Topic suggested by NCFM Member AR:
NCFM Why America Needs a Commission on the Status of Boys and Men and another Lawsuit Strategy
For more than half a century, governments at every level have built commissions, offices, and task forces dedicated to women and girls. Yet they have never created a comparable institution for boys and men. This imbalance is not symbolic; it produces real consequences. Without a dedicated mechanism to study male‑specific challenges, the nation cannot gather the data, conduct the analysis, or coordinate the policy response required to address the serious and worsening problems affecting boys and men. As evidence continues to mount, the need for a Commission on the Status of Boys and Men becomes impossible to ignore.
Boys and men face a constellation of measurable difficulties that cut across education, health, family stability, victimization, and economic participation. They fall behind academically at every stage of schooling, die by suicide at far higher rates, and dominate the statistics for homelessness and incarceration. They suffer the overwhelming majority of workplace fatalities and severe occupational injuries. They experience profound levels of substance abuse and deaths of despair. Many endure domestic and sexual victimization that often goes unrecognized or unaddressed. Fathers frequently encounter barriers that separate them from their children, and men as a whole struggle with poorer health outcomes and increasing social isolation. These problems are not speculative; they are documented realities. Yet no federal institution examines them collectively, leaving policymakers to operate without a clear picture of the challenges boys and men face and ensuring that the nation continues to respond with fragmented or nonexistent interventions.
Congress itself has already acknowledged that male‑specific social problems can justify a federal commission. In 2020, it created the Commission on the Social Status of Black Men and Boys, establishing a national body tasked with studying the unique challenges facing that demographic. This precedent matters. It demonstrates that Congress accepts the legitimacy of male‑focused commissions, that such a commission is administratively feasible, and that the concept is not unprecedented or outside the federal government’s institutional vocabulary. Given this, a natural question emerges: if Congress recognizes the need to study one subset of boys and men, why does the nation refuse to study boys and men as a whole?
Although the policy case is strong, the legal path requires precision. A lawsuit cannot simply argue that men are suffering and therefore a judge must create a commission. Courts do not legislate. They require a specific legal duty, a concrete injury, and a remedy tied directly to that injury. To meet that standard, the argument must shift from broad societal concern to a clear institutional failure. The stronger claim asserts that the federal government possesses substantial evidence of serious harms affecting boys and men yet lacks any adequate mechanism to study or address those harms—and that this institutional failure perpetuates identifiable harm. This reframing moves the issue from ideology to enforceable governmental responsibility.
One of the most powerful legal pathways involves the government’s failure to collect essential data. The Supreme Court has ruled that when federal law requires the government to collect or disclose information, failure to do so can constitute a concrete injury. If a plaintiff can demonstrate that federal law requires certain demographic or programmatic data, that the government has failed to collect or report that data, and that this failure prevents the plaintiff from exercising a legal right, then the case becomes significantly stronger. Many federal programs already require sex‑disaggregated reporting, equal access evaluation, or demographic analysis. If males are systematically omitted, that omission may be actionable.
Because courts cannot legislate, the remedy must be crafted carefully. Instead of asking a judge to create a Men’s Commission outright, the lawsuit should request a declaration that the federal government’s failure to provide an adequate institutional mechanism for studying and addressing serious problems affecting boys and men is unlawful, and an order requiring the establishment of an appropriate body—such as a commission, task force, or equivalent mechanism—to fulfill that duty. This approach ties the remedy directly to the injury, avoids asking courts to overstep their constitutional role, mirrors existing federal models, and grounds the request in evidence rather than ideology.
A Commission on the Status of Boys and Men must operate as a national fact‑finding institution rather than a political instrument. Its mandate should include collecting sex‑disaggregated federal data, identifying areas where males experience disproportionate adverse outcomes, examining causes rather than assuming them, evaluating whether existing programs unintentionally exclude or disadvantage males, hearing testimony from researchers and affected individuals, producing annual reports, and recommending evidence‑based interventions. The commission’s purpose is not to prove that men “have it worse,” but to finally measure what the nation has never systematically measured.
Building the strongest possible case requires a structured strategy. First, the factual record must be established by documenting the full range of measurable male‑specific problems. Next, the federal landscape must be mapped to identify every commission, office, and program dedicated to women and girls—and the absence of any parallel for boys and men. Then, the legal duty must be identified by locating statutes requiring data collection, reporting, equal access, or demographic evaluation. After that, plaintiffs with concrete, personal injuries tied to missing data or inadequate institutional response must be identified. Once standing is secured, the remedy can be constructed to show that a commission or equivalent body is the appropriate equitable solution. Only then should the complaint be drafted, using a precise, evidence‑driven legal argument grounded in constitutional and statutory obligations.
America does not lack evidence that boys and men face serious challenges. America lacks a federal institution dedicated to understanding those challenges. This absence is not a minor oversight—it is a structural failure with real human consequences. Establishing a Commission on the Status of Boys and Men is not symbolic. It is a necessary step toward evidence‑based policymaking, equal protection, and a government that measures what matters. NCFM will continue to push for this long‑overdue national institution. The data exists. The harm is real. The precedent is established. The need is undeniable.
We continue to seek civil rights attorneys willing to help us right various wrongs, including establishing Commissions on the Status of Boys and Men on a state or national level. If interested please contact Harry Crouch, at president @ ncfm.org.
Not only America, every country need a commission for boys and men badly.
Mens issues arent given any support.
NCFM, have you wrote to the permanent representative of USA in UN to sponsor for vote the New York declaration for Men and Boys?
Its really urgent.
As for the past 2 years, I dont even know how many MRA from how many countries wrote to their country representative.
Also, does NCFM have a New York chapter?
Then it would be easy to garner sympathy or do lobby physically at UN.
Yes, we have written the UN and got no response. We did not expect one either. The UN is one of the problems and has been taken over by those who believe men are wrong and women are right. Or men are the problem and women are the solution. Take your pick but the UN has done nothing to help men and its efforts are clearly toward helping women only… Please prove us wrong.