
By the National Coalition For Men (NCFM)
This article responds to NCFM Member Sean Kullman’s piece Does the Democratic Party Demonize Males and Masculinity”.
NCFM has never endorsed and does not endorse any political party.
Because Kullman focused on Democrat behavior, we offer this companion article to balance the discussion by examining how Republican policies and rhetoric also harm men and boys. We use the term feminaphobia, which Michael Gurian apparently coined in Boys, A Rescue Plan and Kullman referenced, to describe the political reluctance to hold women equally accountable under law, policy, and civic duty.
Republicans often present themselves as defenders of family values, personal responsibility, and equal justice. Yet their legislative actions frequently protect women from obligations while placing those same obligations on men. This pattern creates real harm for men, boys, fathers, and families.
Decades of Failure: No Commission on the Status of Boys and Men
For more than fifty years, both political parties have funded and expanded Commissions on the Status of Women at the federal and state levels. These commissions receive millions of dollars, hold permanent institutional power, and influence policy and public messaging,
During the same period, neither party created a federal Commission on the Status of Boys and Men. Only a few states have even considered the idea. As a result, boys’ declining academic performance, men’s worsening health, rising male suicide rates, fatherlessness, and male homelessness remain unaddressed at the structural level.
NCFM has worked for years to change this. We have funded national efforts to establish such commissions, supported state‑level initiatives, taken legal action, and urged lawmakers—including Republicans—to acknowledge the crises facing boys and men. Yet both parties continue to refuse to create a permanent, well‑funded body dedicated to these issues.
This absence has devastating consequences. Without institutional advocacy, male issues remain invisible. Boys fall behind in literacy. Men’s mental‑health problems worsen. Fathers lose access to their children. Male victims of violence and sexual abuse go uncounted. Policy remains gender‑skewed because the institutions shaping policy have been gender‑skewed for decades.
Republicans criticize Democrats for ignoring men, but they have also failed to build the institutions needed to correct the imbalance.
Selective Service: Republicans Block Equal Civic Duty for Women
NCFM twice filed federal lawsuits challenging the male‑only Selective Service System. We argued that forcing only men to register for the draft violates equal protection. Our cases advanced for years and stimulated national debate. The Supreme Court refused to rule in our favor.
A bipartisan majority in Congress recently supported adding women to draft registration. Military leaders and fairness advocates endorsed the change. The reform was expected to pass until a bloc of Republican legislators removed the provision.
Republicans argued that women should not register, even though women already serve in combat, lead units, and volunteer at high rates. Their decision preserved a system where only men bear the legal burden and face criminal penalties for non‑compliance. This was not a stand for liberty, tradition, or equality. It was a hybrid misguided fear of protecting young women coupled with misguided feminaphobia.
Domestic‑Violence Shelters for Men
NCFM filed the first successful lawsuit against domestic‑violence shelters that refused to help male victims. The case established that taxpayer‑funded services cannot discriminate based on sex.
Despite this victory, Republicans continue to support funding structures that overwhelmingly serve women. Hundreds of shelters exist for women, but fewer than a dozen or so serve men—even though research shows that women abuse men at similar rates.
False Accusations: Republicans Refuse to Address Female Accountability
NCFM has spent decades helping men falsely accused of rape, sexual assault, paternity fraud, and other crimes. These accusations destroy careers, reputations, families, and mental health. Many falsely accused men never recover and some die by suicide.
Most false accusers are women. Yet Republican lawmakers repeatedly refuse to pass laws that impose meaningful penalties on false accusers. They demand accountability for male offenders and male college students under Title IX but stay silent when the wrongdoer is female.
This selective enforcement is not “law and order.” It is gendered leniency that leaves falsely accused men without recourse.
Paternity Fraud: Republicans Protect the Fraud, Not the Father
Paternity fraud remains one of the clearest injustices men face. A women knowingly misidentify the father. The biological father loses his child. The non‑biological man must pay. The child grows up without accurate medical history. The state enforces the fraud through child‑support orders even when DNA proves the truth.
Republicans could fix this by requiring DNA testing, allowing men to disestablish paternity, penalizing women who commit fraud, and protecting children’s right to truth. Instead, they maintain a system that shields the woman who committed fraud and punishes the uninvolved men.
Republican Support for VAWA: Gender‑Skewed Law, Gender‑Skewed Consequences
For nearly thirty years, Republicans supported the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). They voted for reauthorization, expanded funding, and defended its structure—even though the name excludes half the population.
VAWA’s framing has severe consequences. Male victims are turned away from shelters, denied services, or told they do not qualify. Funding overwhelmingly prioritizes female victims. Public messaging reinforces the false idea that domestic violence is something men do and women suffer.
Republicans criticize identity politics, yet they support a law built on identity politics. Their refusal to demand gender‑inclusive language reflects feminaphobia: fear of acknowledging female violence and male victimization.
NCFM’s North Carolina Chapter: Restoring Due Process Under Title IX
When federal guidance gutted Title IX due‑process protections and replaced them with an autocratic, misandric system, NCFM’s North Carolina Chapter intervened. They helped restore fair procedures through the Department of Education.
Their work ensured that students nationwide—mostly men—would not face secret hearings, biased panels, or predetermined outcomes.
While this victory took place under a Republican administration the party failed to prevent the draconian implementation of the misandrist reforms which we successfully fought.
Criminal Justice: A Double Standard Republicans Ignore
Republicans champion “law and order,” yet they ignore clear disparities in how the justice system treats male and female offenders. Women receive lighter sentences, face fewer arrests for identical crimes, and are under‑prosecuted for sexual abuse. Male victims are often dismissed.
Reproductive Policy: Responsibility for Men, Rights for Women
Republicans criticize Democrats for expanding women’s reproductive autonomy, yet their own proposals increase male responsibility without granting male rights. Men face child‑support obligations at conception, lack paternal consent protections, and face criminal penalties without parallel accountability for women.
Cultural Messaging: Women as Virtuous, Men as Problematic
Republican rhetoric often portrays women as virtuous and nurturing while framing men as dangerous or irresponsible. Although the language differs from Democratic messaging, the underlying assumption remains women are the solution, men are the problem.
Why This Matters for NCFM’s Mission
Feminaphobia has real consequences. Men bear exclusive draft obligations. Fathers lose custody. Boys face harsher discipline. Male victims are ignored. False accusations go unpunished. Paternity fraud is enforced by the state. Male reproductive rights do not exist. Male victims of domestic violence are sidelined by VAWA. And without commissions on boys and men, these issues remain invisible.
NCFM advocates for men and boys, exposes gender bias, and demands equal treatment. That mission requires confronting all political actors—including Republicans—who refuse to hold women equally accountable.
A Path Forward: Equal Rights Require Equal Responsibility
A real pro‑family, pro‑equality platform would require Republicans to support equal draft registration, penalize false accusers, criminalize paternity fraud, acknowledge female violence, reform family courts, create reproductive parity, demand gender‑inclusive domestic‑violence policy, and establish well‑funded Commissions on Boys and Men.
Equality requires symmetry. Responsibility cannot be gendered. Men deserve fair treatment from both Republicans and Democrats.
Reader Questions
- Given NCFM’s long history of litigation and advocacy, what areas of gender‑biased policy do you believe most urgently need reform?
- What are the most serious consequences of refusing to establish Commissions on Boys and Men, and how should lawmakers correct this imbalance?
- How has VAWA’s gender‑exclusive framing shaped public perceptions of domestic violence, and what changes would ensure equal protection for everyone?






















(This is a response to Sean Kullman and to NCFM too on how,
two MRO are basically doing nothing in two different countries)
India-
There is an organisation called All Bengal Mens Forum run by a
very ardent thinker and activist Nandini Bhattacharjee.
She speaks up on mens issue and
quite popular due
to her singer background.
After I came to know, from ICMB( International Comission on Men and Boys) that
they are trying to get a sponsor for a vote in general assembly in UN on
New York declaration for men and boys
I messaged her so,
she write to the permanent representative of India,
Ruchira Kamboj.
I also send her a layout so she may
have to do little to no toil.
Next, she kept ignoring me saying
” We, as an organisation have a lots of work” and
when I insist on that, it would make men and boys
included in “Gender Equality”
framework.
She stopped basically replying my text and
ignores my message.
Bangladesh-
There is a mens rights organisation
called Aid for Men (AfM) and
basically they dont do nothing.
(They were the reason for some lawsuits to make laws gender neutral but as always happens: pending or
the lawsuit is dismiss)
They just arrange rally on 19th November every year on
International Mens Day.
Where, they bring around
20-50 people.
As I have talked personally with them:
Most of them are brought there by simply
giving a promise of Biriyani (a local food made with aromatic rice)
and doesn’t even know why they are here.
If this continues on,
in the next 10 years, we cant
even have the courage in heart
to think for any change.
Because, study, data collection-
which gives legitimacy never happens
or if happens
are ignored.
Thus, its not a USA based
republican vs. democrat issue but a
global issue.
True, it is an international issue and worldwide trajedy.
NCFM, I know recently you guys have changed the comment section.
But, I have a suggestion.
Can you post comments by editing out the punctuation marks missed?
Also, give an option
to see the original comment.
That way, it might look neat and clean.
Also, the readers may find delight in reading.
No clue. The system does what it does.
Do you mean like this: NCFM, I know you recently changed the comment section, and I have a suggestion.
Could you post comments with minor punctuation fixes applied, while still offering an option to view the original version? That way the comment threads stay neat and easy to read, and readers can still see the unedited submission if they want.
Yes. I meant that.
A edited one so it becomes easy to read.
A option to click to see original comments.
Lets say, I wrote ” Mrens Rights Advoctes” but you edited it to ” Mens Rights Advocates” and also give an option so readers may see-
if his speech was reformed into something else.
Or what he originally said, stayed as it is.
Got it (edited version below):
Yes, that’s exactly what I meant.
I’m suggesting an edited version of each comment so it’s easier to read, along with an option to click and view the original.
For example, if I wrote “Mrens Rights Advoctes” and you corrected it to “Mens Rights Advocates,” readers should be able to see both versions — the cleaned‑up one and the original as submitted.
That way people can tell whether a comment was simply tidied up or whether the original wording stayed as-is.
NCFM, when would you held policy dialogues
where politicians, mens advocates, stakeholders, experts etc.
would come to discuss topics related to bringing gender equality for men, mens issues and policy to make targeted intervention?
I know, given the circumstance, my wordings can sound ridiculous.
But you are the sole globally established
MRO.
I’m not understanding what “Feminaphobia” means. Can you explain please? Surely either party demonizing men is misandry, no? Or am i missing something.
“Feminaphobia is a phrase coined by Michael Gurian to express fear of backlash from the feminist lobby and explained fully in Boys, A Rescue Plan)”
Thanks for the explanation. 🙂
“Without institutional advocacy, male issues remain invisible.” So true. Both parties need to do a better job building the institutions necessary to address the disparities mentioned above.
“Republicans criticize identity politics, yet they support a law built on identity politics. Their refusal to demand gender‑inclusive language reflects feminaphobia: fear of acknowledging female violence and male victimization.”
“Gender based violence” is the catch phrase the hatefully biased, prejudiced and bigoted VAWA advocates have used to batter innocent men for decades, but they lie and manipulate statistics with tools like mandatory arrest policies (arrest the male, he’s bigger), etc. Yes, VAWA is a hate movement in every sense of the word and its supported by Democrats and Republicans.
When I first started raising awareness about men’s issues in the 1970’s, my sound bite comment on this was that the Democrats don’t care about men’s issues because men already have it “too” good, while the Republicans don’t care about men’s issues because real men shouldn’t complain.Neither party ever really cared about us.
The Eagle Forum is an active influence with GOP legislators and opposes equal responsibilities for females.
Actually, Phyllis Schlafly was the driving force that killed the Equal Rights Amendment. Had the amendment succeeded VAWA and other such things may never have happened. Big mistake for both men and women.
Women only benefitted from the fact that the ERA was killed.
Correct…
The sound bite way I described it when I started raising awareness about men’s issues in 1976 was that Democrats don’t care about men because they think men already have it “too good,” while Republicans don’t care about men because real men don’t complain. Either way, we get left out.
Also, the second sentence in the paternity fraud section has a typo. Please, fix it.
Well said. What typo?
Thank you, Harry. There is no question that men and boys get it from both sides of the aisle.
Thank you for including a companion article to my original piece (https://open.substack.com/pub/gibm/p/does-the-democratic-party-despise?r=7v0pb&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web). You make some interesting points in regard to the way Republican legislators have failed to act for fear of a backlash. A free society cannot run that way. Sean Kullman, Co-author, Boys, A Rescue Plan
So, dont you think, NCFM should sue a republican state for their is no commission on Men and boys?
There are some bills for boys and men and the timeline to get it heared in both upper house and lower house this congressional year is literally coming to an end.
Also, I would suggest to request to left leaning media
to report on how the republicans arent helping men
(I know, NCFM is bipartisan. But this topic would get the limelight in
left leaning media
as they could get a rhetoric to say
“republicans hate women. but also doesnt care about their core voters ; definition of toxic masculinity- men”
that way, we can pressurize then
with facts
that how they neglect men & boys and its harm.
Also, we have seen how
both the party kill any initiative for men & boys:
Democrats say: It would take money away from women and girls.
so, if something happens even,
it should have fundings
of its own.
Republicans say: No, the initiative should have govt. funding.
But, never let it complete/get passed.
The bill for a separate office on the health of boys & men
has 2 democrat female senators
sponsorship.
But any republican female senator sponsor it?
NO.
After all, I believe,
NCFM should move away from voluntary advocacy to fully
job like advocacy to raise awareness.
That way,
we could see more bipartisan pressure.
Also, globally mens rights advocates are more fragmented
and seen as reactionary.
They kind of present themselves like that too.
(I would give an example of Bangladeshi MRA & Indian MRA next comment.
You can read them.
Then you can understand how careless
men are about their rights advocacy.)
NCFM understands the frustration. For more than 50 years, every state has maintained commissions, offices, and funding streams for women and girls, while **not a single Republican‑led state and not a single Democratic‑led state** has created a parallel Commission on Boys and Men. That imbalance is real, measurable, and harmful.
But from an NCFM standpoint, **litigation is only appropriate when a state violates a clear constitutional or statutory duty**. At the moment, no state has a legal requirement to establish a Commission on Boys and Men — which means suing a state simply for *not* having one would not survive judicial review. Courts cannot order legislatures to create new agencies unless a constitutional right is being violated.
What NCFM *can* do — and has done for decades — is use litigation when governments **deny equal protection**, **exclude male victims**, or **discriminate in services funded by public dollars**. That strategy has produced landmark wins in domestic‑violence services, Title IX due process, selective‑service challenges, and family‑court reform.
### **On Pressuring Political Actors**
You’re correct that both parties have contributed to the problem:
– **Democrats** often argue that male‑focused initiatives “take resources away from women,” even when the proposal includes **separate funding**.
– **Republicans** often insist on government funding but then **refuse to advance or complete** the legislation.
NCFM’s role is to highlight these contradictions **factually**, not politically. If left‑leaning media are willing to report on Republican inaction, that is their editorial choice — and NCFM has no objection to any outlet covering the truth. The same applies to right‑leaning media reporting on Democratic obstruction. Our job is to present **verifiable evidence**, not to tailor messaging to one side.
### **On the Senate Bill for a Men’s Health Office**
You’re right: the current federal bill establishing an Office of Men’s Health has **two Democratic female sponsors** and **zero Republican female sponsors**. That is a legitimate data point, and NCFM can cite it without partisan framing. It demonstrates the broader issue: **male well‑being is not a priority for either party**, despite the overwhelming data on suicide, education decline, fatherlessness, and health disparities.
### **On Advocacy Strategy**
NCFM agrees that voluntary, fragmented advocacy — in the U.S. and globally — has slowed progress. Many men’s‑rights groups abroad present themselves as reactive rather than policy‑driven, which undermines credibility.
NCFM’s model is different:
– **Evidence‑based advocacy**
– **Legal action where appropriate**
– **Professional policy development**
– **Nonpartisan engagement with lawmakers**
– **Coalition‑building with researchers, clinicians, and educators**
Expanding toward a more **professionalized, full‑time advocacy structure** is a valid suggestion. It would increase pressure on both parties and help unify fragmented voices.
### **Bottom Line**
NCFM’s mission is not to attack Republicans or Democrats — it is to **hold both accountable** for decades of neglect. The facts speak for themselves:
– 50+ years of commissions for women
– 0 years of commissions for boys and men
– Bipartisan refusal to advance male‑focused legislation
– Male outcomes worsening across health, education, mental health, and family stability
NCFM will continue using **facts, constitutional principles, and legal precedent** to push for equal treatment — and will work with any media outlet, left or right, that is willing to report the truth.
I would say, so you mentioned any media you would work with.
So, according to my advice- please do with the left leaning media now.
Sun Tzu has principles where he says one of the best strategy to win a war is not to join them physically.
And here, I meant by the word “war” is – war to help establish awareness about mens issues in mainstream media.
Not an anti-woman war.
You can sue the state, on violation of human rights and clauses for them.
Example- there is no office to look after boys and mens health.
Data and statistics shows men are living globally 5-7 years shorter than men.
By funding/doing peer reviewed research, prove that how
policy failure, lack of institutional parity is causing this.
And can sue the govt. and also notify the human rights commission on
how govt. of yours are deliberately denying the “right to live” and
forming an office could benefit a 50% of the countries population.
Secondly, you mentioned “court cant order…” but the court can ask
the state to consider forming a commission..
Its a vague win. Have no definitive answer.
But still better than silence-
which keeps the gap alive.
Though NCFM is bipartisan,
you can write to all the legislators agreed to sponsor a bill on mens health office by congratulating them.
Also, writing to those who havent sponsored yet, in a non-rhetorical language to ask them to
consider it.
That is a “close to zero dollar ” lobbying effort.
Lastly, I am not sure whether the reply was by Chat GPT or a real human involved.
But I want to say, the markdown tools used here isnt supported.
So the answer didnt got the highlight it should get.
P.S: About the full professional advocacy necessity is truly dire.
I am glad that you guys have acknowledged it.
But it must form into an action.
My suggestion would be to keep both male and female in that group as
it would convince people to break out from the narrative of “anti-women, reactionary” to a legitimate appeal.
AR, suing costs money. We are a small nonprofit organization with limited resources. Our legal efforts the last 12 or so months have cost a great deal. Even so we are considering another lawsuit concerning a commission on the status of men and boys. That said, we will not be discussing it here, nor will we be discussing here any other legal actions with which we may be or may become involved with. If you happen to have an extra million US laying around, please sent it our way to help feed our attorneys.