Call Email Join Donate
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

NCFM, The truth behind the Unruh Civil Rights Act lawsuit against Chic CEO and attacks against NCFM Secretary Al Rava

August 29, 2015


UNRUH ActUPDATE (9/2/2015) Yahoo news published their article this morning. You can read it here: These men’s rights activists are using a 1950s law to shut down women in tech. It had over 1,440 comments at last look (1:00 p.m. 9/3/2015 with the vast amount comments in our favor, thank you), many if not most favorable to our position. Please join the discussion and leave us a comment below before you head to the Yahoo news story. It always amazes me how objective reporters don’t know what the word means. Regardless, articles such as this one helps others understand that elitist feminists have no problem waiving the victim flag, even when they are the ones violating the law. Amazing. Aside from which, even the title of the article is a broad sweeping generalization, albeit a bold lie. No one we know of is trying to “shut down” anything, not even businesses discriminating against a sex (gender) in violation of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. We just want the discrimination to stop. We stand firm in our belief that such discrimination is not only wrong and illegal, it is extremely bad business practice as shown in the article below.

By 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.

2.  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 guest list. The men were clearly invited (see the next email below from Ms. Burns).

The 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.

3.  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.

4.  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.

5.  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.

6.  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.

7.  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).

8.  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).

9.  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).

2.  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.”


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 MenThe 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.

21 Responses to NCFM, The truth behind the Unruh Civil Rights Act lawsuit against Chic CEO and attacks against NCFM Secretary Al Rava

Tim Goldich on September 4, 2015 at 7:00 PM

I’m proud to be a part of the National Coalition for Men. NCFM never fails to keep its eyes on the prize: eqaulity for all!


  1. Conzachi on September 3, 2015 at 5:14 PM

Thank you Harry for posting this. This is very simple and is once again another in a long list of hypocritical analysis’s when it comes to discrimination against men. According to Ms. Burns, discrimination is not to be tolerated and must be punished, u n l e s s, of course she does it. Al Rava has done more for the equality of all than Burns can possibly imagine, and in reality, she should thank him and offer an apology.


Steven DeLuca on September 3, 2015 at 4:11 PM

“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.’” Burns should get a copy of “Why Men Earn More” and do some serious studying of both Child Abuse and Domestic Violence. The idea that mean get paid more, rather than earn more, is a concepts my daughter understood at age 16 standing up to a college professor that claimed “Men get paid more” … When she said “Men Earn More” She could tell that he couldn’t even see the difference. She told him that the statistics feminist make about pay differences are false but what is true is that all most all deaths on the job are male deaths and all most all early deaths in retirement are due to toxic and stressful working conditions over decades. My daughter has a feminist mom – a very well-educated professional and an anti feminist dad, a disabled vet. She doesn’t love one of us more than the other but she read what her mom shared with her while her mom pointed out that many of her women friends are feminists (Join the sisterhood you stupid girl?) and she read what I share including “Why Men Earn More” She’s a bright girls, doesn’t hate men or women, but thinks some of the feminist women hate men. With two points of view and information give to her she could easily see that all through history men and women have had benefits and a price to pay because of gender. Burn needs to “catch up”.


lin on September 3, 2015 at 2:47 PM

When, if ever, is it legal to restrict something to one sex? For example, gyms, athletic competitions, health care, religious events? Are there different rules for minors?


Doug Lefelhocz on September 3, 2015 at 7:28 AM

Men are a minority. Thus, these lawsuits actually should happen. By protecting men they protect a minority. Furthermore, such events can discriminate against trans-men. That is females who identify as men. Trans-men are very much a minority, and thus further get protected by the Unruh Act. Thus, these lawsuits by the members of N. C. F. M. should happen. And we need to have MORE such laws throughout the United States and throughout the world.

Good job N. C. F. M.!


athveg34f on September 3, 2015 at 10:40 AM

Men are most certainly NOT a minority, anywhere. There are 60 million more men than women in the world – the highest gap in history. Here’s how that happened:


NCFM on September 3, 2015 at 1:00 PM

Women are a majority in the United States of America. They were just under 51% (50.8%) of the population in 2013. Women were estimated to be just over 50% (5.3%) in California. Which means there are several million more women than men in the United States of America; and, tens of thousands more women than men in California. To our knowledge, the laws that apply here have no jurisdiction outside of the United States of America. Whether there are 60 million more men in the world than there are women has absolutely no bearing on this discussion. However, it’s interesting and may go to show that women in the United States of America are far better off, if not catered too, than women elsewhere. Not just treated better or catered to by and for themselves, but treated better and catered to by American males, who have died by the hundreds of thousands over the years protecting women and children, including women and children around the world.


  1. These Men’s Rights Activists Are Using a 1950s Law to Shut Down Women in Techon September 3, 2015 at 4:25 AM

[…] a recent post to the NCFM website, Crouch described the online petition as “another irrational, […]


Andrew Higgins on September 2, 2015 at 5:22 PM

As a man I have been discriminated against countless times, to title 9 working for women but I try it I get laughed at. They want a one way street complain about it but as soon as a man does what he wants to try out for celebrating, to dance, to swim doesn’t get the chance. To being segregated to one area of your company as females are trained on all areas and you are over looked. I’m located in Connecticut and would like to talk to you.
Andrew Higgins


teriincali on September 2, 2015 at 5:03 PM

I hate liars. Go NCFM!


Feminist_Nullificationist on September 2, 2015 at 3:23 PM

“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.’”

“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.””

The above statements are flat out dishonesty. Any gap in pay between men and women is due to “choices” women make in their job selections, NOT DISCRIMINATION as Warren Farrell abundantly documented in his book, “Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap – and What Women Can Do About It.” I’ll tell you what you can do about it ladies, PRODUCE THE SAME RESULTS IN THE WORKFORCE AS A MAN! :-/


Tom on September 2, 2015 at 1:55 PM

Discrimination against any group is never good.


Sue Nami on August 31, 2015 at 8:30 PM

This Stephanie Burns is a piece of work. Her company Chic CEO, which advised women on how to start a business, was such a failure it couldn’t even afford to reimburse its attorney a $60 court filing fee the attorney advanced Chic. In fact, because Chic stiffed its attorney, who was working pro bono for Chic, Chic’s attorney filed a motion with the court asking the court for permission to quit as Chic’s attorney. And just think that Chic is advising women on how to start and run a successful business. You can’t make up this stuff. Priceless.


Fred Sottile on August 31, 2015 at 6:01 PM

From the Ridiculous to the Sublime
There are interesting subtle confessions of anti-male bigotry in the machinations of Stephanie Burns. I see the same thing very frequently in the meetings of the Los Angeles County Counsel on Domestic Violence (the DVC). If I expose this bigotry as it happens, I will be deemed disruptive, and security will be called to remove me. I know this is true, because I witnessed it happen repeatedly to a man who tried.
3. 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” (emphasis added) place to network.

“Safe and Comfortable,” let’s talk about it. Safe from what? Comfortable in what way?
6. 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.”
You see, there is no “pay gap.” If there were, attorneys would sue the Unruh offending perpetrators, and win the suit so fast it would make your head spin. They might not even have to go to court. They could probably just phone it in. The cultural revulsion of pay discrimination is that strong. Furthermore, if there were such a thing, it would be on the front page of every newspaper in the country because a true gender pay gap case is the “Holy Grail” of “Radical Feminist” (FemiNazi) baloney. There is no pay gap. It is a lie.
BUT, people such as Stephanie Burns love to wallow in FemiNazi lies. SO, she needs to be “safe” from people such as I, who would expose her. Just imagine how rude I would be to challenge her honesty in her woman exclusive fest. Just imagine how “uncomfortable” she would be, knowing that there was person in her midst who would not allow a lie, that would go unchallenged by women who just let “stuff like that” slide.
Yes Burns, we know what you need to be safe from, and what you’re uncomfortable with. You’re reprehensible. Why, because you’re an institutional bigot, and not even an honest one.
By the way, most women feel safer when men are around. Traditionally, men are the protectors of women. Typically, security is provided by men. In fact, I believe that if anyone really did threaten you at the event, you, yes you, would be quick to call a man or men to deal with it. Did you have “all women” security?
You didn’t feel unsafe or uncomfortable with men, you felt unsafe and uncomfortable with truth and exposure that men might bring, truth and exposure that you cannot afford.
Women too, in general, know this truth full well, but have no cultural compulsion to make an issue of it, and politely accept that they are in an environment designed to allow it.
The truth being, that you, yes you Stephanie Burns, have made an embarrassing exposure of your misandry.


ncfm.norcal.editor on August 31, 2015 at 12:31 PM

Discrimination by gender is wrong, no matter how cute it looks after you dress it up in excuses.


NCFM on August 31, 2015 at 12:04 PM

Discrimination based on sex or gender is wrong. End of debate.


gcostanza2014 on August 31, 2015 at 6:10 AM

Harry, great work. I just left this comment on Burns’ Youtube video:

It’s not discrimination if YOU THINK IT”S OK, and if SOME OF YOUR BEST FRIENDS ARE MEN. Men aren’t safe? Are all men violent? Prejudice much? Are black men allowed? News flash – YOU DON’T GET TO DECIDE WHO IS WORTHY OF EQUAL TREATMENT AND WHO ISN’T!


Feminist_Nullificationist on August 30, 2015 at 4:14 PM

I am a Vietnam veteran and I praise Mr. Rava’s efforts to stop discrimination through use of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

A few weeks after my 20th birthday, I found myself serving in the combat zone, and like many other men who had been drafted, I didn’t even have the right to vote in my own nation (U.S.A.). This kind of discrimination was overwhelmingly against men.

California had more men killed in Vietnam than any other state – over 4,000. Of that 4,000+ men, approximately 42 percent died without ever having the right to vote. That percent appears to be similar for the more than 58,000 men who died in Vietnam. All 8 of the women whose names are on the Vietnam War Memorial in D.C. died after their 21st birthday.

American men are still the disposable sex, who populate a majority of the dangerous and dirty jobs that lie beneath “the glass floor” as occupational death and disability statistics clearly show.

Thank you Mr. Rava and NCFM for helping men to break through the workplace oppression and wider discrimination that society, and “women only events” work so hard to foster and perpetuate.


Marc on August 30, 2015 at 3:53 PM

Female corporate executives now outearn men.

The “pay gap” is a politically correct myth that has been debunked over and over.


Steve DeLuca on August 30, 2015 at 2:13 PM

When I worked with seniors in Boulder CO a group called Zonta, for women, wanted to use our building, a city Building, to have a workshop for senior women on living alone, money issues, survivor or single women items. They were allowing the female employees to attend from different departments while the men picked up the slack. This was decades ago. I said that senior men often needed the same help with finances when getting old, and to be supported by the community and because it was in a city building with male and female taxes supporting it, I would not only complain, I would talk to an attorney. I was told that they contributed $500 a year to our program, I said I didn’t care. I was second in command and the woman running it, a beauty queen, just didn’t understand why I was not being supportive of women. I said that it’s unlikely any senior men would attend but … they should be invited, my jog was threatened… I said my attorney could look into that as well… men were invited and I was knows as a really good guy, kind to old men and women, helpful, a good worker, but I must hate women to not realize that men have screwed women over forever and that such events are just catching up. SD


NCFM on September 10, 2015 at 6:04 PM


We don’t hate women. The mere thought is crazy. Look at our list of Advisers and you’ll see women. Our national Treasurer is named Deborah and she was once the President of a chapter of NOW. We have many members who are women. Members who love their sons, husbands, nephews and so on. Women who are concerned about equitable and fair treatment regardless of ones sex or gender. We actively recruit for female members. You too are invited to become a member if you so choose. You can become part of the solution too!



Tags: , , , , , , , ,

One Response to NCFM, The truth behind the Unruh Civil Rights Act lawsuit against Chic CEO and attacks against NCFM Secretary Al Rava

  1. […] engineering disciplines,” Harry Crouch, the NCFM’s president, writes on the group’s website. (Census data says the opposite: As of 2013, median earnings for men in computer, science, and […]

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.