against men was definitely one of them.

[1] March 23, 2015; 9p.m. Eastern broadcast.

[2] BBC. Rolling Stone rape story not backed by evidence, police say.  March 23, 2015.  See: (last accessed March 23, 2015)

[3] Harvard Law Review.  “Trading the Megaphone for the Gavel in Title IX Enforcement.  Backing off the hype in Title IX enforcement.”  Janet Halley, February 18, 2015.  See: (last accessed March 23, 2015)

[4] Interdisciplinary Futures Symposium.  October 24, 2013.  Keynote: Dr. Robert Pippin, Evelyn Stefansson Nef Distinguished Service Professor, Committee on Social Thought, University of Chicago.  “Transdiciplinarity, Interdisciplinarity, Reductive Disciplinarity, and Deep Disciplinarity” (last accessed March 17, 2015) (last accessed March 17, 2015); mins: 30:00-33:00

[5] Ibid., mins: 7:30-8:30

[6] The New York Times.  Male Chromosome May Evolve Fastest.  Nicholas Wade, January 13, 2010.  See: (last accessed March 18, 2015).  If the reader “had no idea” that such a “discovery” was made, the reader may generally applaud and thank the academic censorship of critical theory for suppressing this information.  Many scientific textbooks (even at the university level) still have not been updated.  If I am sounding “misogynistic” in simply bringing up the point, then my response is that my reader is rather “misandric” with the irony being ‘misogynistic’ does not light up in red for ‘spell-check’ in the Word program whereas ‘misandric’ is so unknown and so unrecognized that it instantly does.

[7] Ibid.

[8] See: (last accessed March 23, 2015)

[9] Harvard Law Review.  “Trading the Megaphone for the Gavel in Title IX Enforcement.  Backing off the hype in Title IX enforcement.”  Janet Halley, February 18, 2015.  See: (last accessed March 23, 2015)

national coalition for menIt’s time to wake up and do something!

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 3
NCFM South African Member Jason Dale, a must read email exchange about the Duluth model of domestic violence Mon, 23 Mar 2015 21:00:12 +0000 domestic violenceNCFM NOTE: This email exchange about the Duluth model of domestic violence is extraordinary. The exchange is between one who clearly knows what he is talking about, Jason Dale, and those who don’t have a clue.

In my view, no one can believe what Scott Miller, Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs (DIAP) Blue Print Coordinator (whatever that is), the “don’t have a clue” side of the discussion, believes without total ideological immersion, albeit brainwashing. Clearly, he and perhaps those with whom he works may be incapable of critical thinking.

Anyone and everyone remotely interested in fair treatment, relationship violence, politics, truth, and the future need to read this. It is a fantastic undressing of the Duluth model of domestic violence, superb.

The DIAP website says,

“Out of 25 international nominations, the “Duluth Model” was the only policy to be awarded the 2014 Future Policy Award for Ending Violence against Women and Girls, or Gold Award. The Future Policy Award is the only international award which recognizes policies rather than people, and the “Duluth Model” is the first humanitarian policy to be honored in the history of the award.

A speculative belief system rooted in ill conceived poorly understood notions about men, women, and violence has grown into a highly regarded Gold Award, worldwide, government-funded, misandric movement employing tens of thousands of people like Scott Miller. For those of you unfamiliar with the Duluth here’s the Duluth Power and Control wheel rolling over men across the globe.  Notice how it’s all about “her,” as if there’s not a woman on the planet who ever abused a man, not one… After reviewing the wheel you will better understand and appreciate the email exchange below.


Jason’s email address was removed from this article. We did not want him bombarded with angry comments from the ideologically impaired. Please feel free to email those at the Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, be polite.

As Scott Miller wrote to Jason, “enjoy.”

Harry Crouch, President

Background from Jason

My initial email was sent only to Pat Goodman because according to their website he is the “Men’s program coordinator” and I assumed that he would be the best person to approach. However, it was Scott Miller that responded and not Pat, so that seems to suggest that my email was discussed with Pat’s peers and/or superiors and that Scott was “nominated” to handle me. It was actually me that decided to “go big or go home” by sending my latest reply to the whole company.

What I found rather odd however was how the word “enquiry” was omitted from the subject line when Scott replied to me, and how there was no “Re:” in the subject line and no copy of my original email to Pat below Scott’s response.

Rather than guess or speculate what might have happened in the background, I decided to get the whole company involved and in the open. I sent their whole agency a very clear message, and frankly I don’t think they were expecting to be challenged by someone who knows what he is talking about and has the guts to challenge them directly and out in the open!

As I alluded to in my first reply to Scott, his disgraceful response to me as a male victim of sexual abuse, emotional abuse as well as Domestic Violence (at the hands of mostly women I might add!) is probably one of the biggest and most damning demonstrations of what their agency is really all about.

Unsurprisingly, Feminism uses the Duluth model as its bedrock ideology when it comes to Domestic Violence, which is why I selected this agency. I was literally going right to the top. Even if I tear down their ideology with facts, research and sheer intellectual reasoning (and I did precisely that), logic and research on its own would probably not have been enough.

If they had at least responded with professionalism and courtesy while pointing me to other agencies that deal specifically with male victims, they would have saved face. Instead, they disgraced themselves and their agency by treating me with arrogance and aggression and by lying spectacularly on public record! Truly, this exchange is devastating and has everything that is needed to deliver a serious blow to the beast that lurks beneath the monolithic Domestic Violence industry!

Jason Dale

Email correspondence in chronological sequence

(Minor edits have been applied to my text for spelling/grammar/formatting purposes. Scott Miller’s comments have not been edited in any way)
Email 1: From Jason Dale (myself) to Pat Goodman (Men’s Program Coordinator) at Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs (“DAIP” website:

From: Jason Dale

Date: Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 11:43 PM
Subject: Duluth model enquiry

Hi there!

I was doing research on the internet looking for resources/information for assisting men who have been abused by their spouses and/or siblings. Both of my previous girlfriends were extremely abusive, and as a boy I grew up with a sister who was extremely violent and abused me in every way imaginable – including physically and sexually.

As far as I can tell – at least in so far as domestic violence is concerned; the Duluth model is the most prominent and widely used model for articulating all of the stages of abuse.

What also became immediately obvious however is how the model seems to assume that the abuser is always male and that the victim is always female. All of the Duluth model wheels that I have seen make statements like “preventing her from getting or keeping a job,” “making her ask for money,” “putting her down”…etc. This is despite the fact that research has exhaustively and conclusively proven that violent behaviour is not a gender issue but a generational issue and both genders are just as capable of domestic violence or intimate partner violence.  (221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses demonstrating that women are as physically aggressive or more aggressive than their male counterparts) (one of the world’s LARGEST domestic violence research databases consisting of over 2,600 pages and summaries of over 1,700 peer reviewed scientific studies (pre-selected according to careful criteria from 12 000 studies))

When is the Duluth model going to be updated to reflect the basic and essential fact that violent and abusive behaviour has got nothing to do with gender?


Email 2: No response from Pat Goodman, but I received this email from Scott Miller (DAIP Blueprint Coordinator)

From: Scott Miller
To: Jason

Date: Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 10:34 PM
Subject: Duluth Model


Your “research” on the internet seems fairly limited and drives at a particular political point of view that seeks to remove male entitlement and the overwhelming global, social problem of men battering women from the conversation.  Instead of looking at a small minority of researchers who push this point of view, why don’t you go to government funded websites like NIJ or OVW to find what the rest of the world thinks.  I’ve attached something to start with.  You might also want to do some looking into the difference between the crime of domestic violence and the social problem of battering.


Scott Miller
<Attachment: “NIJ Practical Implications of Current DV Research 2009.pdf” can be located online at>
Email 3: My response to Scott Miller

From: Jason Dale

To: Scott Miller
Date: Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: Duluth Model

While it is often said that a picture is worth a thousand words, I think your email and comments reveal the true nature of what lurks beneath the Duluth Model with the kind of clarity that few pictures can match.

For starters, you callously ignored the fact that I personally have been a victim of abuse at the hands of female perpetrators – abuse which includes physical, emotional and sexual abuse. When it came to my own human suffering, you showed about as much heart as an unflushed toilet, while at the same time arrogantly talking down to me as though I am an individual with an intellectually stunted brain.  Perhaps you were hoping that I wouldn’t notice the fact that the NIJ “Special Report” you sent me (published in June 2009 which now makes it over 5 years old) is endorsed by the very same U.S. Department of Justice that REFUSES TO FUND the very same research that you claim is “limited:”

The U.S. Department of Justice solicitation of proposals for Justice Responses to Intimate Partner Violence and Stalking (p. 8) stated “What will NOT be funded: 4. Proposals for research on intimate partner violence against, or stalking of, males of any age or females under the age of 12.” [Bold, capital and underlined emphasis mine] (

You are DECEITFUL Scott, and as you are very quickly going to discover; I am neither the push-over nor the fool that you think I am.

You claim that my research is “limited.” As a matter of interest, did you actually bother to check the web links that I sent you?


“Over the years, research on partner abuse has become unnecessarily fragmented and politicized. The purpose of The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project (PASK) is to bring together in a rigorously evidence-based, transparent and methodical manner existing knowledge about partner abuse with reliable, up-to-date research that can easily be accessed both by researchers and the general public. In March, 2010, the Senior Editor of Partner Abuse recruited family violence scholars from the United States, Canada and the U.K. to conduct an extensive and thorough review of the empirical literature, in 17 broad topic areas. Researchers were asked to conduct a formal search for published, peer-reviewed studies through standard, widely-used search programs, and then catalogue and summarize all known research studies relevant to each major topic and its sub-topics. In the interest of thoroughness and transparency, the researchers agreed to summarize all quantitative studies published in peer-reviewed journals after 1990, as well as any major studies published prior to that time, and to clearly specify exclusion criteria. Included studies are organized in extended tables, each table containing summaries of studies relevant to its particular sub-topic.

In this unprecedented undertaking, a total of 42 scholars and 70 research assistants at 20 universities and research institutions spent two years or more researching their topics and writing the results. Approximately 12,000 studies were considered and more than 1,700 were summarized and organized into tables. The 17 manuscripts, which provide a review of findings on each of the topics, for a total of 2,657 pages, appear in 5 consecutive special issues of Partner Abuse published between April, 2012 and April, 2013. All conclusions, including the extent to which the research evidence supports or undermines current theories, are based strictly on the data collected.” 

Did you also happen to check the reference section from Martin S. Fiebert’s (PhD) Bibliography? (

100 DATING STUDIES (1982 to 2009)
30 GENERAL ANALYSES (1980 to 2011)
35 REVIEWS (1987 to 2012)
3 CASE STUDIES (2001 to 2009)
12 BOOKS AND THESES (1981 to 2008)

You prejudicially invalidate the humanity of roughly half the world’s population of over 7 BILLION PEOPLE simply because of their gender, while completely ignoring any non-gendered research that might refute your bigoted views because you think that such research is “limited.” You condescendingly dictate that dissident thinkers must get in line with the rest of the world like sheep and blindly believe websites funded by politically oriented national governments, while at the same time deceitfully accusing international peer-reviewed research of somehow being slanted by national politics – despite the fact that the Duluth model can within itself be viewed as a “political education mapped onto an intervention” (Dutton & Corvo, 2006). Even worse, and by using some profound mutation of logic; you spectacularly accuse the researchers from Martin S. Fiebert’s bibliography as well as PASK of somehow colluding to “Remove male entitlement and the overwhelming global, social problem of men battering women from the conversation,” despite the fact that PASK specifically states upfront that “research on partner abuse has become unnecessarily fragmented and politicized.”

WOW! Did the Duluth model folks somehow miss you when they were screening their male staff and volunteers for “power and control” megalomaniacs? Perhaps they missed the ball because their Duluth model was not written by qualified psychologists to begin with? (Dutton & Corvo, 2007).

You are not God, Scott. Don’t flatter yourself by making egregiously egotistical statements such as “why don’t you go to government funded websites like NIJ or OVW to find what the rest of the world thinks.” You don’t speak for the hearts and minds of every American citizen, nor do you speak for the hearts and minds of the international community. For that matter, just because an idea might be popular does not automatically make it the truth. A few centuries ago, the “rest of the world” thought that the world was FLAT. But that did not make them right, did it?


You do know of course know who Erin Pizzey is, don’t you? If you don’t, I would encourage you to read up about the life of this amazing woman. She was one of the first people to get involved in the women’s movement in the UK, and in 1971 she founded the first nationally and internationally recognized women’s shelter or “refuge.” Of the first 100 women who came to her shelter however, she reported that 62 were as or more violent than the partners they tried to escape from – only to return to their partners time and again because of their addiction to pain and violence; violence that they persistently did their best to bring about. When Pizzey reported her findings that violence was a generational issue and not a gendered issue and that woman could be just as violent as men, she became subject to public protests and death threats, which also culminated in the shooting of her family dog. The harassment eventually became so severe that she eventually had to flee the UK with her family.

Frankly, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that you are pro-government research, Scott. You see, the collective meetings that were taking place in the women’s movement in the 1970’s were actually laced with Marxism. In today’s terms, the brand of feminism that is proliferating the media, politics and government in the US and other countries also has a strong Marxist undercurrent – one that wants women to go to work full-time while their children are being cared for by the state – just like a communist government.

Feminism has succeeded in turning domestic violence into a BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY, and Barack Obama happens to be one of Feminism’s biggest political supporters in the United States. Are you starting to join the dots yet? Why would the US government want to dismantle such a lucrative cash cow by publishing research that exposes the damnable lies of feminism? For example, analyses of data from 32 nations in the International Dating Violence Study (Straus 2007; Straus and International Dating Violence Research Consortium 2004) found about equal perpetration rates and a predominance of mutual violence in all 32 samples, including non-Western nations.

Can you show me ONE government funded website that will publish PROOF that DOMINATION AND CONTROL BY WOMEN OCCURS AS OFTEN AS BY MEN and are as strongly associated with perpetration of Partner Violence (“PV”) by women as by men (Straus, 2007). Such research would not cast the Duluth model in a very positive light, now would it?

Perhaps you should go and read Dr. Murray Straus’s paper entitled “Processes explaining the concealment and distortion of evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence” (Straus, 2007).

Your statement about the so-called “overwhelming global, social problem of men battering women” is unscientific and inexact. What is your definition of “overwhelming?” GET SPECIFIC, Scott. Which of the 195 countries in the world (or 196 if you treat Taiwan as separate from mainland China) are you referring to? Since the U.S. Department of Justice has no jurisdiction in foreign countries, perhaps you can point me to peer-reviewed research that PROVES that “men battering women” is an “overwhelming social problem” in each and every one of these 195/196 countries?

Does discrimination and abuse in all of its forms happen to women? OF COURSE IT DOES, and it NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED! There most certainly ARE countries like Saudi Arabia where women are very severely abused and discriminated against. However, discrimination and abuse in all of its forms HAPPENS TO MEN TOO – and it happens MORE OFTEN THAN YOU REALIZE – a fact that Duluth model activists just can’t seem to get into their skulls. This might come as a surprise to you Scott; but in western countries like the United States, WOMEN ACTUALLY HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN MEN DO. I happen to live in a country where white men are the most politically marginalized and discriminated against group.

Research is not “pushed” – it is PUBLISHED. Just because that research might upset the pet theories of male-hating ideologies like the Duluth model does not automatically make that research “anti-women,” nor does this mean that such research is attempting to subvert the rights of either gender in any way.

Clearly, it is YOU that needs to do some REAL RESEARCH. Why don’t you go and learn from REAL EXPERTS like Erin Pizzey instead of falling for politicized government propaganda like a sack of potatoes!

Lastly, a few WORDS OF WARNING, Scott. While you might feel very smug and self-satisfied about your reply to me, you must remember that your comments are not just a reflection on you but a reflection on your organization as a whole.  I happen to notice that you used the word “enjoy” as a closing salutation to your email.  What exactly do you find “enjoy[able]” about domestic violence and “the social problem of battering?” This is a SERIOUS subject for BOTH GENDERS. We are not talking about the weekend sports here. I don’t expect you to write like Shakespeare, but as these emails are going to be published, I strongly suggest that you improve your attitude and brush up on your email etiquette.  Take responsibility for your OWN words before you lecture me about the semantical differences between words/terms like “domestic violence” and “battering” as they may legally be defined in each country.

May 2015 be the year in which your deceit, ignorance and delusional self-importance are dissolved with moral disinfectant to make space within you for a genuine sense of humility, wisdom and compassion for the whole human race.

Jason Dale
Email 4: Scott Miller responds (he clearly spent a LOT of time thinking about this…)

From: Scott Miller
To:      Jason Dale

Date:  Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 11:49 PM

I didn’t refer to your victimization because that’s your experience and to me that’s sacred and separate from, what seemed to me, the larger concern you have regarding our agency’s work.  To include your experience of trauma as a factor or component in our difference of opinion on the work of DAIP would be inappropriate from my point of view.

The tone you used in your initial email was to judge this agency and the work we do.  I’m guessing you felt justified in assuming you had room to educate us about what you feel is good research without ever asking us what we base our understanding of the issue on – which comes from a culmination of over 35 years of work.  You took a great deal of license, from my point of view, on how you interpreted my response.  I will take responsibility for the ending “enjoy.”  I could have chosen another way to end it that would have been much more concrete like take care, peace or sincerely.

You clearly don’t like the research I feel has been vetted for accuracy and you don’t like our agency and its mission.  That was true before you emailed us and I’m guessing it won’t change.  That’s ok.  You can hold your view.  We will continue to do the work we believe in as should you.  The PASK group is on one side.  The majority of domestic violence work both in the U.S and abroad is on another.  Again, we can disagree on whether that’s true. The researchers and individuals that you list are as familiar to us as we are to them.  We don’t agree on the issues around men’s violence against women and how to respond to it.  That’s absolutely true.  People can agree to disagree when the impasse is this significant.  Regardless of what each side believes, I know we all do our work and hope that the lives of women, children and men are improved by the work we do.
Email 5: At this point I decided to include all of the other individuals listed on their website’s contacts page:

Melissa Scaia, Executive Director
Emebet Davies, Finance Director
Rene Gutmann, Accountant
Matt Nesshengel, Maintenance Coordinator
Sheryl Boman, Family Visitation Center Program Coordinator
Arielle Schnur, Visitation Specialist
Jeanette Janisch, Visitation Specialist
LaDonna Adams, Visitation Specialist
Brenda Jeka, Visitation Specialist
Pat Goodman, Men’s Program Coordinator
Tara Haynes, System, Court and Visitation Liaison
Karin Sollom, Training Coordinator
Denise Gamache, Director of Battered Women’s Justice Project

From:           Jason Dale

To:                Scott Miller
Cc:     ,,,,,,,,,,,,

Date:            Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:00 PM
Subject:                  Re: Duluth Model
Hi Scott,

Your statements are quoted in “italics,” and my replies are in plain font. Please note that I am also including all of the individuals listed on your website’s contact page, and that all responses will be published with the names of the email respondents.

I didn’t refer to your victimization because that’s your experience and to me that’s sacred and separate from, what seemed to me, the larger concern you have regarding our agency’s work. To include your experience of trauma as a factor or component in our difference of opinion on the work of DAIP would be inappropriate from my point of view”

Showing compassion for the suffering of another human being (regardless of their gender) or at the very least acknowledging that person’s experiences in a professional and courteous manner is NEVER “inappropriate.” Instead, you responded to me not only with indifference but with unbridled arrogance, hypocrisy and deceit – even going so far as to level false accusations of a very serious nature against a large number of scholars and researchers – conduct of which is both egregiously “inappropriate” and wholly inconsistent with the claims which you are now conveniently making only after being challenged.

Having said that, I wasn’t expecting you to pull out a violin and start crying me a river, Scott. I am well aware of the fact that male victims are generally reluctant to seek help because of the significant obstacles that they face (Galdas et al., 2005; Cook 2009) and that the majority of male victims are treated dismissively by Duluth model inspired Domestic Violence (“DV”) agencies either by being told “we only help women” or by being accused of somehow instigating their own abuse (Douglas and Hines, 2011).

Quite frankly, the more likely explanation for your indifference is that the Duluth model essentially views all female transgressions as being self-defensive in nature (even against children!) and can be attributed either to previous victimization by a male or to an allegedly oppressive “patriarchy” (Dutton and Corvo, 2007).

“The tone you used in your initial email was to judge this agency and the work we do”

Come on, Scott. The tone used in my initial email was actually very courteous, professional and emotionally neutral. My email started off with a friendly salutation (“Hi there!”). I then provided background and context by mentioning my own victimization; after which I politely mentioned the visibly obvious gender bias in the Duluth “Power and Control” wheel. Not wanting to rely only on my own personal experiences; I then proceeded to provide you with references to rigorously evidence-based, transparent, reliable and up-to-date peer-reviewed research which clearly proves, inter alia; that domestic abuse/domestic violence (“DA”/”DV”) and intimate partner violence (“IPV”) are NOT gendered issues and that women can be just as violent as men. Finally, I concluded my email by asking a perfectly valid and reasonable question: “When is the Duluth model going to be updated to reflect the basic and essential fact that violent and abusive behaviour has got nothing to do with gender?”

On what basis do you dismiss my email as “judgmental?” Simply because I presented evidence-based statements that made you feel very uncomfortable because they contradict your ideology-based word view?

Can you imagine how it must feel for countless hundreds of thousands of innocent men implicated in IPV/DV/DA related cases to be unjustly judged guilty for no reason other than being male?

For that matter, I wonder how the entire planet’s population of men must feel about the fact that Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs (“DAIP”) judges ALL men (regardless of their individual character) as being “socialized to be dominant” (Pence & Paymar, 1993) under a Marxist strain of patriarchy theory; despite the glaring lack of evidence to support such a theory and the significant amounts of evidence that prove otherwise? (Straus, 2007; Archer, 2006; Stith et al., 2004; Sugarman & Frankel, 1996; et al.). See also (Elliot, 1977; Rounsaville, 1978; Straus, 1973; et al.).

I wonder how these same men must feel about the fact that DAIP judges and conflates ALL family violence as being a “socialized option for men” (Pence & Paymar, 1993) and that any other factors are summarily dismissed as “excuses” (Pence & Paymar, 1993), despite the significant amounts of research that prove that such violence can stem from a multitude of etiological process (Dutton and Corvo, 2006; et al.) which include neurological (Dutton, 2001; Meloy, 1992; Schore, 2003a,b), psychological (Dutton, 2002; Dutton & Holtzworth-Munroe, 1997a,b; Dutton, Saunders, Starzomski, & Bartholomew, 1994; Dutton & Starzomski, 1993; Hamberger & Hastings, 1991; Holtzworth-Munroe, Bates, Smutzler, & Sandin, 1997; Holtzworth-Munroe, Stuart, & Hutchinson, 1997), recurring IPV due to interactive factors (Leonard & Senchak, 1993; Levenson & Gottman, 1983; Margolin et al., 1989; Stets & Straus, 1992a,b), developmental psychosocial risk (Dutton, 2002; Putallaz & Bierman, 2004; Serbin et al., 2004; Sroufe, Egeland, Carlson, & Collins, 2005), interpersonal (Jacobson et al., 1994; Leonard & Roberts, 1998; Margolin, John, & Gleberman, 1989), situational (Eckhardt, Barbour, & Davis, 1998; Fagan, 1989; Fagan, Stewart, & Hansen, 1983), historical (Dutton, 2000, 2002), witnessed violence (Dutton, 2000; Egland, 1993), shaming (Dutton, Starzomski, & Ryan, 1996; Dutton, Swanson, van Ginkel, & Starzomski, in press), trauma (Dutton & Holtzworth-Munroe, 1997a,b; Rumsey, 2003), cultural influences (Archer, 2005; Dutton, 1985) and alcohol (Leonard and Roberts, 1998; Leonard and Senchak, 1993; Dalton, 2001).

I wonder how the researchers from PASK (who host the world’s LARGEST domestic violence research database) as well as the researchers from Fiebert’s Bibliography (who use an aggregate sample size of 371,600) must feel about being judged by “a small group of activists in the battered women’s movement” (Pence & Paymar, 1993) who at the time had NO qualifications in psychology, NO therapeutic expertise and who established their operating principles on a sample size of 9 PEOPLE (5 battered women and ONLY 4 MEN, all of which were batterers) (Dutton and Corvo, 2006) and built their empirical foundation on interviews held in 1984 with “more than 200 battered women in Duluth who participated in 30 educational sessions sponsored by the shelter” (Pence & Paymar, 1983). Notice how well the MEN were represented! (I speak sarcastically, of course).

I wonder how society must feel about the fact that unqualified and sexist activists like Pence and Paymar were able to heavily influence the regulatory, arrest priorities, legal/prosecutorial decision making, post-arrest intervention and policy discourse of the United States, Canada and other countries (Dutton and Corvo, 2006) with their ideas about patriarchy theory and the socially sanctioned dominance of women by men as being the exclusive cause of domestic violence? (Gelles, 2001; Maiuro, Hagar, Lin, & Olson, 2001; Mills, 2003; Sherman et al., 1992; Ford & Regoli, 1993; Maiuro et al., 2001).

I wonder how males all around the United States must feel about the fact that the US Department of Justice refuses to fund “Proposals for research on intimate partner violence against, or stalking of, males of any age or females under the age of 12” (NIJ, 2005; et al).

And yet amazingly, AMAZINGLY; you asserted that the research I provided was “limited” and that I should “go to government funded websites like NIJ or OVW to find what the rest of the WORLD thinks!” [Bold, underline and capital emphasis is mine].

“I’m guessing you felt justified in assuming you had room to educate us about what you feel is good research without ever asking us what we base our understanding of the issue on – which comes from a culmination of over 35 years of work”

You are assuming of course that I don’t already know what you base your “understanding of the issue on.” Even so, how much “specialist” knowledge does a person need to see that your “Power and Control” wheel is sexist and one-sided? As you will recall, that is the reason I wrote to your agency in the first place.

Actually, Scott; I do not personally assume to “educate” anyone as you demeaningly suggest. I am small potatoes in the grander scheme of things, which is why I made extensive reference to the works of other highly qualified and skilled researchers and scholars.

What does surprise me however is that even the world’s largest domestic violence research database has not been able to convince agencies like DAIP of what really should be common sense. Are both men and women human? Sure they are. Do men have human natures? Sure they do. Do women have human natures? Sure they do. Therefore, BOTH men AND women are equally capable of violence as well as other types of abusive and harmful behaviour. This is not rocket science!

In my own professional career, I have had the privilege of working with a team of Professors and scholars on university projects in the United States, Africa and Europe, so I am not unfamiliar with the concept of research nor am I unfamiliar with the concept of logical reasoning. As an aside, I notice that you have not been able to successfully refute me on any of the points I have raised previously.

Research does not automatically become “good” simply because of how it makes you “feel” or because it comes from government, nor does research automatically become “good” simply because of the time spent on it. Take feminism inspired “women’s studies” for example – it was decades if not centuries in the making.

Research only becomes “good” when it follows the principles of good research, and these principles include, inter alia; the integrity and character of the researcher/s, the quality of the foundational hypothesis/research question/s, the choice and application of research methodologies, the definition of data requirements, the methods used to gather the required data, the data sources or samples used and the manner in which that data is analysed and interpreted with regards to the original hypothesis/research question/s.

If you build upon an already bad foundation with a prejudicial and biased viewpoint about what you are researching (as DAIP has done), then your research has failed even before it has started, regardless of the scope of its acceptance or the apparent popularity of its findings.

Ultimately however, research means nothing if you lack integrity and genuine compassion for all people regardless of their gender, nationality, culture, religion or creed. If you are really looking for a real “education,” why not start with Erin Pizzey? In less than a year of starting one of the first internationally recognized shelters or refuges for battered women; she was able to recognize and openly expose what DAIP has apparently chosen to ignore or not been able to grasp in 36 years.

“You took a great deal of license, from my point of view, on how you interpreted my response.”

This statement is dripping with deceit and intellectual cowardice, Scott. Your response was as brazen and as clear as a neon sign!

You on the other hand took a “great deal of license” when you falsely accused PASK and Fiebert’s researchers of seeking to “remove male entitlement and the overwhelming global, social problem of men battering women from the conversation.” That accusation is very plain and leaves no room for misinterpretation.

I also CHALLENGED you to clearly define what you “interpret” the word “overwhelming” to mean and to provide PROOF of this claim from every one of the 195/196 countries in the world. After all, we are talking about a “global” problem, are we not? But you DID NOT ANSWER ME DID YOU? So in this case, how can you accuse me of taking a “great deal of license” to interpret what YOU are not willing to clarify?

You also stated that “Instead of looking at a small minority of researchers who push this point of view, why don’t you go to government funded websites like NIJ or OVW to find what the rest of the world thinks.” I am not illiterate Scott, and it is crystal clear that you have taken a “great deal of license” to assume that you know what “the rest of the world thinks” while at the same time not having a clue what you are talking about!

“You clearly don’t like the research I feel has been vetted for accuracy and you don’t like our agency and its mission. That was true before you emailed us and I’m guessing it won’t change”

Your statement is as presumptuous as it is illogical. How can you “know” (without any doubt) that something is “true” and yet have to “guess” (express doubt) that it won’t change? Did you somehow lose your magical mind reading abilities half way through a sentence?

My initial email attempted to debate the issue of your Duluth model wheel in an objective and congenial manner. My personal “likes” or “dislikes” are subjective and irrelevant.

Saying that research is “accurate” is a meaningless statement, because research can be biased and misleading and still be “accurate.” If you selectively choose only the research and/or data that supports your biased point of view, while ignoring, distorting or suppressing any research and/or data that does not; you are still going to end up with a skewed result – even if you crunch the numbers accurately.

“The PASK group is on one side.  The majority of domestic violence work both in the U.S and abroad is on another”

NO, the “PASK GROUP” is NOT “on one side.” PASK does not take sides. Instead, they take an objective and unbiased view of domestic violence for the benefit of all humanity which happens to include BOTH genders and not just one. In a sense, you could say that they are “on both sides!”

When you FAIL to provide any kind of evidence or proof to substantiate nondescript and inexact statements like “the overwhelming global, social problem of men battering women” or “The majority of domestic violence work both in the U.S and abroad is on another” then you are LYING, Scott. Make no mistake about it, THOSE LIES ARE BEING EXPOSED!

“Again, we can disagree on whether that’s true. The researchers and individuals that you list are as familiar to us as we are to them.”

How do you take your TRUTH? Candy-coated or between the eyes?

The law of gravity “sucks,” whether you find it agreeable or not. Both genders are human and both genders are capable of bona fide violence, whether you find it agreeable or not. Sorry, but we are not on two sides of a proverbial opinion coin here, and you don’t get to lump your unsubstantiated and sexist ideology on the same proverbial book shelf as logic, reason and proven facts.

When you say that “the researchers and individuals that you [that’s me] list are as familiar to us as we are to them” are you referring to ALL of the researchers and individuals listed? If not, which researchers and individuals are you specifically referring to? Which of their works have you actually read? Did you meet them at any academic summits or conferences? Did you collaborate with or co-author any research papers or publications with them? For that matter, who is “us?” Are you referring to ALL of the staff at DAIP or just some of them? GET SPECIFIC!

However, I DO agree with Henry Louis Mencken when he said “Never argue with a man whose job depends on not being convinced.

Life has a nasty habit of knocking people out of their mental bunkers, Scott. I sincerely hope for your sake that your wake-up call does not come in the form of a borderline personality disordered female that wants to butcher her ex-husband and dispose of her children.

“We don’t agree on the issues around men’s violence against women and how to respond to it”

Who is “we?” Are you talking about all of the folks at DAIP or are you referring to “us” as in you and I?


As for how to “respond” to violence, that is a tome in its own right, but I do like the way sums it up:
Violence has no gender
“End violence against EVERYONE”
“Support evidence-based solutions to domestic violence”
“Sexism is not the answer to domestic violence” (banner on
“The answers start with compassion for all victims” (banner on

“Regardless of what each side believes, I know we all do our work and hope that the lives of women, children and men are improved by the work we do”

Unfortunately, you do NOT improve the lives of women, children and men by promoting sexist and one-sided ideologies or by discriminating against men when it comes to domestic violence or any other kind of abuse. For that matter, you are NOT helping women by perpetuating the idea that they are always ultimately victims, even when they are the abusers. This type of “limited” mind-set effectively denies much needed support and services to women who themselves admit to being abusive and who want to change!

If you really insist that you want the lives of women, children and men to be improved by your agency’s work, then why don’t you PROVE it by updating your “Power and Control” wheel to reflect the basic and essential fact that violent and abusive behaviour has got nothing to do with gender?
Jason Dale

Since my last email on the 20th of January 2015, no further responses from Scott Miller or any other individual from DAIP has been received to date…


Archer, J. (2005). Cross-cultural differences in physical aggression between partners: A social–structural analysis.
Archer, J. (2006). Cross-cultural differences in physical aggression between partners: A social-role analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(2), 133–153.
Bert H. Hoff, J.D (2012). National Study: More Men than Women Victims of Intimate Partner Physical Violence, Psychological Aggression. Published online February 2012. Available at
Cook, P. W. (2009). Abused men: The hidden side of domestic violence (2nd ed.). Westport: Praeger.
Corvo, Kenneth, Dutton, Donald and Chen, Wan-Yi. (2009). Do Duluth Model Interventions with Perpetrators of Domestic Violence Violate Mental Health Professional Ethics? Ethics & Behavior, 19: 4, 323 — 340.
Dixon, L. & Graham-Kevan, N. (2011). Understanding the nature and aetiology of intimate partner violence and implications for practice: A review of the evidence base. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 1145-1155.

Douglas, E.M. and Hines, D. (2011) “The helpseeking experiences of men who sustain intimate partner violence: An overlooked population and implications for practice.” J. Fam. Vio. 2011 Aug; 26(6):473-485 Published online 04 June 2011. National Institute of Mental Health Grant Number 5R21MH074590. Available at:
Dutton, D. G. (1985). An ecologically nested theory of male violence toward intimates. International Journal of Women’s Studies, 8(4), 404−413.
Dutton, D. G. (2000). Witnessing parental violence as a traumatic experience shaping the abusive personality. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 3(1), 59−67.
Dutton, D. G. (2001). The neurobiology of abandonment homicide. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 1−15.
Dutton, D. G. (2002). The abusive personality: Violence and control in intimate relationships. New York: Guilford Press. Revised Paperback Edition.
Dutton & Corvo. (2006). Transforming a flawed policy: A call to revive psychology and science in domestic violence research and practice.
Dutton & Corvo. (2007). The Duluth model: A data-impervious paradigm and a failed strategy.
Dutton, D. G., & Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (1997a). The role of early trauma in males who assault their wives. In D. Cicceti, & R. Toth (Eds.), the rochester symposium on development. Rochester.
Dutton, D. G., & Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (1997b). The role of early trauma in males who assault their wives. In D. C. S. L. Toth (Ed.), Rochester symposium on developmental psychopathology: Developmental perspectives on trauma-theory, research and intervention. Rochester, N.Y.: University of Rochester press.
Dutton, D. G., Saunders, K., Starzomski, A., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Intimacy anger and insecure attachment as precursors of abuse in intimate relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(15), 1367−1386.
Dutton, D. G., & Starzomski, A. (1993). Borderline personality in perpetrators of psychological and physical abuse. Violence and Victims, 8(4), 327−337.
Dutton, D. G., Starzomski, A., & Ryan, L. (1996). Antecedents of borderline personality organization in wife assaulters. Journal of Family Violence, 11(2), 113−132.
Dutton, D. G., Swanson, C. H., van Ginkel, C., & Starzomski, A. J. (in press). The role of shame and guilt in the intergenerational transmission of abusiveness. Unpublished manuscript, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Eckhardt, C. I., Barbour, K. A., & Davis, G. C. (1998). Articulated thoughts of martially violent and nonviolent men during anger arousal. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(2), 259−269.
Egland, B. (1993). A history of abuse is a major risk factor for abusing in the next generation. In R. J. Gelles, & D. L. Loeske (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 197−208). Newbury Park: Sage.
Ellen Pence; Michael Paymar (1993). Education Groups for Men Who Batter: The Duluth Model. Springer Publishing Company. ISBN 978-0-8261-7990-6.
Elliott, F. (1977). The neurology of explosive rage: The episodic dyscontrol syndrome. In M. Roy (Ed.), Battered women: A psychosociological study of domestic violence New York: Van Nostrand.
Fagan, J. (1989). Cessation of family violence: Deterrence and dissuasion. In L. Ohlin, & M. Tonry (Eds.), Family violence Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fagan, J., Stewart, D. K., & Hansen, K. V. (1983). Violent men or violent husbands? Background factors and situational correlates. In D. Finkelhor, R. J. Gelles, G. Hotaling, & M. A. Straus (Eds.), The dark side of families: Current family violence research (pp. 49−68). Beverley Hills: Sage.
Ford, D. A., & Regoli, M. J. (1993). The criminal prosecution of wife assaults: Process, problems, and effects. In N. Z. Hilton (Ed.), Legal responses to wife assault: Current trends and evaluation (pp. 127−164). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Galdas, P. M., Cheater, F., & Marshall, P. (2005). Men and health helpseeking behaviour: literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 49(6), 616-622.
Gelles, R. (2001). Standards for men who batter? Not yet. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 5(2), 11−20.
Hamberger, K., & Hastings, J. E. (1991). Personality correlates of men who batter and non-violent men: Some continuities and discontinuities. Journal of Family Violence, 6(2), 131−147.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Bates, L., Smutzler, N., & Sandin, E. (1997). A brief review of the research on husband violence: Part I. Maritally violent versus nonviolent men. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2(1), 65−99.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Stuart, G. L., & Hutchinson, G. (1997). Violent versus nonviolent husbands: Differences in attachment patterns, dependency, and jealousy. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 314−331.
Jacobson, N. S., Gottman, J. M.,Waltz, J., Rushe, R., Babcock, J., & Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (1994). Affect, verbal content, and psychophysiology in the arguments of couples with a violent husband. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(5), 982−988.
Leonard, K. E., & Roberts, L. J. (1998). The effects of alcohol on the marital interactions of aggressive and nonaggressive husbands and their wives. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107(4), 602−615.
Leonard, K. E., & Senchak, M. (1993). Alcohol and premarital aggression among newlywed couples. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 11, 96−108.
Levenson, R. W., & Gottman, J. M. (1983). Marital interaction: Physiological linkage and affective exchange. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 587−597.
Lorig K. Kachadourian, Gregory G. Homish, Brian M. Quigley, and Kenneth E. Leonard. (2011). Alcohol expectancies, alcohol use, and hostility as longitudinal predictors of alcohol-related aggression. University at Buffalo, State University of New York. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors (Impact Factor: 2.09). 10/2011; 26(3):414-22.
Maiuro, R. D., Hagar, T. S., Lin, H., & Olson, N. (2001). Are current state standards for domestic violence perpetrator treatment adequately informed by research? A question of questions. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 5(2), 21−44.
Margolin, G., John, R. S., & Gleberman, L. (1989). Affective responses to conflictual discussions in violent and non-violent couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(1), 24−33.
Meloy, J. R. (1992). Violent attachments. Northvale, N.J.: Jason Aronson.
Mills, L. G. (2003). Insult to injury: Rethinking our response to intimate abuse. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Murray A. Straus (2007). Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence.
Murray A. Straus (2007). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Available online 13 October 2007.
Putallaz, M., & Bierman, K. L. (2004). Aggression, antisocial behavior and violence amongst girls. New York: Guilford.
Rounsaville, B. (1978). Theories in marital violence: Evidence from a study of battered women. Victimology: An International Journal, 3(1–2), 11−31.
Dalton, B. (2001). Batterer characteristics and treatment completion. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2001;16:1223–1238.
Schore, A. N. (2003a). Affect dysregulation and the disorders of the self. New York: Norton.
Schore, A. N. (2003b). Affect regulation and the repair of the self. New York: Norton.
Serbin, L., Stack, D., De Genna, N., Grunzeweig, N., Temcheff, C. E., Schwartzmann, A. E., et al. (2004). When aggressive girls become mothers. In M. Putallaz, & K. L. Bierman (Eds.), Aggression, antisocial behavior and violence among girls. New York: The Guilford Press.
Sherman, L. W., Schmidt, J. D., Rogan, D. P., Smith, D. A., Gartin, P. R., Cohn, E. G., et al. (1992). The variable effects of arrest of criminal careers: The Milwaukee domestic violence experiment. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 83(1), 137−169.
Sroufe, A., Egeland, B., Carlson, E. A., & Collins, W. A. (2005). The development of the person. New York: Guilford.
Stets, J., & Straus, M. A. (1992a). Gender differences in reporting marital violence. Physical violence in American families (pp. 151−166).New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.
Stets, J., & Straus, M. A. (1992b). The marriage license as a hitting license. Physical violence in American families. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.
Stith, S. M., Rosen, K. H., McCollum, E. E.,&Thomsen, C. J. (2004). Treating intimate partner violence within intact couple relationships: Outcomes of multi-couple versus individual couple therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 30, 305–318.
Straus, M. A. (1973). A general systems theory approach to a theory of violence between family members. Social Science Information, 12(3), 105−125.
Sugarman, David B., and Susan L. Frankel. 1996. Patriarchal ideology and wife-assault: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Violence 11 (1):13-40.

 national coalition for menThe Duluth model is as destructive as domestic violence.

Domestic violence involves violent women too, even the ones who promote the Duluth model.

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 11
NCFM Chicago Chapter President Tim Goldich report, The Goshen College “Gender Transition Symposium” Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:13:28 +0000 genderThe Goshen College “Gender Transition Symposium”

I arrived at my hotel, the Best Western in Goshen, at about 3pm and called Sam. Sam Foxvog is a student at Goshen College and an NCFM Student Member. He was struggling with the video tech and asked me to come and join him ASAP! I told him what he needed was a “tech-head” (which is not me) and I would head over as soon as I finished checking in.

I met Sam in room 319 at Wyse Hall. While he struggled with the vagaries of connections and settings and Google Hangouts, I ordered pizza. There were lots of technical problems. We could see and hear our cyber guests, but they could neither see nor hear us. The computer was patched into an incomprehensible panel of electronics. Sam needed the more manageable technology of a laptop with built-in camera and mic, but there was none available.

Sam and I co-hosted the event from Goshen College. Several presenters were scheduled to to appear through Google Hangouts and the symposium was to be streamed live over YouTube.

Considering that he received no local support from anyone (except me, of course and I drove up from Chicago), Sam did a terrific job. He really needed the help of the school techie, at least one professor and at least a fellow student or two or three. But he had no such support. He was trying to do everything on his own.

The symposium began at 7pm. Unfortunately, the YouTube feed did not work so people could not watch the symposium by Internet. Professor Paul Nathanson was scheduled to appear, but couldn’t connect through Google Hangouts. Google Hangout images or presenters were projected onto a roll-down screen in a classroom with a seating capacity of perhaps 35 students. We saw and heard from  NCFM Award Winner Cathy Young and NCFM members Harry Crouch, Jeanne Falla, and Carl Augustsson.

At its peak the attendance was about a dozen students and one professor. I couldn’t say that our audience was supportive, but no one seemed hostile either. We received several polite challenges from the students; I saw no signs of agreement—nothing along the lines of: “I heard that” or “Well, that much is true.” By 8pm most of the students had left. No way to know if they left in “disgust” or if they simply had somewhere else they needed to be.

Not exactly the glorious reception I might have hoped for. But I got this much out of the deal, as he was leaving the professor looked at me and said that my summation (delivered at 8pm when the system temporarily froze up) was the part he got the most out of.

If there’s one thing I would hope people would come away with it’s this: there’s plenty of powerless victims to go around. Woman is not served to claim it all for herself. The contest for the coveted title of Most Powerless Victim can go on for a long time, but it cannot go on forever. Eventually, inevitably, Woman and Man must call it even. On that momentous day, gender politics and gender relations can finally evolve beyond “My victim is bigger than your victim.” On that day, we’ll be free to seek far greater inter-sex fairness, forgiveness, and unity. I just wish that day would come sooner rather than later.

At 9pm we brought the event to a close. Sam and I talked for awhile. We talked about me editing the book Sam intends to write. And then I headed back to the hotel. The next day, we had lunch in the cafeteria and Sam tried to get some students over to talk with me. A young man named Dylan listened to what I had to say and was open-minded. Another male student politely indicated that he couldn’t see what men would have to complain about. Sam told me that, in his experience, Goshen was particularly close minded; the previous college he attended was much more open to men’s issues and perspectives.

Victories? As I figure it, every bit helps. There’s no knowing what seeds we may have planted. Perhaps what we did can be a model for other places of higher learning to do something similar? What Sam did at Goshen could certainly be duplicated elsewhere. In any case, I got a chance to speak and do my thing (and I love doing my thing!). The professor of the “Women and Gender” class (that I spoke to at the beginning of the month) arranged for the college to send me 50 bucks.

So, there you have it, another day in the life of an Equalist.

Tim Goldich

Author of – Loving Men, Respecting Women: The Future of Gender Politics

It All Balances Out

national coalition for menSex and gender are not necessarily the same things. But it’s good to discuss both to iron out the differences.

Gender, we all have one and should get along.



Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 0