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. Sun, 30 Aug 2015 20:41:08 +0000 en-US hourly 1 NCFM, The truth behind the Unruh Civil Rights Act lawsuit against Chic CEO and attacks against NCFM Secretary Al Rava Sat, 29 Aug 2015 21:06:18 +0000 unruh civilBy Harry Crouch, President, NCFM

NOTE: This article follows, clarifies, and expands on an earlier article about NCFM’s position on no-men-allowed business seminars, conferences, and networking events. This subject continues to capture a lot of media attention. For example, news giant Yahoo News is working on a story about NCFM’s stance on these single sex commercial undertakings.  Interestingly, Yahoo News reporter Alyssa Bereznak has applied for NCFM membership.  This article is still a work in progress as of this posting.

Stephanie Burns, Founder, Chic CEO, on April 16, 2014 offered a women-only business event in violation of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, three men were denied access because of their sex (gender) and a lawsuit followed.

Some of what follows concerns a related YouTube video by Ms. Burns. The video was edited for inappropriate and litigious, if not false, statements and then reposted. The discussion below uses the reposted edited version.

This article concerns (1) statements by Ms. Burns in the edited version of the video (2) other claims (3) the petition to gut the Unruh Civil Rights Act (4) Al Rava, the principle civil rights attorney involved (5) NCFM and its involvement with the Unruh Civil Rights Act (6) the media (7) a few last thoughts.


  1. Burns says Chic CEO “is a resource for female entrepreneurs. Anyone can use Chic CEO but we do focus on women.” Ms. Burns impresses upon viewers that Chic CEO has male advisers, mentors, clients, men at their events, male speakers at their conferences, men in their brain trust, men are interviewed in over half of her podcasts, and she truly believes men are the next trend in female entrepreneurship. “Clearly, we don’t discriminate against men… we had a networking mixer for women…”

Though NCFM is not involved with the lawsuit against Ms. Burns and Chic CEO, related news stories involved us. Thus, by comparison, anyone can use the resources of NCFM’s web and social networking sites, though we focus on men’s rights. Since 1977, in one capacity or another, NCFM has had women on its Board of Directors, on its Executive Board, Advisory Board, in chapters as chapter presidents, as mentors, speakers at conferences, outreach and education workers, and in many other capacities, including at least one founding member, and our national treasure(r) is named Deborah.

Clearly, Chic CEO discriminated against the men turned away at the door from the April 2014 networking mixer for women, regardless of whether Ms. Burns or Chic CEO are otherwise male friendly.

  1. Burns says, the “men came uninvited, we were already over capacity, and I got that weird feeling in my stomach. So, I turned them away.”

The men reserved spots at the event by prepaying in advance and received a confirmation email from Ms. Burns (see email receipt directly below). Ms. Burns knew the men were coming, she was “looking forward to seeing” them at the event, not only had they prepaid, their names were on the Pre-Purchased Event Reciept SHRUNKguest list. The men were clearly invited (see the next email below from Ms. Burns).

unruh civilThe event was not overcapacity. Women were entering while the men were there. There are pictures of one of the men standing at the entrance as other woman were preparing to enter the event. One of the men while talking with and being turned away by Ms. Burns watched another woman enter the event, two other women were in line behind him while another women signed something at the check-in table. The two other men watched two women enter the event while talking with and being turned away by Ms. Burns.

Moreover, the “weird feeling” assertion calls into question the “over capacity” claim.

  1. Burns says that whether it was legal or illegal to turn the men away she “will always be firm in that I was right” and she would make the same decision since her “loyalty” lies with the women who attended and need a “safe” and “comfortable” place to network.

Our loyalty and focus lies with all the citizens of California who deserve a safe place to live free of discrimination because of their sex (gender). The men would do it again since their loyalty is to the people of California and not a few people at a networking event that illegally discriminates against California’ citizens based on their sex (gender).

Ms. Burns’ insinuation that the men would have made the event less safe is ridiculous, insulting, purely speculative and sexist.

Whether allowing men to attend would make the women uncomfortable is similarly speculative and subjective. No one will know the truth since Ms. Burns turned the men away. However, the men felt uncomfortable by being shunned publicly in front of others for no real reason other than being men.

  1. Based on the mens’ claims and similar lawsuits Ms. Burns said she does not believe the men were at the event to truly network.

Again, regardless of what she believes, Ms. Burns will never know whether the men were at the event to truly network because she refused to let them in. However, we do know that the men prepaid to attend the event, and they would have attended the event if not turned away by Ms. Burns.

  1. She asserts, “Because Chic CEO helps women does not mean we hurt men.”

All Californians who truly believe in equality were hurt by turning the men away at the door, especially all Californian men. We know there are many well-meaning, decent, and caring people in the state, who have diligently fought for civil rights, who would be equally hurt had their sons, husbands, fathers, uncles, nephews, grandsons, and other men they cared about, been similarly discriminated against.

  1. Burns says, “Men are a very big part of what we do and we need men to help us close the pay gap, end violence against us, and help us in our quest for equality.”

The pay gap and violence against “us” have nothing to do with the event but the issue of “equality” certainly does. Regardless, the plethora of real social science research (versus groundless “advocacy research”) firmly establishes that (1) men suffer substantially more violence than women and (2) only a minute amount of the pay gap may be due to sex discrimination. Those knowledgeable in the pay gap debate also understand that it works in favor of women in many high paying soft job occupations. Making such a statement, turning men away from the event, treating them like second-class citizens, is bizarrely hypocritical and without question unequal.

Additionally, women are a disproportionate majority in health, education, finance, social services, and other well-paying soft-job occupations. Women typically earn more than do men in social services, industrial engineering, art history, all other engineering disciplines, construction and business analytics, among other soft-job occupations. Surely, networking mixers to encourage more men to take part in those fields are needed, but not at the exclusion of women, which would be counterproductive, increase the divide between men and women, and is illegal in California, and rightly so.

  1. Burns went on, “In no way shape or form does anyone in my company have an attitude of us versus them.”

This appears to be an unnecessary misdirectional insinuation. Neither do any of the three men, nor does Attorney Rava or NCFM have an attitude of us versus them, unless as it applies to those who indignantly demand special privilege for no good reason other than their sex (gender).

  1. For some odd reason Ms. Burns takes a strong exception with the use of disabled Veterans in the complaint against her. She says, “…the term disabled Veterans does not apply to just men and it’s quite offensive in and of itself. There are many many disabled Veterans that are women and I hope these individuals never use that term to describe only men again.”

We all are keenly aware many female Veterans are disabled; regrettably, some have also lost their lives. That said, the complaint deliberately has the term “disabled combat veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.” The Pentagon had not approved women in combat roles during those wars, which in no way suggests that other military women in those conflicts were not injured or killed.

One of the complainants in this case is a disabled Veteran; two served in the military, and two of the three are Board Members of a Veteran’s organization of which all three are founding members. In fact, another founding board member is a retired female Army Major. No Veterans are turned away from our programs, services, and events based on their sex (gender), a truth Ms. Burns and Chic CEO can never share.

If Ms. Burns served in the military, we thank her for her service, but not for turning away those who served, especially the disabled male Veteran (which was demeaning and stressful, triggered a PTSD episode, and was quite offensive in and of itself).

  1. Burns says that she felt shocked, heartbroken and bullied by the lawsuit. She then again talked of the importance of men in fostering innovation, fixing our economy, and building a better business culture. “Men are really, really important for what we do.”

Ms. Burns could have avoided being shocked, heartbroken and bullied had she let the men in. In fact, had she done so, there would be no need for any of this. Good things could have happened. All of us may have benefited. Chic CEO and organizations with which the men are involved could have developed working relationships. Allowing the men to take part could have moved us forward toward a better more inclusive business culture while creating other opportunities, including fostering innovation and maybe even fixing our economy. None of that happened, not because the invited prepaid men came to the event, but because Ms. Burns turned them away. The fact is, shunning the men detracted from the goals of Chic CEO as stated by Ms. Burns in her YouTube video (both and either of them).

  • At the end of the video, Ms. Burns asks that listeners sign a petition to revise the Unruh Civil Rights Act because it “was designed to fight real discrimination and not to be exploited against minorities.”

In reality, the Unruh Civil Rights Act applies to all Californians, and has since its inception. Turning the men away from the event was real discrimination. No minorities were exploited, though a minority owned business was held accountable for violating the law. Members of a protected class have no special license to discriminate against anyone similarly protected or not.


  1. In one or more related news articles, or elsewhere, Ms. Burns apparently claimed the men arrived late:

One of the men, who prepaid to reserve space, arrived early while the ticket sales table was being set up. The two other men who prepaid arrived shortly afterwards while other women were entering, signing in and or purchasing tickets ($25 at the door). There are time stamped photos taken when two of the men arrived (which was after the first man. We are not publishing the photos because of safety concerns).

  1. In one or more related news articles, or elsewhere, Ms. Burns reportedly claimed the men were dressed inappropriately, if not shoddily.

The men came in the cloths they wear during their normal business day, as apparently did women attending the after work event. The men knew of no published dress code for the event. All of the men had attended many other similar events in similar attire and never been turned away. They knew of no reason to dress differently.

In sum, the men prepaid to reserve space for the event, they were invited, the event was not over capacity, and they were not late or inappropriately dressed. The men were specifically denied attendance because it was a women only event and because they are men.


The landing page of the petition shows, “WOMEN VC Stand up and Stand Out,” subtitle “PROTECT WOMEN ENTREPRENEAURS AND COMMUNITIES FROM “EQUALITY-SEEKERS.”

Under “Timeline,” there is an August 7 appeal that says exactly, “There are a lot of businesses running and supporting female-only goods and services. All of them may be attacked for discriminating men under Unruh Civil Rights Act. LET’S MAKE A CHANGE!”

Whoever wrote that surely meant to say selling goods and services only to women. Either way, we disagree. Most businesses do not discriminate against anyone, they are busy trying to make a profit selling their goods and services to whomever will buy them. There are tens of thousands of businesses in California, the sheer number of which makes the dramatic statement meaningless.

The petition says exactly, “Just recently, Stephanie Burns, CEO of Chic CEO, an online resource for female entrepreneurs — bringing how-to information, tools and community to women starting businesses, has finished up settling a lawsuit with men on violating their civil rights for not letting them enter the overbooked event for women entrepreneurs.”

The petition accurately states the event was for women but incorrectly states the event was overbooked, as proven above. Julian L. Zegelman, at the law firm of Velton Zegelman P.C., is shown on the website as Women VC’s attorney for this matter, but Mr. Zegelman told attorney Rava that was not true, that he is not Women VC’s attorney for this matter. Clearly, issues exist with the creators of the website and petition.

As of 4:40 p.m., August 24, 2015 there were 96 comments on the petition page. Many supported the petition for reasons like “patriarchal bullying is infuriating to me, this kind of lawsuit is a waste of time, I’m outraged, it is important to stand up for what’s right,” and, my favorite, “People like Al Rava and Harry Crotch [sic] need to be stopped.”

It is never a waste of time to stand up for what is right or to stand against outrageously bullying Me-ism. Well meaning people like Mr. Rava, I, and many others will not stop, we will stand tall for equal rights as long as we breathe. People, who support this petition, oppose equal treatment. In the bold capped letters at the top of the petition page, it says women and communities need protection from “EQUALITY SEEKERS.” Unbelievable! Is the future you want, for you and your loved ones, one of inequality, separate but equal, men versus women?

Fortunately, many of the comments at the petition site offered supporting rationale for our position. Here are a few:

“Discrimination is wrong even if a women is discriminating against men. Burns turned away struggling male entrepreneurs because she said that only women need a women only place and don’t feel safe to share if men are around. Feminist attorney Gloria Allred has made millions off of busting “Men’s Only Clubs” now women have their own clubs and don’t want to share success secrets with men. It is only fair and in the spirit of equality that gender should not be an issue anymore. Feminism has no place with equality, it is oppression of men and it causes divisiveness between genders,” by Robert Collins.

How is “women-only networking” not discrimination? It seems these days feminists are all about gender supremacism rather than equality,” by GS A

“Seriously, ladies? I’m an older woman who fought for those rights back in the 60s and 70s, not so you could be apart but so you could be part of. Not so you could exclude men, but so you could be included. Not so you could have special rights, so you could have the same rights. Public forums are “PUBLIC”, you can’t exclude anyone, nor should you. If you’re doing a good job and your events are over-subscribed, that’s great. Hold it in a bigger venue or hold more of the them, don’t break the same laws, we fought so hard to get for the benefit of all,” by rstsummers.

“You don’t get to change the equality laws just because you want to given women discriminatory support. The laws exist for a reason. To stop people like you, from putting one gender over another,” by Susan Bridge.

“Equal access means a just and fair society where opportunity knows no boundaries,” by Deanna Kosaraju.

“I am a Pi Beta Phi sister to Stephanie and fellow new entrepreneur with Secret Direct outside of being a professional occupational therapist and mother. I love working with both men and women, but there is something to be said for the sisterhood of creating equality between the sexes,” by Rebecca Rieker.


National Coalition of Men Secretary Al Rava, Esq. has been largely responsible for stopping discrimination against men in the California at great risk to his safety, health, and profession. Al has been subjected to threats, undue criticism and ridicule because of his unrelenting stand against the discrimination of men in public accommodations. Mr. Rava is a true civil rights advocate and hero.

Over the last 15 or so years, Mr. Rava, on behalf of many others, filed over 150 lawsuits against businesses wrongly discriminating against men and women. Several of the lawsuits resulted in landmark court decisions that clarified and or established related laws. Aside from those lawsuits, Mr. Rava on behalf on NCFM has sent many letters to California businesses or governmental agencies advising them that several California laws prohibit discriminatory treatment of men and women.

Typically, such businesses charged male consumers more than female consumers for the same goods or services, or excluded male consumers – all based solely on the consumers’ sex. While there were a few repeat offenders, over time, all the businesses sued or sent letters stopped their illegal discrimination. Those who complain wrongly believe that discrimination based on gender is acceptable.

To paraphrase Mr. Rava, his clients and other California attorneys, through their successful works with the California Legislature, the Governor, the California Department of Justice, Department of Fair Employment & Housing (“DFEH”) and other California administrative agencies, and the California courts, have almost put an end to the proliferation of sex-based promotions and events by California businesses that charged consumers different prices for the same goods or services, or that excluded one sex or the other – all based solely on the consumer’s sex, which was a huge undertaking and huge civil rights victory.

See, the press release by the Consumer Attorneys of California calling Mr. Rava’s victory at the California Supreme Court in the landmark Unruh Civil Rights Act case of Angelucci v Supper Club 41 Cal 4th 160. “a significant civil rights victory.” Angelucci held that women, people of color, members of the LGBT community, and other discrimination victims did not have to first confront the discriminating business and affirmatively assert their right to equal treatment in order to have standing to file an Unruh Civil Rights Act claim. Also is a Gaming Establishment Adisory Letter by former California Attorney General Jerry Brown about the illegality of no-men-allowed poker tournaments, and a DFEH brochure about the illegality of Ladies’ Night promotions in California – both of which Mr. Rava was instrumental in getting published.

Mr. Rava also represented women in Unruh Civil Rights Act sex discrimination cases;  for example, in a class action lawsuit pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court against a Tony Roma’s restaurant for its recurring sex-based pricing promotion, as the complaint includes women and men as the putative class members.


In the original version of this article, I wrote that NCFM has never filed an Unruh Civil Rights Act lawsuit, which is incorrect. Marc Angelucci, another of our attorneys and NCFM Vice President, later explained that years ago NCFM was a plaintiff in at least one lawsuit, maybe two, though we ended up dismissing the lawsuits early on.

Regardless, NCFM has never filed an Unruh Civil Rights Act lawsuit under my signature as NCFM President. Although under my signature along with Mr. Rava’s guidance, we have sent advisory letters to various businesses. They were not threats as has been suggested more than once. We had great success with this approach.

We sent a letter to All Nippon Airlines when it proposed women-only restrooms on their airplanes.  We received a thank you letter and APA rescinded the proposal.

Another letter was sent to the Professional Golf Association (PGA) when it offered a women-only luncheon during a major golf tournament, which featured San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis as the featured speaker. Ironically, Ms. Dumanis is the county’s chief law enforcement officer. I received a phone call from a PGA attorney who seemed amused and appreciative. I keep forgetting to find his name and call him for a donation since we may have saved the PGA considerable aggravation. We saved Ms. Dumanis embarrassment too. The event became gender inclusive and to our knowledge, no other PGA event in California has since offered a women-only event during a PGA tournament.

Another letter went to the promoter of a women-only bicycle ride event, a letter that the promoters exploited. The promoters vilified us, garnered more recognition for their event, and caused childish threats against us. They were in no way publically appreciative for saving them from possible liability. Nevertheless, we have not heard of a later women-only bicycle ride in California.

Most recently, we sent a letter to the City of Glendale on publicly funded self-defense classes for women-only, wherein many people agreed with our position, including the Glendale News Press Editorial Board. The city begrudgingly offered a class for men. Both men and women are victims of violence, men more so than women, so both sexes benefit from such training.

To my knowledge, every business sued or sent a letter stopped the unlawful discrimination, which is a good thing. Not only that, many are appreciative.

Some have said that NCFM and its members have been involved with Unruh Civil Rights Act or other lawsuits against self-defense classes, free mammograms, or businesses offering gifts to women on “Mother’s Day,” which is false. Nor has there been a Unruh Civil Rights Act lawsuit against, or a letter directed at, anyone for providing free mammograms on Mother’s Day or on any other day. To my knowledge, no member of NCFM has ever been involved in any related lawsuit.

One of our Board Members noted, “… the Unruh Civil Rights Act was big in the 70’s, when all kinds of lawsuits were filed against dry cleaners, haircut places, etc. for businesses discriminating against women. Where was this outrage and name calling then against women’s rights like there is here against Mr. Rava, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and to some degree NCFM?”


Ms. Burns generated some sympathetic media attention resulting in a few articles primarily targeted at NCFM Secretary Al Rava. Reporters have thus far sympathized with Ms. Burns. Regardless, even good reporters cannot report the truth if they do not know what it is. Unfortunately, the misrepresentations explained above, ideology and advocacy journalism seem to have discolored the articles linked below.

The links to articles at the end of this article are from worse to better, the first worse being from Unfortunately, such articles bring out anonymous man-hater commentators who know nothing about our issues, think all women are victims of something or other, and could care less whether men are poorly treated. Such ignorance is disheartening and turns unduly ugly by those resorting to violence or name-calling. At one point, Raw Story deleted comments by Allen Candelore, one of the plaintiffs! Mr. Candelore rigorously refuted many of the misandric comments with common sense, courtesy, facts and the truth. He was open to the fact he was a plaintiff and pointed out the article was misleading, which may be why his comments were deleted.

On August 24, 2015, Mr. Rava sent the Raw Story an email explaining that their article contained numerous false statements. Raw Story responded with, “We have taken this story offline for the time being until we can research your claims further.” As of this typing, the URL garners “Page Not Found – The page you are looking for doesn’t seem to exist.”


It is absurd in this day and age – when women are self-defense trainers, police officers, Army Rangers, judges, US Senators, mayors, scientists, astronauts, corporate leaders and thrive in other demanding occupations – to believe men and women cannot be safe, comfortable and benefit from each other in business social networking mixers in broad daylight at an upscale restaurant. Holding one-sex-only events is against the best interests of the citizens of California, contrary to sound public policy and law, and is otherwise offensive.

Moreover, Attorney Rava and the three men through their lawsuit are the catalyst that brought awareness to Chic CEO Clients who should now know it is illegal in California for businesses to discriminate against persons because of their sex (gender).

It is truly unfortunate that one business owner who wrongly discriminated against men (and a few unaffected sympathetic followers) want to dismantle a law that protects all California citizens from undue discrimination. Reverting to entitlement driven Me-ism is not good business practice or sound public policy.

We strongly support anyone’s right to petition the government for their grievances.  In fact, NCFM was instrumental several years ago in changing California law to prevent paternity fraud. We spent much time over the past two years promoting paternity-fraud reform legislation in Washington too. Several of our members are deeply involved with discrimination against men and their right to redress on college campuses and in the military. For decades, we have been active with reform issues about child welfare and relationship violence. We have a pending appellate case against the Selective Service System for failure to require women to register.

The online petition is another irrational, emotion driven, divide and conquer giant step backwards. Allow me a little creative license please, be forewarned, some amongst us don’t much like “EQUALITY-SEEKERS.” As President of NCFM, I will do my utmost to continue seeking fair treatment for all of us. I trust you will too. As another of our Advisers just reminded me, “Equality should mean equal rights and opportunities for both genders but also equal responsibilities and consequences for breaking the law.”

unruh civil

NOTE: first published 8/12/2015. It has been revised, and may be revised several more times as this story develops or dies.

national coalition for men

The Unruh Civil Rights Act protects all Californians from undue discrimination.

The Unruh Civil Rights Act protects men from being excluded from events for women only too, and the other way around too, as it should be.

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 6
NCFM Chicago Chatper President, Tim Goldich on “The other half of gender reality: The Glass Floor (Part 1)” Tue, 18 Aug 2015 21:32:50 +0000 tim goldich

national coalition for men

Another excellent video by Tim Goldich

Buy a copy of Tim Goldich ‘s book Loving Men Respecting Women. It’s well worth the read, even if you don’t think we should treat each other with love and respect. Maybe you’ll change your mind.

Don’t forget to join us, join the National Coalition For Men. Thanks.

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 1
NCFM, our Secretary Al Rava, and the Unruh Act under attack for standing tall for equal rights Thu, 13 Aug 2015 01:26:24 +0000 Unruh ActBy Harry Crouch, President, NCFM

National Coalition of Men Secretary Al Rava, Esq. has been largely responsible for stopping discrimination against men in the strange state of California at great risk to his safety, health, and profession. Al has been subjected to threats, undue criticism and ridicule because of his unrelenting stand against the discrimination of men in public accommodations. I feel privileged to be a member of NCFM because of NCFM members like my friend Mr. Rava who is a true civil rights advocate and hero.

In California, the Unruh Act has for decades prevented discrimination in public accommodations based on ones sex, which is a good thing. One of our Board Members notes, “… the Unruh Act was big in the 70’s, when all kinds of lawsuits were filed against dry cleaners, haircut places, etc. for businesses discriminating against women. Where was this outrage and name calling then against women’s rights like there is here against Mr. Rava, the Unruh Act, and to some degree NCFM?”

This article has been updated and can be read here:

national coalition for menThe Unruh Act is for everyone, not just women.

The Unruh Act and those who had the courage to use it are the primary reason many forms of wrongful discrimination in California no longer exists.

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 2
NCFM Welcomes David Pisarra, Esq., Family Law Attorney, Author, Advocate, and Public Speaker to NCFM as an Adviser Mon, 10 Aug 2015 16:36:24 +0000 David PisaDavid Pisarrarra, NCFM Adviser

California native David T. Pizarra received his undergraduate degree from St. John’s College in Annapolis Maryland, graduating in 1989 with a double major in Philosophy and Mathematics, with minors in French and Attic Greek. He was twice the yearbook editor in chief, president of the King William Players, the schools theater group, and chief promoter and organizer of the school’s annual graduation celebration.

Pisarra graduated from the University of West Los Angeles School of Law, where he specialized in Family Law, graduating in 1995. He specializes in the field of Father’s and Men’s rights in Family Law cases. Domestic Violence cases have become a subspecialty with the increase in the number of cases filed each year as a way to gain control of child custody, marital assets and do essentially a summary divorce proceeding.

As an author, he has written several books; A Man’s Guide To Divorce Strategy, A Man’s Guide To Child Custody, A Man’s Guide to Divorce Strategy, The Entrepreneur’s Handbook and What About Wally? Co-parenting a Pet With Your Ex. He is a weekly columnist for the Santa Monica Daily Press ( and has contributed to Huffington Post,,, Family Lawyer Magazine, and California Lawyer.

david pisarraHe is an expert on child custody laws both domestically and internationally. He teaches continuing education courses for other lawyers on Thomson/REUTERS and his video trainings are available at

Hosting the Men’s Family Law Podcast, he has interviewed experts in parental alienation cases like author Mike Jeffries and psychologists Dr. Carol Hirshfield and Dr. Amy J. Baker.

As a public speaker Mr. Pisarra has presented for Children’s Institute’s Fatherhood conference 2015, Open Circle Society (Ajijic, Mexico), BlogPaws Pet Blogger Conference, Santa Monica Rotary Club, the City of Santa Monica, and many other venues.

He is regularly sought out as an expert by the media to comment on high profile divorce, child custody and domestic violence cases by publications such as Maxim, OK, Hollywood Reporter, Wall Street Journal, and Business Insider.

national coalition for menDavid Pisarra was elected by the National Board to Adviser August 2015.

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 0
NCFM Members participate as presenters at Los Angeles conference on male victims of sexual assault and abuse Sun, 02 Aug 2015 03:32:53 +0000 male victims

Click on the picture to watch Dr. Martin Fiebert’s SCRIPT Conference video

On Friday, July 17, 2015 several NCFM members spoke at the first SCRIPT Conference devoted to stigma associated with male victims of sexual assault and abuse. This is the first conference of which we are aware given over to male victims and survivors. Some of the presentations were captured on video. Links to two of the videos are below and they are well worth watching.

The conference was held next to Union Station at the California Endowment Conference Center.

NCFM Adviser Michael Conzachi, retired homicide investigator, Army Veteran, and Board Member International Support Network for Alienated Families (ISNAF). Michael conducted a session about parental alienation and/or discrimination against men in the military about sexual assault and domestic violence.

NCFM Vice-President Marc Angelucci, Esq. Marc is a distinguished attorney who won landmark cases against domestic violence shelters for refusing to give services to abused men. He won landmark paternity fraud case as well.  Marc gave a presentation about domestic violence and the law, which you can watch here.

The President of NCFM Carolinas flew in from North Carolina to give a presentation about the College Accountability and Safety Act and the war on men on college campuses.

Men’s Health Network Stanley Green, Director Intimate Partner Violence Prevention facilitated a session about male victims of intimate partner violence and the “System’s” refusal to recognize them.

Martin Fiebert, Ph.D, professor at California State University Long Beach, maintains the largest scientifically based research bibliography on the planet about male victims of domestic violence. You can watch the video here of his presentation, except for the first 15 minutes which are missing due to a technical problem. (Click on the picture above or here to watch the video)

In addition, me, NCFM President Harry Crouch, well I gave a colorful PowerPoint presentation about male victimization in general which covers a range of topics. I am told I moved around to much to film. Hmm…

NCFM Adviser Julie Brand introduced me to organizer; Debra Warner, Ph.D. Dr. Warner said they were looking for presenters who could think outside the box. That’s us and we hope to be working with Dr. Warner to expand the next SCRIPT conference. We consider this one a historic event and well worth the effort.

A huge thank you goes to Dr. Warner. She took an equally huge chance staging this conference since the topics are generally taboo in women related industries, government and the media.

Special thanks to NCFM members Fred  Sottile and Ray Blumhorst for videoing the sessions. Also to Ray for preparing the videos for the Internet and uploading them to our NCFM television station.

national coalition for menMore conferences about male victims are needed.

Male victims are human too…

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 3
NCFM Member John Erin offers “The Curious Case of Diamond Rings” Sun, 02 Aug 2015 02:36:46 +0000 diamond ringsThe Curious Case of Diamond Rings

Rohin Dhar summarizes it well in his cheeky article, “Diamonds Are Bull__t”, when he opines:

And while we’re on the subject, why is it that women need to be asked and presented with a ring in order to get married? Why can’t they ask and do the presenting?[1]

There is undoubtedly a long history to the subject of diamond engagement rings in the U.S., ‘presentation’ merely being one of many aspects worthy of scrutiny and consideration before any American man throws down cash to buy one of those sparkly suckers (and, yes, when you buy one of those sparkly suckers, you are, in fact, being indoctrinated into ‘suckerhood’). Others have well summarized the litany of facts regarding the diamond engagement ring market (see, e.g., Alex Santoso, “10 Facts About Diamonds You Should Know”; Ira Weissman, “7 Reasons Why Diamonds Are a Waste of Your Money”).[2] Women will frown at you for doing your research and articulating the results: for this is about romance of course.

Of course it is not about romance. It is an antiquated tradition deep in our collective consciousness regarding status and showing off a man’s socio-economic ability to consume on his wife’s hand, or dangling from her ears or wrists, or around her neck. It is about turning your girlfriend into a mannequin, also called in the current parlance: your fiancée. But, you know, she is ‘ok’ with that. Despite all the facts about diamonds (please see the blessedly short articles above), we continue to fall for this charade. More bafflingly, despite the American woman’s “liberation,” she still subscribes to it!

And this goes to heart of American feminism. If American feminists were truly sincere about their progressivism (whatever that word means to them), the first material step they would take is rid the U.S. of the one-sidedness of the diamond engagement ring. Feminists would insist in the least—if men were still going to fork out those big bucks—that women reciprocate in kind: e.g., an expensive watch, or whatever else might appeal to him. But they do not. Instead, we men deal with the current hysteria of a ‘rampant epidemic of date rape on U.S. campuses’ and other statistically questionable social science results turned into equally questionable policy. How about, for a change, two CNN news stories juxtaposed: the first on ‘date rape on U.S. campuses’ and the second regarding the ‘diamond engagement ring industry’? We get plenty of the former. How about a little of the latter? Both are clever fabrications.

I find it sad that American men cannot resist the diamond engagement ring. We jump right into the abyss. It makes me wonder, when I am presented with the constant message these days (repeated ad nauseam) of “woman as victim”, if we are not also just unconsciously, programmatically if you will, jumping right into the abyss of believing all that female victim nonsense. In short, is American feminism in its current iteration as much of a fabrication as diamond engagement rings? Are we men just jumping straight into a spurious concoction, paying and paying and paying for a fabricated debt we never should have incurred (meaning, it was imposed on us) and should stop incurring?

It seems like we should cut up the collective debit card for both diamond engagement rings and feminism. Is the American woman merely a whiny mannequin? She knows buying her a sparkly piece of economically artificially inflated and materially ultimately worthless (unless-it-is-for-industrial-drilling) hunk of carbon is not the best sign that you really love her, right? Seriously, right?

Sigh. No, you’re right. I’ll go get my debit card and tell my future son that a college campus is not a safe place for him. Keep him dumb so he’ll use his debit card in the same way. Round about the cauldron go.

*John Erwin is a former Foreign Service Officer with the U.S. Department of State. He is a consummate fan of the strength, fortitude, and bravery of Mr. Brian Banks.

[1] See:, last accessed July 29, 2015.

[2] See:, last accessed July 29, 2015; and, last accessed July 29, 2015.

national coalition for men

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 0
NCFM Member Naomi Evans asks that you mark your calendar for a Stop Paternity Fraud Rally Sat, 01 Aug 2015 21:31:08 +0000 paternity fraud

NCFM NOTE: Naomi has been coordinating efforts in the State of Washington for over two years, during which time she has built a formidable group fighting for paternity fraud reform legislation. If you can, especially if you live near Olympia, please join her on January 15, 2016 for a rally to kick off the 2016 Washington legislative session. They say the third time is the charm. Let’s help her make that happen. Let’s make the third year of this effort the year of the reform legislation. I plan to attend, so I hope to see you there! We will be running this article several times until then as a reminder. If you can, please use your social media sites to help Naomi promote this rally. Thank you. Harry Crouch, President.


Dear Friends,

Please make a note on your calendar! The official date has been set for..

“Stop Paternity Fraud Rally”

Date: Friday, January 15th, 2016

Time: 12:00 pm – 3:00 pm (Set up starts at 11:00)

Place: Olympia, WA Legislative Capital Building, North side steps/sidewalk

This Rally is to support the passage of  NEW legislation to Stop Paternity Fraud that will be introduced in the 2016 Legislative Session!

Highlights of the bill written by Naomi Evans and Brandon Jones, Titled the “Brandon Jones Act” are:

  • Victims will be allowed to disestablish non-genetic paternity based on “Fraud or Material Mistake of Fact” using DNA evidence and thereby Vacate the order of Paternity and Support back to its beginning, making it null and void.
  • Judges must order requested DNA testing of children based on it being considered in “the best interest of the child” to decide true genetic paternity as soon as possible.
  • Victims will be allowed to petition the court for visitation of the child even after termination of rights if it is in “the best interest of the child” (such as if/when an existing emotional relationship exists between the duped dad and the child)
  • Victims may seek legal recourse/restitution of money paid for support from the Mother and/or Biological Fathers

Please Note: This bill does NOT apply to men who have willingly adopted and/or conceived a child through reproductive medicine with consent/knowledge of producing a child that would not genetically be their own. This is a bill that will restore freedom and justice to men who have wrongly or maliciously been forced into parentage by criminal/deceiving women and/or default judgments of paternity.

Please share this event with everyone you know!

Share the Facebook Event

Volunteers needed for sound and music equipment, public speaking on the issue of Paternity Fraud, and set up/clean up of the sight.

Please donate use of items: Tables, Chairs, Pop up Tents, Hot Coffee and Paper Cup

Don’t forget your signs! “Stop Paternity Fraud”

Help us make 2016 the year to Stop Paternity Fraud in Washington State!

Contact Naomi Evans for more information at  email:

Update: July 28th, 2015

We now have confirmed  “The DJ Guy” will volunteer services of speaker, microphone and music!

Guest speakers:

  • – Representative Matt Shea (R), Spokane Valley will talk about the issue of Paternity Fraud and his support of 2016 legislation to Stop Paternity Fraud!
  • -James Childs, President of “Time to Put Kids First” on the importance of Family Law Reform
  • -CJ Abernathey, Victim of Paternity Fraud will speak about his experience in being the biological father whose child was stolen by a Husband and Wife using the “Presumption of Paternity” law after being the father on record and paying support for two years!
  • -Brandon Jones, Victim of Paternity Fraud and retired Army Veteran, will tell you his incredible story of why he is forced to pay support for a non-genetic child that currently resides with the true biological father!
  • -Naomi Evans, Second Wife Against Paternity Fraud, will be your host and moderator as well as relay the Evans’ personal story and her journey of pursuing Legislative Reform to finally End Paternity Fraud in Washington State.
  • Time to Put Kids First advocates will also be there talking with people about shared parenting and other family law reform issues!
  • This list will be growing to the day of the event so stay tuned for more!

Please visit Surviving Paternity Fraud, a Second Wife’s Story for updates on the “Stop Paternity Fraud Rally”

 national coalition for menPaternity fraud is simply wrong. Please help us stop it and free innocent men from their indentured servitude.

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 0
NCFM Member Karen Straughan explains why MRA’s attack feminism Sun, 26 Jul 2015 21:21:32 +0000

Watch Karen’s other videos here:

national coalition for menJoin us. Become part of the solution rather than part of the problem.


Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 0
NCFM South African Member Jason Dale, “Misandry will probably reach Mars before the first human colony does” Sun, 26 Jul 2015 20:22:00 +0000 misandryIn fact, MISANDRY will probably reach Mars before the first human colony does. It might even set up camp on Pluto too, just for good measure.

However, for this particular episode of “mansplaining” brought to you by yours truly, I’ll keep things grounded on planet Earth. Africa, to be exact. The continent which many archaeologists and historians regard as the cradle of humankind.

I’d like to take you for a quick but sobering sojourn on the space-time continuum to an article that appeared in the Mail & Guardian online in November 2013.

This article was written by a man who appears to have been excavated from the same ideological graveyard as the likes of Adam Serwer and David Futrelle.

Chris Mcevoy doesn’t make any bones about it, gentlemen and ladies. He regards the concept of men’s rights as a “total whinge” championed by mostly “angry straight men”. He discounts the influence of Valerie Solanas and Robin Morgan on grounds of fringe insanity and yet proceeds to straw man the entire men’s rights movement by using Ferdinand Bardamu’s “defense” of domestic violence as a trampoline.

Double standards, anyone?

Mcevoy makes NO attempt to defend his position with facts, logic and reason – much less with compassion for the male half of the human race. Indeed, he obviates the need to even write a full length article with the following coup de grâce:

“Misandry exists. My only question is: Who cares?”.

Well, there we have it. It’s OK TO HATE MEN AND BOYS! Apart from the IRONY of this article being laced with the very same Misandry that Mcevoy attempts to trivialize, I also find it SHOCKING that this sorry excuse for journalism was able to find its way into the pages of a newspaper which “4International Media & Newspapers” currently ranks as the 14th MOST POPULAR NEWSPAPER IN THE WHOLE OF AFRICA (2014) out of a list of over 300 contenders (

If a picture is really worth a thousand words, try and consider the potentially STAGGERING CONSEQUENCES of a full-tusk “smugshot” of Valerie Solanas being the VERY FIRST THING that countless hundreds of thousands of impressionable Africans will see when they click on the link to the above article. Especially considering that the actual words that follow make a mockery of the rights of the very gender class which Solanas SOUGHT TO EXTERMINATE! (S.C.U.M. Manifesto, Valerie Solanas, 1967).

Now then, if there are any among you who believe that Misandry is simply a small “problem child” which only throws its toys out of the cot here and there in some developed Western countries, I can assure you that you are gravely mistaken.

Misandry is a GLOBAL problem which could have INTERSTELLAR consequences if the human race ever manages to take it’s problems with it to outer space…

Jason Dale

Gentle heart, deep mind, warrior spirit – Jason E. Dale (National Coalition for Men)

Dedicated to ending harmful discrimination against boys, men and the women who love them

national coalition for menMisandry on Mars? Maybe that’s where it came from.

Misandry will certainly travel wherever we go. It seems to be an integral part of our demise.

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 1
NCFM Carolinas Action Request regarding the Campus Accountability and Safety Act (CASA) Sun, 26 Jul 2015 00:33:12 +0000 casaAction Requested by NCFM Carolinas – we need your help to stop CASA, another anti-male piece of federal legislation!
Reply-To: National Coalition For Men Carolinas <>

As many of you know, our chapter has been leading the fight against Kafkaesque sex policies aimed directly at harming college male students. At the top of the list is a horrific piece of federal legislation (proposed) called the Campus Accountability and Safety Act or CASA for short. You can read why we strongly oppose this bill here:

While making the rounds on Capitol Hill this past week, we discovered that there will be a hearing on the CASA legislation in front of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) committee this Wednesday morning at 9am EST. The hearing is NOT being broadcast, which is about in itself but even more disturbing is the list of panelists invited to give testimony as provided below:

Panel I: Senator Claire McCaskill; Senator Dean Heller; Senator Kirsten Gillibrand; Senator Kelly Ayotte

Panel II: Janet Napolitano, President, University of California, Oakland, CA; Dana Bolger, Co-Founder, Know Your IX, Washington, D.C.; Dolores Stafford, President & CEO, D. Stafford & Associates, Rehoboth Beach, DE; Mollie Benz Flounlacker, Associate Vice President for Federal Relations, Association of American Universities, Washington, D.C.

Anyone who has followed the debate on the CASA legislation knows that these panelists are not friendly to due process rights for the accused nor do they care or even recognize the destructive harm done to male students falsely accused of sexual misconduct.

HERE’s where your help is needed! We have been told by Congressional staffers that the best way to be heard on this issue is by having people call the members of the Senate HELP committee and ask them to oppose CASA (S.590). It is even more effective if you are calling a member that resides in your home state, as constituents are always given greater attention. Everyone should call Robert Moran at Senator Lamar’s office as Lamar is the Chairman of this committee. The list of HELP staff members to contact is pasted below:


Senate Office St  Phone (202) HELP Staff Member to contact:
Alexander, Lamar TN 224-4944;
Baldwin, Tammy WI 224-5653;
Bennet, Michael CO 224-5852;
Burr, Richard NC 224-3154;
Casey, Robert PA 224-6324;
Cassidy, Bill LA 224-5824
Collins, Susan ME 224-2523;
Enzi, Michael WY 224-3424;
Franken, Al MN 224-5641;
Hatch, Orrin UT 224-5251
Isakson, Johnny GA 224-3643;
Kirk, Mark IL 224-2854;
Mikulski, Barbara MD 224-4654
Murkowski, Lisa AK 224-6665
Murphy, Christopher CT 224-4041
Murray, Patty WA 224-2621
Paul, Rand KY 224-4343;
Roberts, Pat KS 224-4774;
Sanders, Bernie VT 224-5141;
Scott, Tim SC 224-6121;
Warren, Elizabeth MA 224-4543;
Whitehouse, Sheldon RI 224-2921;

PLEASE CALL or EMAIL THESE OFFICES ON TUESDAY (7/28) between 9am EST and 4:30pm EST. Let’s blanket the phone lines with opposition to this legislation. Please ask family and friends to help (especially those living in the states of the members listed above).We strongly suggest that you refer to our brief of 10 Reasons to Oppose CASA from the link above.

Thank you so very much for your support to this action request.


Best regards,

Gregory J. Josefchuk

National Coalition For Men Carolinas (NCFMC)

Tel: (704) 980-4175


national coalition for menCASA may be gender neutral, but it is squarely targeted at young men.

CASA policies and procedures make Orwellian nightmares a Disney attraction.

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 1
NCFM PR Director Steven Svoboda book review, “Men on Strike,” two thumbs up Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:39:46 +0000 menMen on Strike: Why Men are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream—and WHY IT MATTERS.

By Helen Smith, Ph.D. New York: Encounter Books, 2015. 218 pages. $15.99.

As a long-time reviewer of books about men and masculinity, I continue to marvel at the ability of new authors to come along with fresh energy and new things to say. Dr. Helen Smith, a Knoxville, Tennessee psychologist specializing in forensic issues and men’s issues, is no exception in her book Men on Strike. Smith and I would probably not completely agree on all aspects of the gender wars, but who cares—her heart is in the right place and she is full of compassion for all of us. “There truly is a war on men going on in our society, and the average man knows it full well.” It strikes me that Dr. Smith is writing for a newer phase of the men’s movement, with us already having enjoyed at least the limited success of getting our basic message across to “the average man.”

Dr. Smith cannot brook stories such as that of “father Cliff Hall, who paid his outstanding child support for his eleven-year-old son but was sentenced by a female judge to six months in jail anyway.” Much worse, exploitation of our honored service members appears to be endemic. One says, “When I was in the Marine Corps, I was sued by 11 different women for child support…. It’s a huge scam, and no one cares.” Well, thanks to authors such as Dr. Smith, not quite no one.

Astonishingly, as Dr. Smith reports based on her own firsthand experience, the, in her words, “unacceptable… reproductive sexism” still exists whereby a man seeking a vasectomy is required to first state his marital status and then, if married, needs to get his wife’s consent to the procedure.

Dr. Smith notes, “In our society, men carry most of the responsibility with very little privilege.” She concludes, “This disturbing, rigid mindset is why so many men have gone on strike.”

It is nice to read a book by an author who grasps the big picture. “It is not only in family relationships that men are screwed, but also in many areas of modern society. Men are portrayed as the bad guys, ready to rape, pillage, beat or abuse women at the drop of a hat. From rape laws that protect women but not the men they may accuse falsely to the lack of due process in sexual harassment cases on college campuses to airlines that will not allow men (possible perverts!) to sit next to a child, our society is at war with men and men know it full well.”

She has a way with throwaway truths, noting, “the real reason many rational men do not marry is that the incentives have changed and growing up is no longer a reward but a punishment for men—so why do it?” She talks to men and what’s better, she listens to their answers, whether they fit her preconceptions or not.

Dr. Smith recounts one horrific tale about a fifteen-year-old boy astonishingly forced to pay child support to a 34-year-old woman who committed statutory rape each of the five times she had sex with him five times. When she wrote an article asking if a man could be raped by a woman, “Many of the commenters felt that men were asking for it, should keep their legs crossed, or should have known better than to allow a woman to harm them. This sounds like what women used to be told about rape fifty or more years ago. Are men now being treated like the women of yesteryear?”

Dr. Smith makes an excellent point I’m not sure had even occurred to me, that the very fact that such miscarriages of justice as jailing parents without a trial for failing to pay child support can occur is because the jailed “parent” is almost always male. “[O]ne of the reasons that this type of atrocity is allowed to happen is that it is men who are thrown in jail.”

On another topic, Dr. Smith explores why boys having more trouble than girls in school. Why, she asks, are university enrollments approaching sixty percent female? “Boys are now seen as ‘defective girls’ in need of a major overhaul.” Moreover, Title IX bars schools from using one of their most natural methods to lure men.

Men’s sexuality and freedom are being controlled, she shows us, with the astonishing myth that only men can consent to drunken sex. “Isn’t that sexist toward women?” she asks. Of course it is.

Sadly, men are now shying away from saving children even from life-endangering situations for fear of being labeled a pervert. And the fear is reasonable, as 28-year-old Fitzroy Barnaby can testify. Barnaby now has on his record “unlawful restraint of a minor,” a sexual offense in Illinois, for the time he jumped out of his car and grabbed a girl’s arm to lecture her on how not to be killed after she had stepped directly in front of his car. Also, with the old incentives changing, men seem to be heading for the rowboats when a ship goes down, rather than chivalrously first saving the women and children. “If we continue to teach men and boys that it is ‘every man for himself’ by stereotyping, isolating and penalizing them for the crime of being born male in the twenty-first century, they will be reluctant to help or interact with women or others who may possibly endanger them.”

I appreciate perhaps most of all Dr. Smith’s intuitive understanding of men’s vulnerable position nowadays. “When a partner isolates their spouse from friends, associates, and public places, it’s called domestic abuse. When it’s done to an entire gender, it’s called feminism.”

Dr. Smith ends her book with several tips, some of them easier said than done. “Stop letting women run the agenda by controlling the dialogue on sex, gender, relationships and reproduction.” “Fight for better treatment of men in marriage and relationships.” “Fight for better laws, including those on paternity and forced fatherhood.” “Fight back in education.” Sill, the author provides some helpful specifics and suggestions going along with each of her tips. Regarding education, she relates the sad story of Caleb Warner, a University of North Dakota student who was suspended for three years after a false report about an alleged assault. Even when the falseness of the report was proved by the police, the university refused for quite some time to reconsider the case and only did so after a Wall Street Journal expose forced them to do so.

Further tips include: “Fight back against negative portrayals of men in the media and culture.” Don’t turn on your fellow man by laughing at him based on societal prejudices, she advises us. Don’t be part of the problem. “Reclaim male space.”

Tips for women: stop complaining even though doing so is culturally reinforced, do not complain about your partner to others, and listen without judgment to what your “guy” has to say.

The book concludes with a somewhat lackluster ending that tapers off as the author seemingly tires. Nevertheless, this fine work is one of the most compelling reads I have come across lately and richly deserves your attention and support. Highly recommended.

 national coalition for menMen on Strike: Why Men are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream—and WHY IT MATTERS. By Helen

 …because MEN MATTER!

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 0
NCFM Chicago Chapter President Tim Goldich, Mirror Opposites, Men and Women Wed, 22 Jul 2015 21:53:32 +0000 Feminism is the MalePower/FemaleVictimization half of gender reality presented as if it were gender reality in its entirety. This feminist—men have the power and women are the victims—belief system is one-sided, which is why it is false, which is why it is poisonous.

mennational coalition for men

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 1
NCFM will have several speakers at the SCRIPT 2015 STOP THE STIGMA conference in Los Angeles Sun, 05 Jul 2015 03:46:53 +0000 male victimsThis is the first conference of which we are aware given over to male victims and survivors of abuse.

NCFM Adviser Julie Brand forwarded me the information and introduced me to the event organizer, Debra Warner, Ph.D. Dr. Warner said they were looking for presenters who could think outside the box and bring new information to the conversation. I suggested several people all of whom accepted, as follows:

  1. NCFM Adviser Michael Conzachi, retired homicide investigator, Army Veteran, and Board Member International Support Network for Alienated Families (ISNAF). Michael will be talking about parental alienation and/or discrimination against men in the military about sexual assault and domestic violence.
  2. NCFM Vice-President Marc Angelucci, Esq. Marc is a distinguished attorney who successfully won NCFM landmark cases against domestic violence shelters for discrimination against men and a paternity fraud case. He is the attorney in our pending case against the Selective Service System. Marc will be talking about domestic violence and the law.
  3. Men’s Health Network Stanley Green, Director Intimate Partner Violence Prevention. Stanley will be talking about male victims of intimate partner violence.
  4. NCFM President of our NCFM-Carolinas Chapter will be talking about false allegations and current punitive anti-male efforts on college campuses.
  5. Martin Fiebert, Ph.D, California State University Long Beach, has for years maintained the largest bibliography on the planet about scientifically bases male victims of domestic violence research, which he will be talking about as well as the findings.
  6. Myself, NCFM President Harry Crouch. I will be talking about male victimization in general which covers a range of topics. I suspect anyone who attends this presentation will have never thought about some of the material presented. Some may walk out.

The conference is limited to 350 participants. If you would like to come you need to RSVP by 7/10 at SCRIPT @ .

national coalition for men

More conferences about male victims are needed.

Male victims are human too.



Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 1
NCFM update in the case of U.S. Army Major Kit Martin, an abused man Wed, 01 Jul 2015 19:53:50 +0000 sexual assaultLatest Developments in the U.S. Army Major Kit Martin Sexual Assault Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

schlack facebook post

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

national coalition for men

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

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


Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

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

Especially those in the military.

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

UCMJ Rules to Live By

By Major Fubar,

Rules to remember:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Major Fubar

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

Illegitimi non carborundum


Think about it…

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

national coalition for menOur military is under legislative attack.

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

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

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 1
NCFM Georgian Liaison Carl Augustsson, update, men’s rights movement and conscription Fri, 26 Jun 2015 22:46:45 +0000 conscription

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carl Augustsson

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

national coalition for men

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

Share and Enjoy:DiggStumbleUponFacebookYahoo! BuzzGoogle BuzzLinkedInOrkutTwitter

]]> 3