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

NCFM Member Jim Jackson on, “Male Control Theory”

September 5, 2015

NCFM NOTE: This came in from one of our members just before receiving this article:

“’It is amazing to see in our city, the wife of a shoemaker, or butcher or a porter dressed in silk with chains of gold at the throat, with pearls and a ring of good value…and then in contrast see her husband cutting meat, or burdened like an ass, all smeared in cows blood, poorly dressed, clothed with the stuff of what sacks are made… but whoever considers this carefully will find it reasonable, because it is necessary that the lady, even if low-born and humble, be draped with such clothes for her natural excellence and dignity, and that the man [be] less adorned as if a slave, or a little ass, born to her service.”– Lucrezia Marinella of Venice Italy, 1600, The Nobility and Excellence of Women Together With the Defects and Deficiencies of Men.’

John Gordon (The  Myth of the Monstrous Male)  wrote that there were dozens of books and hundreds (thousands) of tracts putting men down in the 1800’s.” And so goes, Male Control Theory

Male Control Theory

By James Jackson

Feminist scholarship leaves a lot to be desired. Feminists often provide statistics that cannot be sourced [1], perform highly biased studies with major flaws [2], and shame men into giving in to feminist demands even after their prevarications have been exposed. [3]

Male Control Theory is a feminist theory that contends that the male patriarchy motivates men to try to control women, and to use violence if necessary. This theory appears to be the basis of many feminist legal and ideological arguments. For example, it is the feminist basis of men’s domestic violence against women, and states that most female-on-male violence is defensive in nature. This theory has been used to institute policies that blame and punish men for domestic violence.

Evidence has been mounting that this theory is pure crap. A study led by Elizabeth Bates [4] provides such evidence. This study found that women are more likely to be physically and verbally aggressive against their partners than men are, and that women are more likely to seek control over their partners. The study also found that defensive violence was more likely to be used by men than women. Chivalry tends to reduce mens’ tendency to be violent against women, while it simultaneously contributes to increasing women’s violence against men, since women understand that men are reluctant to hit back. This study found that the basis of domestic violence is not mens’ need to control, but a violent personality, which can be found equally well in men and women. The study noted that earlier studies promoting Male Control Theory in domestic violence suffered from selection bias, since many only studied women in women’s shelters. There are many other studies confirming Bates’ results against Male Control Theory. [5] Once again, we have faulty science performed by feminists and then used for decades by feminists to promote counterproductive and male-oppressive policies. There are many feminist campaigns of hate against men.

Another feminist campaign of hate is the use of Title IX to punish men for sexual assault on college campuses. Title IX says colleges cannot discriminate or deprive anyone of equal access to an education due to his or her gender. Feminists have stretched the reach of Title IX an enormous amount to include sexual assault.

First of all, why is Title IX only used to benefit women? We all know how it has been used to promote women’s sports programs, often to the detriment of men’s sports programs. Here are other uses of Title IX: “It addresses discrimination against pregnant and parenting students and women in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) programs. It also addresses sexual harassment, gender-based discrimination, and sexual violence. Sexual violence includes attempted or completed rape or sexual assault, as well as sexual harassment, stalking, voyeurism, exhibitionism, verbal or physical sexuality-based threats or abuse, and intimate partner violence.” [6] It can even be used for protecting those who have experienced “hostility based on sex or sex-stereotyping” [7] or “faced retaliation for speaking out about sexual assault issues.” [8] It seems feminists are using Title IX for every slight ever experienced by women. Even though sexual assault complaints make up only one percent of Title IX complaints, they make up eleven percent of compliance reviews of colleges. [9] Why does Title IX, a law designed to stop gender discrimination, focus so much on sexual assault and seem to discriminate against men?

Feminists claim that the justification for using Title IX to protect women from sexual assault is that the vast majority of sexual assaults are of women. There is evidence that this is not true, [10] but even if it is, why are men’s issues ignored by Title IX enforcers? I can think of many examples that discriminate against college men and deprive them of equal access to an education because of their gender. For example, suicide is the second-leading cause of death of college students, and 83% of college-aged suicide victims are men. [11] Yet, there are no massive Title IX programs to prevent male suicides in college. I bet many feminists will disagree, but male suicide deaths are far worse than sexual assaults of women. For another example, The Bates study, mentioned above, found that men are likely to be violent against other men, while refraining from violence against women. Why isn’t this considered a Title IX violation? There are no Title IX programs designed to prevent violence between men, aid assaulted men, or expel men who attack other men. Hate spewed against men by women’s studies courses, integration of male-hating feminist ideology into all coursework, being falsely accused of sexual assault, lack of due process for men accused of sexual assault, oppressive speech codes, sexist microaggressions seen in everything, [12] and professors’ constant fear of offending women [13] are several more examples of colleges discriminating against men and denying them equal access to an education due to their gender. Yet Title IX is rarely used to protect men.

“A Hostile Environment For Student Defendants: Title IX and Sexual Assault on College Campuses” by Stephen Henrick [14] is an excellent article detailing just how biased current Title IX policies concerning sexual assault are against men. According to the article, colleges are encouraged to expel men accused of sexual assault for financial, legal, reputational, ideological, and professional reasons. He gives many examples. The OCR has threatened to take away a school’s federal funding if sexual assault charges are not administered by OCR’s standards. Colleges risk high monetary settlements if sued by assaulted women (e.g. $2.85 million) while they risk little if sued by falsely accused men. (A man unjustly convicted of rape was awarded $26,500.) Colleges are not required to have rules of evidence. The standard of proof was lowered to the “preponderance of evidence” standard. [15] Men are subject to double jeopardy since schools are encouraged to re-examine any acquitted students. [16] Accused men may be forced to testify in college administrative hearings, and this testimony may be used against them in future criminal cases in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Colleges are required to inform complainants, but not the accused, of their legal rights. Since the 2011, “Dear Colleague” policy letter did not use notice-and-comment rulemaking, the policies may have no legal standing. Because colleges need positive reputations to attract students and alumni donations, colleges avoid any negative publicity associated with not handling sexual assault cases harshly. In an apparent attempt to exaggerate the problem of sexual assault, the director of Campus Violence Prevention Program at Cal-Davis enlarged the actual number of rapes at the school reported to federal officials. [17] A Stanford manual for jurors of sexual assault cases indicates that a man being persuasive and logical are signs of his guilt. College administrators are much more likely to keep their jobs if they falsely accuse a man, than if they refuse to handle a woman’s complaint. Even after police charged a complainant with filing a false accusation of rape, the University of North Dakota refused for over a year to reverse the conviction of the student falsely accused. These examples and others show that the current use of Title IX in sexual assault cases is discrimination against men. Just as colleges have no business litigating murder, arson or other felonies, they should leave sexual assaults to the criminal justice system.

Of course, the real justification behind using Title IX for sexual assault is the Male Control Theory. Feminists just cannot get away from the theory of the evil patriarchy encouraging men to assault women in order to keep them under control and in their place. In order to keep the Male Control Theory fresh and stylish, it appears it has received the new name of “rape culture.” This is their explanation as to why male college students sexually assault college women. Once again, this theory is totally bogus. If anything, the opposite is true—women use physical and verbal abuse, hostility, shame, and sex-stereotyping to try to control men.

Feminist hypocrisy concerning prostitution is another example of the use of the disproven Male Control Theory. Amnesty International recently proposed de-criminalizing consensual prostitution—for prostitutes, johns, and pimps. (AI still encourages prosecution of sex trafficking.) But the normally feminist Amnesty International has really upset feminists, who argue that prostitutes (i.e., women) should receive aid and help in order for them to leave the profession imposed upon them by the evil patriarchy. And those evil johns and pimps (i.e., men) trying to control women should be thrown in jail forever. This feminist approach to prostitution is known as the Swedish Model and is quite hypocritical and is discrimination against men. Again, its basis appears to be the Male Control Theory. Oddly, instead of men controlling women through prostitution, evidence shows that women are trying to control men by reducing prostitution, and thereby increasing the power women derive from keeping sex in short supply. [18]

We must keep up with advances in research and repeal and replace any policies and laws which are based on the refuted Male Control Theory. This includes domestic violence, Title IX policies concerning sexual assault, and prostitution. We may also want to consider exploring policies concerning sexual harassment, rape, dating violence, the pay gap, child support and custody, attention-getting sex slavery versus male forced labor, attention-getting genital mutilation versus circumcision, reproductive rights, and other Title IX issues—-it seems much of feminist jurisprudence depends on the false Male Control Theory. We must adjust our thinking, our policies, and our laws that are based on this illegitimate theory, or any other feminist lie or bad science. This may be difficult since many chivalrous men seem intent on giving feminists whatever they demand, no matter how outrageous—at the current rate, Andrea Dworkin’s implication that all heterosexual sex should be considered rape of women by men, will soon become the law. [19]

One final thought: A favorite tactic of feminists and women in getting what they want, is to shame men. Psychiatrist and author James Gilligan has said that “All violence is an attempt to replace shame with self-esteem.” [20] Perhaps feminists are increasing the violence in the world.


[1] For example, over 50% of boys say rape is acceptable if they are aroused, domestic violence increases during the Super Bowl, and eating disorders kill 150,000 women a year in the U.S.

[2] Murray Straus, Richard Gelles, Daphne Patai, and Eugen Lupri have documented many examples.

[3] Consider that many states are passing affirmative consent laws even after the triggering Rolling Stone article “A Rape on Campus,” was shown to be false.


[5] ibid., Bates gives many examples in the study’s introduction.




[9] The article linked here describes a speech given by the head of Office of Civil Rights (OCR) of the Department of Education, Catherine Lhamon, to college administrators on stopping sexual assault in schools. She joked that if the administrators did not help her in this, then “I will do it to you.”

[10] If women sexually assault men about as often as men sexually assault women, than the whole justification for using Title IX to fight sexual assault is invalid.





[15] For a detailed explanation of the problems with this standard, see

[16] For an example of this see During the initial adjudication of Corey Mock, the charges were dismissed. The Chancellor of the school then intervened, the charges were reconsidered, and Mock was found guilty and expelled even though no new facts were discovered.

[17] Henrick linked to an article at which showed the director nearly tripled the actual number of forced sexual offenses in her report to federal officials. In applying for a federal grant, she also estimated the number of rapes or attempted rapes at Davis for one year to be 700. The actual number was zero

[18] Cultural Suppression of Female Sexuality by Roy Baumeister and Jean Twenge

[19] Dworkin denied ever saying that all heterosexual intercourse is rape, but her constant references to heterosexual relations as being violent, invasive, dominating, penetrating, occupation, etc., certainly implied it.


national coalition for men

Male Control Theory, not.

Male Control Theory, not.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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.